ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I – SYLLABUS

Basic References:

Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A
Commentary, 2009 Edition.
Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers, 1995.

ARTICLE I.​ ​The National Territory

Validity of R.A. 9255 (New Baselines Law of 2009)

**Magallona v. Exec. Sec. Ermita, GR No. 187167, August 16, 2011 (Valid law)
**PCA Case No. 2013-19, In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration, 12 July 2016

ARTICLE II.​ Declaration of Principles and State Policies

Preliminary issue: ​Legal Value of Article II

*Kilosbayan v. Morato – 246 SCRA 540 [1995] and MR-250 SCRA 130 [1995]
**Ocampo v. Rear Admiral Enriquez, GR No. 225973, November 8, 2016 (Not
self-executory) (in relation to A2, Secs. 2, 11, 13, 23, 26, 27 & 28 ; A3, Sec. 1, A7, Sec. 17,
A11, Sec. 1, A14, Sec. 3 (2) & A18, Sec. 26)

Sec. 1. Philippines as a Democratic and Republican State

People
Territory
Government

Functions of Government:
Constituent v. Ministrant
Incorporated
Unincorporated
**ACCFA v. CUGCO – 30 SCRA 649 [1969] (Government; functions;
unincorporated) (read with Bacani v. NACOCO)

Examples of government exercising its functions through corporations or

instrumentalities
Government-owned or controlled corporations
*VFP v. Reyes – 483 SCRA 526 [2006] (Government; sovereign function)
*Ramiscal v. Sandiganbayan – 499 SCRA 375 [2006] (Government; GOCC;
AFP-RSBS)

1
 Instrumentalities
**MIAA v. CA – 495 SCRA 591 [2006] (Government instrumentality vested
with corporate powers; not GOCC)
**Funa v. MECO and COA, GR No. 193462, February 4, 2014 ​(MECO not
GOCC); sui generis

Quasi-public corporations
**Phil Society v. COA – 534 SCRA 112 [2007] (Quasi-public corporation;
private but with public character; charter test not applicable)

State universities

De Jure​ and ​De Facto​ Government:

**Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh – 75 PHIL. 113 [1945] (Government; de facto)
**Republic v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 104768, July 21, 2003 (Rights during
interregnum)

Sovereignty

Sec. 2. ​International Law and Philippine Municipal Law

Adoption of International Law and the doctrine of incorporation

As applied to:
Treaties and Agreements
​*Kuroda v. Jalandoni – 83 PHIL. 171 (International humanitarian law and
generally accepted principles of international law)
*​*​Tañada v. Angara – 272 SCRA 18 [1997] (GATT-WTO)
*​*​Bayan v. Zamora, GR No. 138570, October 10, 2000 (VFA)
**Saguisag v. Exec. Secretary, GR No. 212426, January 12, 2016 and MR, July
26, 2016 affirming 1​st​ judgment. (EDCA)

International law in relation to municipal law

*Lim v. Exec. Secretary, GR No. 151445, April 11, 2002 (Balikatan Exercises)

Recognition of foreign judgments; general principles of law

*​*​Mijares v. Ranada, GR No. 139325, April 12, 2005 (Alien Torts
Act)

2
 Soft law
**Pharmaceutical v. DOH, GR No. 173034, October 9, 2007 (World Health
Assemble guidelines not a treaty)
**Knights of Rizal v. DMCI, GR No. 213948, April 25, 2017 (Venice Charter as
mere guidelines)
Adherence to peace, freedom, amity

Sec. 3. Civilian Supremacy

*IBP v. Zamora, GR ​No. ​141284, August 15, 2000 (Deployment of marines)

Role of the Armed Forces

Sec. 4. Duty of Government to the People

Sec. 5. Maintenance of Peace and Order

Sec. 6. Separation of Church and State

Sec. 7. Independent Foreign Policy

Sec. 8. Freedom from Nuclear Weapons

Sec. 9. Social Order

Sec. 10. Social Justice

Sec. 11. Personal Dignity and Human Rights

Sec. 12. Family Life; Mother; Unborn

Family
Unborn
**Imbong v. Ochoa, GR No. 204819, April 8, 2014 (RH law)

Rights and Duty of Parents / Aid from Government

*Wisconsin v. Yoder – 40 LW 4476 [1972] (Compulsory education; note that this
pertains to a statute; read with the policy on compulsory elementary education
A14, Sec. 2 (2) )

Sec. 13. Vital Role of Youth

Sec. 14. Role of Women and Equality of Men and Women

**Garcia v. Drilon, GR No. 173267, June 25, 2013 (VAWC; discrimination)

Sec. 15. Right to Health

3
Sec. 16. Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology
**Oposa v. Factoran – 224 SCRA 792 [1993] (Inter-generational justice and
responsibility)
**Arigo v. Swift – GR No. 206510, September 16, 2014 (Damage to reef)
*West Tower v. PIC – 798 SCRA 292 (Precautionary principle not applied)
**International Service v. Greenpeace, GR No. 209271, December 8, 2015 and MR,
July 26, 2016 reversing 1​st​ judgment. (GMO)

Sec. 17. Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports
Sec. 18. Labor Protection

Sec. 19. Self-Reliant and Independent National Economy

*Garcia v. BOI – 191 SCRA 288 [1990] (Independent policy)

Sec. 20. Role of Private Sector

Sec. 21. Promotion of Comprehensive Rural and Agrarian Policy

Sec. 22. Promotion of Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities

Sec. 23. Community-based Private Organizations

Sec. 24. Vital Role of Communications

Sec. 25. Local Autonomy

Sec. 26. Equal Access to Political Opportunities and Political Dynasties

​**Pamatong v. COMELEC – 427 SCRA 96 [2004] (Mere privilege, not a right)

Sec. 27. Honesty and Integrity in Public Service

Sec. 28. Full Public Disclosure

**Philippine Savings Bank and Pascual M. Garcia, III v. Senate Impeachment
Court, GR No. 200238, February 9, 2012 (Secrecy of foreign currency deposit)
**In Re: Production of Court Records, February 14, 2012 (Rule laid down for
disclosure of court records)

ARTICLE VI.​ The Legislative Department

Sec. 1. Legislative Power

4
 General Rule: Non-delegability of legislative power
Exceptions:
Delegation to local governments and administrative bodies
Grant of Quasi-legislative Power; In General; LGU and Administrative Bodies
*Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro – 39 Phil. 660 [1918-19] (LGU)
*Alyansa para sa Bagong Pilipinas, Inc. v. Energy Regulatory Commission,
G.R. No. 227670, [May 3, 2019])
SEC v. Interport – 567 SCRA 354 [2008] (absence of IRR)

In instances allowed by the Constitution, e.g., Article VI, Sections 23(2) and 28(2)

Issues on Delegation of Legislative Power

Valid delegation
Requisites of a valid delegation
*​Agustin v. Edu – 88 SCRA 1 [1979] (test of delegability)

Complete in itself
**​Araneta v. Gatmaitan – 101 Phil. 328 [1957] (details for
implementation
only)
*​*Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board – 570 SCRA 410 [2008]
(drug testing)
*Disini v. Secretary of Justice, GR No. 203335, February 18, 2014 and
April 22, 2014.
**Quezon City PTCA v. Department of Education, GR No. 188720,
February 23, 2016 (revised guidelines governing PTA)

Fixes a standard
*People v. Rosenthal – 68 Phil. 628 [1939] (standard of “public interest”)
**Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA – 166 SCRA 533 [1988] (discretion as to
substantive contents)
**Tablarin v. Gutierrez – 152 SCRA 730 [1987] (establishment of medical
educational requirements)
**Viola v. Alunan – 277 SCRA 409 [1997] (power to create positions)
**Abakada v. Ermita – 469 SCRA 1 [2005] (ascertainment of facts)
*Beltran v. Sec. of Health – 476 SCRA 168 [2005] (promotion of public
health sufficient guideline)
**Abakada v. Purisima – 562 SCRA 251 [2008] (system of rewards)

Filling in the details

**Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas - 242 SCRA 192 [1995] (authority to reorganize;
read with Chiongbian, Tondo, Malaria and Anak)

5
 *Chiongbian v. Orbos – 245 253 [1995] (authority to reorganize)
*Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary – 677 SCRA 408 [2012]
(authority to reorganize and appropriate funds for this purpose)
**Arroyo v. DOJ – 681 SCRA 181 [2012] (collaboration of two committees)
**La Suerte v. CA – 739 SCRA 489 [2014] (Taxability of stemmed leaf tobacco)

Undue Delegation
*​*​People v. Vera – 65 PHIL. 56 [1937-1938] (discretion in implementation)
*United States v. Barrias – 11 PHIL. 327 [1908] (delegated power to fix penalties)
*United States v. Panlilio – 28 PHIL. 608 [1914] (delegated power to criminalize)
**People v. Maceren – 79 SCRA 450 [1977] (delegation of power to declare what
acts constitute a crime)
**People v. Dacuycuy – 173 SCRA 90 [1989] (power to fix term of imprisonment)
*Ynot v. Intermediate Apellate Court – 148 SCRA 659 [1987] (disposition of
confiscated property in relation to Panlilio)
*Pharmaceutical v. DOH, GR No. 173034, October 9, 2007 (WHO guidelines)
*Abakada v. Purisima [supra.] (encroachment of judicial power)
*Phil. Coconut v. Republic, GR No. 178193, January 24, 2012 (UCPB shares
distribution)
**Deutsche Bank v. CIR, GR No. 188550, August 19, 2013 (Contrary to treaty)
**Belgica v. Ochoa, GR No. 208566, November 19, 2013 (PDAF)

Executive Misapplication

Mere​ ​Directive

Sec. 2. Composition and Election of Senate

Sec. 3. Qualifications of Senators

Sec. 4. Terms of Senators; staggering of terms

Sec. 5. Composition of the House of Representatives

Apportionment and Representation

Par. 2: Party-list representation
​ *​Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC, GR No.136781, October 6, 2001
(par. 2; standards for apportioning seats for party-list representatives; not
mandatory to fill-in seats)
*Phil. Guardians v. COMELEC, GR No.190529, April 29, 2009 (participation in
previous election)
*BANAT v. COMELEC – 586 SCRA 210 [2009]; BANAT v. COMELEC, GR
179271, July 8, 2009. (mere ceiling)
**Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, GR No.190582, April 8, 2010 (disapproval of
Ladlad due to moral issues)

6
 *Magdalo v. COMELEC – 673 SCRA 651 [2012] (in re: to Art. IX-C, Section
2(5) and qualification as regional political party)
*Dayao v. COMELEC, GR No.193643, Jan 29, 2013 (members not belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sector)
**Atong Paglaum et al., GR No.203766, April 2, 2013 (new guidelines for
party-list; controlling rule)
**Abang Lingkod v. COMELEC, GR No.206952, October 22, 2013 (meaning of
national, regional, and sectoral)
**Lico v. COMELEC, G.R. No.205505, September 20, 2015 (expulsion)

Pars. 1, 3, and 4: Rules on Apportionment

Reapportionment through special law
**Tobias v. Abalos – 239 SCRA 106 [1994] (par. 3; reapportionment thru special
law; Mandaluyong City)
**Mariano v. COMELEC – 242 SCRA 211 [1995] (par. 3; reapportionment thru
special law; Makati City)
*Sema v. COMELEC – 558 SCRA 700 [2008] (par. 3; ARMM RLA power)

Rules on Apportionment
(1) In accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants and on the basis
of a uniform and progressive ratio
**Montejo v. COMELEC – 242 SCRA 415 [1995] (pars. 3 and 4; redistricting
Leyte; mere minor adjustments)
**Herrera v. COMELEC, GR 131499, November 17, 1999 (pars. 3 and 4;
redistricting Province of Guimaras; also in (3) population size)

(2) Contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory

(3) Population size

**Samson v. Aguirre – 315 SCRA 53 [1999] (par. 3; absence of certification
as to income, population and area not fatal; presumed valid)
**Aldaba v. COMELEC, GR No.188078, January 25, 2010 (par. 3 and 4)
**Aquino v. COMELEC, GR No.189793, April 7, 2010 (par. 3 and 4)
**Navarro v. Ermita, GR No.180050, 12 April 2011, (land area as a factor)
Carpio dissenting opinion: par 3, population composition.

(4) Following the return of every census, Congress shall make a reapportionment

*Bagabuyo v. COMELEC, GR No.176970, December 8, 2008 (par. 4; no need for

plebiscite in apportionment or reapportionment)

Sec. 6. Qualifications of district and party-list Representatives

7
 Citizenship
*​* ​Bengson III v. HRET and Cruz, GR No.142840, May 7, 2001 (recovery of NBC
status)

​Domicile and Residence

*Aquino v. COMELEC – 243 SCRA 400 [1995] (domicile of origin; read in relation
to Sec. 17 on Jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunal)
*Marcos v. COMELEC – 248 SCRA 300 [1995] (abandonment of domicile)
*Domino v. COMELEC, GR No.134015, July 19, 1999 (mere lease of
house)
*Perez v. COMELEC, GR No.133944, October 28, 1999 (registration in
another
district)
*Fernandez v. HRET – 608 SCRA 733 [2009] (established domicile)
*Tagolino v.HRET, GR 195540, March 19, 2013 (one- year residency requirement)
**Reyes v. COMELEC, GR No.207264, June 25, 2013 (one- year residency
requirement)

​Additional​ Q​ualification

Sec. 7. Term of Representatives

Sec. 9. Filling-in Vacancies

​*​*​Lucero v. COMELEC – 234 SCRA 280 [1994] (requisites of special elections)

Sec. 10. Salary of Senators and Representatives

Sec. 11. Immunities and Privileges

​Privilege from Arrest

*​People v. Jalosjos – 324 SCRA 689 [2000] (convicted legislator)
**Trillanes v. Pimentel – 556 SCRA 471 [2008] (re-election to office and criminal
charge)

Parliamentary freedom of speech and debate

*​*​Jimenez v. Cabangbang – 17 SCRA 876 [1966] (coverage)
*Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago -597 SCRA 1 [2009] (violation of oath of lawyers)

Sec. 12. Financial and Business Interest

Sec. 13. Disqualifications

*Dante V. Liban v. Richard J. Gordon, GR No.175352, 15 July 2009, 18 July
2011 (​Office of PNRC Chairman is not a government office)

8
Sec. 14. Prohibitions – Lawyer Legislators/ Conflict of Interests
*​*​Puyat v. De Guzman – 113 SCRA 31 [1982] (appearing “in intervention” on
one’s behalf)

Sec. 15. Sessions of Congress

Sec. 16. Officers and Internal Business

Officers of Congress
*​*​Baguilat, Jr. v. Speaker Alvarez, GR No. 227757, July 25, 2017

Meaning of “a quorum to do business” and “compulsion to attend”

**​Avelino v. Cuenco – 83 PHIL. 17 [1949] (par.2, quorum)
**Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR 196271, October 18,
2011 (supermajority vote in violation of the Constitution)

Internal Rules and Discipline

*​*​Arroyo v. De Venecia – 277 SCRA 268 [1997] (par. 3, determination of rules)
*​*​Osmeña v. Pendatun – 109 PHIL. 863 [1960] (par. 3, disorderly behavior)
**Santiago v. Sandiganbayan – 356 SCRA 636, (order of suspension)

Duty to keep Journals and Records

*​*​US. v. Pons – 34 PHIL. 729 [1916] (journal and records)
**Casco Phil. Commercial Co. v. Gimenez – 7 SCRA 347 [1963] (journal and
records)
**Astorga v. Villegas – 56 SCRA 714 [1974] (journal and records)
**Abakada v. Ermita – 469 SCRA 1 (supra.) (bicameral committee)

Sec. 17. Senate and House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

Jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunal

Nature and Power
**​Angara v. Electoral Commission – 63 PHIL. 134 [1936] (nature and power)
​*​*Reyes v. COMELEC, GR No. 207264, June 25, 2013 (sole judge) (supra., Sec 6)

Pre-proclamation controversies v. election contests; Scope of inquiry;

When proper
Election contest
**Vera v. Avelino – 77 PHIL. 192 [1946] (definition of election contest)
*Guerrero v. COMELEC, GR No.137004, July 26, 2000 (substitution)

9
 Villarosa v. HRET, GR No.143351, September 14, 2000 (disallowing
initials of husband not GADLEJ)
**Abayon v. HRET, GR No.189466, February 11, 2010 [jurisdiction over
party-list]

Pre-proclamation controversy

Composition
**​Abbas v. SET – 166 SCRA 651 [1988] (judicial and legislative participation)

Independence
**​Bondoc v. Pineda – 201 SCRA 792 [1991] (non-partisan)

Action/Decision

*Lerias v. HRET – 202 SCRA 808 [1991] (election returns; best evidence)

Sec. 18. Commission on Appointments - Composition, nature, functions

**​Daza v. Singson – 180 SCRA 496 [1989] (political alignment)
*​*Coseteng v. Mitra – 187 SCRA 377 [1990] (proportional representation)
*​*​Guingona v. Gonzales – 214 SCRA 789 [1992] and MR – 219 SCRA 326 [1993] (undue

Sec. 19. Electoral Tribunals and Commission on Appointments – When Constituted

Sec. 20. ​Access to Records
Sec. 21. Legislative Investigations

Power of Inquiry
**Senate v. Ermita – 488 SCRA 1 [2006] (E.O. 464)
**Gudani v. Senga – 498 SCRA 671 [2006] (in relation to Senate v. Ermita)

Nature and essence

*Neg. O. II Elec. Coop. v. Sangguniang Panlungsod – 155 SCRA 421 [1991] (nature
and essence)

Requisites
Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee – 203 SCRA 767 (requisites)

(1) in aid of legislation

*Standard v. Senate – 541 SCRA 456 [2007] (to prevent future fraudulent
activities)
*De la Paz v. Senate – 579 SCRA 521 [2009] (Euro generals)
**Romero v. Estrada – 583 SCRA 396 [2009] (sub-judice rule)

(2) in accordance with duly published rules of procedure

10
 **Garcillano v. House, GR No. 170338, December 23, 2008 (publication of rules
on
inquiry)

(3) respect for the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries
**Neri v. Senate – 564 SCRA 152 [2008] (executive privilege)

Power to Punish a Person Under Investigation

*​Arnault v. Nazareno – 87 PHIL. 25 [1950] (subject of inquiry)
*Sabio v. Gordon – 504 SCRA 704 [2006] (contempt and detention)
**Balag v. Senate, GR No. 234608, July 3, 2018 (limitation on detention)

Sec. 22. Congress and Heads of Departments

*Senate v. Ermita – 488 SCRA 1 [2006] (supra., Sec. 21)

Sec. 23. Declaration of the Existence of a State of War

Delegation of Emergency Powers
*SANLAKAS v. Executive Secretary–421 SCRA 656 [2004] (in relation to State of
Rebellion)
*David v. Arroyo, GR No. 171396, May 3, 2006 (in relation to Sec. 18, Art. 7)
*​Ampatuan v. Hon. DILG Sec. Puno, GR No. 190259, June 7, 2011 (in relation to
Sec. 18, Art. 7)
**Lagman v. Hon. Medialdea, GR No. 231658, July 4, 2017 and MR, February 6,
2018 (Martial law in Mindanao)

Sec. 24. Origin of Money Bills, Private Bills and Bills Local Application

Bills of Local Application – Origin

**​Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance – 235 SCRA 630 [1994] (revenue bill;
consolidation)

Appropriation of Public Revenue for Public Purpose

*Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works – 110 PHIL. 331 [1960-1961] (incidental
advantage)

Sec. 25. Rules on Appropriation

Limits on Power to Appropriate
Prohibition of increase
Prohibition on “riders” in appropriation bills
**​Garcia v. Mata – 65 SCRA 517 [1975] (par. 2)
**Farinas v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 147387, Dec. 10, 2003 (liberal construction)

​Special Purpose Fund

*Belgica v. Ochoa, GR No. 208566, 19 November 2013 (PDAF)

11
 Transfer of Funds
*​*​Demetria v. Alba – 148 SCRA 208 [1987] (par. 5; direct violation)
*Liga v. COMELEC – 232 SCRA 219 [1994] (par. 5; unused funds)
*Sanchez v. COA – 552 SCRA 471 (par. 5; DILG; augmentation)

Discretionary Fund
* ​Belgica v. Ochoa, GR No. 208566, 19 November 2013 (PDAF)
*​*Araullo v. Benigno Simeon Aquino III, GR No. 209287, July 1, 2014 and MR
[February 3, 2015] (DAP)

Sec. 26.
Subject and title of bills – general prohibition of “riders”
*​*​Cordero v. Cabatuando – 6 SCRA 418 [1962] (par. 1)
*Philconsa v. Gimenez – 15 SCRA 479 [1965] (par. 1)
*Alalayan v. NPC – 24 SCRA 172 [1968] (par. 1)
*Insular Lumber Company v. CTA – 104 SCRA 710 [1981] (par. 1)
**Tio v. Videogram Regulatory Board – 151 SCRA 208 [1987] (par. 1)
*Phil. Judges Assn. v. Prado – 227 SCRA 703 [1993] (par. 1)

Sec. 27. Procedure in Law-Making

Passage of bills
​*Abakada v. Ermita – 469 SCRA 1 (supra.)(BCC)

Presidential Veto
*​*​CIR v. CTA – 185 SCRA 329 [1990] (item in a revenue bill)
**Gonzales v. Macaraig – 191 SCRA 452 [1990] (general provision)
**Philconsa v. Enriquez – 235 SCRA 506 [1994] (supra., Sec. 25; “inappropriate
provision”)
*Belgica v. Ochoa, GR No. 208566, November 19, 2013 (PDAF)

Sec. 28. Taxation

Scope and purpose
Limitations on the power: Uniform and equitable
*CIR v. Lingayen Gulf – 164 SCRA 27 (uniformity of taxation)

Progressive system
Delegated tax legislation

Exemptions
*Abra Valley College v. Aquino – 162 SCRA 106 [1988] (tax exemption)

12
 *John Hay People’s Alternative Coalition v. Lim, GR No.119775, October 24, 2003
(express exemption)
**Lung Center v. QC, GR No.144104, June 29, 2004 (elements to consider for exemption
**CIR v. DLSU, G.R. 196596, G.R. 198841, G.R. 198941, November 9, 2016 (read in
relation to Abra Valley)

Sec. 29. Restrictions on Use of Public Fund

Fiscal Powers of Congress

*Guingona v. Carague – 196 SCRA 221 [1991] (par. 1; supra. Secs. 1 and 24; automatic
debt service appropriation)
*Belgica v. Hon. Ochoa, G.R. 208566, November 19, 2013

Special Funds
**Philippine Coconut v. Republic – 663 SCRA 514 [2012] (coco levy as public fund; in re:
Art. IX-D, Section 2(1)

Sec. 30. Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

*​*​First Lepanto Ceramics v. CA – 237 SCRA 519 [1994] (invalid increase in appellate
jurisdiction)

Sec. 31. Titles of royalty and nobility

Sec. 32. Initiative and Referendum

*​*SBMA v. COMELEC – 262 SCRA 492 [1996] (requisites)
**Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC – 270 SCRA 106 [1997], and MR [1997]
(implementing legislation) (see PIRMA unpublished case)
*​*Lambino v. COMELEC, GR No.174153, GR No.174299, October 25, 2006 (failure to
inform the purpose of the amendment)

ARTICLE VII.​ ​Executive Department

Sec. 1.
Executive Power
Scope of power
**​Marcos v. Manglapus - 177 SCRA 668 [1989] and MR – 178 SCRA 760
[1989] (residual power)

Examples of exercise
Valid exercise
*Webb v. de Leon – 247 SCRA 652 [prosecution of crimes ; not quasi-judicial
function)
*Djumantan v. Domingo – 240 SCRA 746 [1995] (deportation)

13
 *Pontejos v. Ombudsman – 483 SCRA 83 [2006] (power to grant immunity to
state witnesses)
*Banda v. Ermita – 618 SCRA 499 [2010] (power to reorganize)

Invalid exercise
*Laurel v. Garcia - 187 SCRA 797 [1990] (alienation of government property)
*Review Center v. Ermita – 583 SCRA 42 [2009] (power of President over
administrative agencies)
*Biraogo v. Truth Commission – 637 SCRA 78 [2010] (power of the President to
investigate)

Executive Privilege
*​*US v. Nixon - 418 US 683 [1974] (general claim of executive privilege)
*Almonte v. Vasquez - 244 SCRA 286 [1995] (EIIB information not subject of
privilege)
*Senate v. Ermita – GR No.169659, April 20, 2006 [E.O. 464]
*Neri v. Senate – GR No.180643, March 25, 2008 (ZTE-NBN deal)
**Akbayan v. Aquino – GR No.170516, July 16, 2008 (JPEPA)

Immunity from Suit

**​Soliven v. Makasiar 167 SCRA 393 [1988] (who has the right to invoke)
*De Lima v. Duterte, GR No. 227635, October 15, 2019
*Gloria v. CA – GR No.119903, August 15, 2000 (Cabinet member)

The Cabinet

Sec. 2. Qualifications of the President

**Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, GR Nos. 221697 & 221698-700, March 8, 2016
(Citizenship of a foundling)
Sec. 3. The Vice-President
**Funa v. Executive Secretary, GR No.191644, Feb 19, 2013 (exception to the
general rule of prohibition to hold other govt offices) (supra Art VII, sec 3)

Sec. 4.
Election of the President and VP
Term of the President and VP

Congress as National Board of Canvassers

**Pimentel v. Joint Committee – GR No.163783, June 22, 2004 (non-leg.)
**Lopez v. Senate – GR No.163556, June 8, 2004 (rules for canvassing)

Breaking Presidential or Vice-Presidential Tie

Presidential or Vice-Presidential Controversies
**Tecson v. Lim – 424 SCRA 277 [2005] (need for post election issue)

14
 *Macalintal v. PET – 635 SCRA 783 [2010] (Constitutionality)

Sec. 5. ​Oath of Office

Sec. 6. ​Official Residence

Sec. 7-8. Filling a Vacancy in the Presidency

**​Estrada v. Desierto, GR No.146740-15 and GR No.146738, March 2, 2001 and MR- April
3, 2001 (supra., Sec. 1) (succession)

Supplement​:
Panganiban, ​Reforming the Judiciary​, Chapter 10.

Sec. 9. Vacancy in the Office of the VP

Sec. 10. Vacancy in Both the Presidency and Vice-Presidency

Sec. 11. Incapacity of the President

Sec. 12. Serious Illness of the President

Sec. 13.
Prohibition against Holding Another Office or Employment
**​Rafael v. Embroidery & Apparel Control Board – 21 SCRA 336 [1967] (designation
and ​ex-officio​ capacity)
**CLU v. Exec. Secretary – 194 SCRA 317 [1991] (stricter prohibition on the
President’s official family against multiple offices)
*De la Cruz v. COA, GR 138489, November 27, 2001 (alternates of Cabinet member are
also not entitled to additional compensation; see also Bitonio v. COA – 437 SCRA 277
[2004] and Nat’l. Amnesty Com. v. COA – 437 SCRA 655 [2004])
*Funa v. Ermita – 612 SCRA 308 [2010] (in relation to Art 9-B Sec 7)
*Funa v. Executive Secretary, GR 191644, Feb 19, 2013 (exception to the general rule of
prohibition to hold other govt offices) (supra Art VII, sec 3)
*Espiritu v. Lutgarda, GR No.204964, October 2015, 2014

Other Prohibitions
*Doromal v. Sandiganbayan – 177 SCRA 354 [1989] (prohibited participation in a
contract with the government; indirect interest)

Sec. 14-15. Appointments by Acting President

Temporary Appointments
**De Castro v. JBC – 615 SCRA 666 [2010] (reversal of Valenzuela ruling)

Sec. 16.
Nature of the Appointing Power

15
 *​Government v. Springer- 50 PHIL 259 [1927] (power to appoint as executive)
*Velicaria – Grafel v. OP – 758 SCRA 414 [2015] (revocation of GMA
appointments)

Kinds of Presidential Appointments

**Pimentel v. Ermita – 471 SCRA 587 [2005] (acting Secretaries)

Scope of the Power of the Commission on Appointments

**​Sarmineto III v. Mison – 156 SCRA 549 [1987] (1​st sentence – enumeration is limited;
3​rd sentence – use of the word “alone” as mere lapsus; head of bureau; no CA
confirmation)
*​Bautista v. Salonga - 172 SCRA 1260 [1989] (1​st ​sentence – “other officers” whose
appointments are vested in the President; CHR Chair; CA confirmation)
*Quintos-Deles v. CA - 177 SCRA 259 [1989] (1​st sentence - “other officers” whose
appointments are vested in the President; sectoral representative; CA confirmation)
**Pobre v. Mendieta – 224 738 [1993] (2​nd sentence – “those whom the President may be
authorized by law to appoint”; PRC Commissioner; no CA confirmation)
**Flores v. Drilon – GR No.104732, June 22, 1993 (2​nd sentence – “all other officers
whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be
authorized by law to appoint”; SBMA Chair and the Mayor of Olongapo City)
*Rufino v. Endriga – 496 SCRA 13 [2006] (2​nd sentence – “whose appointments are not
otherwise provided by law”

Appointment of Officers “lower in rank”

May Congress require other appointments to be confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments?
*​*Calderon v. Carale - 208 SCRA 254 [1992] (NLRC; list is exclusive)
*Tarrosa v. Singson 232 SCRA 553 [1994] (CB Gov.; list is exclusive)

Recess or Ad-interim Appointments and Temporary Appointments

Aquino appointments made between Feb. 2, 1987 and July 27, 1987

● Bernas Commentary
● Bernas Intent: p.443-454

Sec. 17. ​Power of Control

Power of control
**Lacson-Magallanes v. Pano - 21 SCRA 395 [1967] (Presidential power to reverse decision
of heads of executive positions; what is non-delegable is what the President has to exercise in
person)
**Ang-Angco v. Castillo - 9 SCRA 619 [1963] (distinguish President’s power over “acts”
and “person” of appointee in classified service)
**Villaluz v. Zaldivar - 15 SCRA 710 [1965] (power to remove Presidential appointee in
unclassified service)

16
 **Joson v. Torres - 290 SCRA 279 [1998] (power to discipline local officials)
*​KMU v. Dir.-Gen. of NEDA – 487 SCRA 623 [2006] (also under faithful execution clause)

Power of supervision
**Drilon v. Lim - 235 SCRA 135 [1994] (power of DOJ Sec. to declare illegal a City Code is
mere exercise of supervision)

Faithful execution clause

*National Artist for Literature Virgilio Almario, GR No.189028, July 16, 2013
**Ocampo v. Enriquez, GR No. 225973, November 8, 2016

Sec. 18.
Commander-in-Chiefship
*​Lansang v. Garcia 42 SCRA 448 [1971] (habeas corpus reviewable by SC)
*​David v. Arroyo – GR No.171396, May 3, 2006 (supra. A6, Sec. 23 (2) (immunity from
suit)
*Ampatuan v. DILG Sec., GR No.190259, June 7, 2011 (A6, Sec. 23 (2)
**Kulayan v. Tan, GR No.187298, July 3, 2012
*Lagman v. Medialdea (Supra., A6, S23(2))
*Lagman v. Senate President Pimentel, GR No. 235935, February 6, 2018

Three Types of Martial Law

Martial Law Proper is Essentially Police Power
The 1972 Martial Law
The New Martial Law Doctrine: When, by whom, and how imposed?
The New Martial Law Doctrine: The Role of Congress and Court
The New Martial Law Doctrine: Effects of Imposition

Sec. 19.
Purpose of Executive Clemency
**Diego v. People – 755 SCRA 260 [2015] (pardoning power as discretionary; beyond
control of the court)

Constitutional Limits on Executive Clemency

**​Llamas v. Orbos 202 SCRA 844 [1991] (clemency on administrative penalties)
**Torres v. Gonzales 152 SCRA 272 [1987] (violation of conditional pardon)
**People v. Casido 269 SCRA 360 [1997] (amnesty)

Pardon: Nature and Legal Effects

**Cristobal v. Labrador 71 PHIL 34 [1940-1941] (absolute pardon; restoration of full
political and civil rights)
**Monsanto v. Factoran 170 SCRA 190 [1989] (reinstatement to former rights)
**Risos- Vidal v. COMELEC and Estrada, GR No. 206666, January 21, 2015 (Erap’s
Absolute pardon)

17
 Amnesty
Other forms of executive clemency

Sec. 20. ​Power to contract or guarantee foreign loans

*​Hontiveros- Baraquel v. TRB, GR No. 181293, February 23, 2015.
**Land Bank v. Atlanta Industries – 729 SCRA 12

Sec. 21.
Senate concurrence in international agreements
**Gonzales v. Hechanova - 9 SCRA 230 [1963] (nature of executive agreements)

Termination of Treaty
Other Foreign Affairs Power
**Vinuya v. Romulo – 619 SCRA 533 [2010] and MR GR No. 162230, August 12, 2014.

Sec. 22. The Budget

Sec. 23. Address to Congress

ARTICLE VIII.​ Judicial Department

Sec. 1.
Judicial Power and Judicial Function
Definition and scope
**​Marbury v. Madison – 1 Cranch 137 [1803] (essence of judicial duty)
**​Santiago v. Bautista – 32 SCRA 188 [1970] (concept of judicial function)
*​*​Radiowealth v. Agregado – 86 PHIL. 429 [1950] (implied power; acquisition of
equipment)
*In re Laureta – 148 SCRA 382 [1987] (power to preserve its honor)
*In re Borromeo - 241 SCRA 405 [1995] (contempt power)
*Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice – GR No.132601, January 19, 1999 (power to
delay execution of sentence)
*RE: Letter of UP Law Faculty…, A.M. No. 10-10-4-C, June 7, 2011 (contempt
power)
*​Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary – 677 SCRA 408
[2012] (ODES
no power to try and decide cases; E.O. No. 13 empowering it is
unconstitutional)
*Tan v. Matsura, GR No.179003, Jan 9, 2013(power to review findings of prosecutor
preliminary investigation)
Locsin v HRET, GR No.201123, March 19, 2013(supra Art VI, Sec 17)

18
 *Garcia v. Drilon – (supra.,A2, S14; power granted to Punong Barangay/Kagawad to
issue TPO not judicial but executive function)
*City of Manila v. Grecia-Cuerdo – 715 SCRA 182 [2014] (power of CTA to issue
auxiliary writs, e.g. certiorari)

Limits
*​*Noblejas v. Teehankee –23 SCRA 405 [1968] (no power to discipline officers in
other branch with equivalent rank of judge)

Grave abuse of discretion

Advisory opinions
*​*​Director of Prisons v. Ang Cho Kio – 33 SCRA 494 [1970] (no power to give
advisory opinions or recommend executive action)

Justiciable Controversy
*​*SBMA v. COMELEC – 262 SCRA 492 [1996] (supra. Art. 6, Sec. 32) (no controversy
when resolution is at proposal stage)
*In re Save the Supreme Court – 746 SCRA 352 [2015] (Supreme Court can’t declare a
proposed bill unconstitutional; no right arises therefrom; read with SBMA v. COMELEC,
supra.)

Distinguished from declaratory relief

**Tano v. Socrates – 278 SCRA 154 [1997] (hierarchy of courts)

Conclusive character of Supreme Court Judgment

Plenary Judicial Power; derivative; PET

Supplement
Did Article 8, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution Expand the Jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court? 8 LR 6, #12 (Dec. 31, 1999). El Andres Narvasa, El Poder (1998).

Sec. 2. Power of Legislature to Apportion Jurisdiction

**Malaga v. Penachos – 213 SCRA 516 [1992] (injunctions against infrastructure
projects)

Sec. 3. Fiscal Autonomy

Sec. 4. Compositions and Sessions

Filling-in vacancy in Supreme Court; 90 days

*De Castro v. JBC – 615 SCRA 666 [2010] (supra.)

19
 Referral to en banc; par. 3; cases only; modification of doctrine
**Fortich v. Corona – GR No.131457, August 19, 1999 (involves "matters")
*​*Republic v. Garcia – 527 SCRA 495 [2007] (modification of doctrine; Sandiganbayan
can’t re-examine a doctrine)

Sec. 5. Powers of the Supreme Court

Judicial Review; par. 1

Quo Warranto
​**Republic v. Sereno, GR No.237428, May 11, 2018 (removal of CJ Sereno)
Judicial Review; par. 2
Requisites

Administrative agencies; no power

1st​ ​: “ripe for adjudication”

*PACU v. Secretary of Education – 97 PHIL. 806 [1955] (also under locus
standi)
**Tan v. Macapagal – 43 SCRA 678 [1972] (also taxpayer’s suit )
**Suplico v. NEDA - GR No. 178830, July 14, 2008 (ZTE contract moot)

​ ​: “Standing”
2nd
Legislators and Government Officials
**Concepcion v. COMELEC – 591 SCRA 420 [2009] (aggrieved party)

Taxpayers
**Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works – 110 PHIL 331 [1960-1961] (supra.
Art. 2, Secs. 24 & 29; requisites in questioning use of public funds).
*Galicto v. Aquino – 667 SCRA 150 [2012] (no material interest in future
increases in benefits)

Citizens and associations; transcendental importance

**​Legaspi v. CSC – 150 SCRA 530 [1987] (access to records)
​*​*​Joya v. PCGG – 225 SCRA 568 [1993] (private funds)
*​*Board of Optometry v. Colet – 260 SCRA 88 [1996] (unregistered
organizations)
**Tondo Medical v. CA – 527 SCRA 746 [2007] (standing is determined by
merits of case even in cases of transcendental importance)
**Anak Mindanao v. Executive Secretary – 531 SCRA 583 [2007] (abstract
claims)
*Resident Marine Mammals v. Sec. Reyes (supra. A2, Sec. 16)
*​International Service v. Greenpeace, GR No. 209271, Dec. 8, 2015 and MR
July 26, 2016 (reversing 1​st​ decision) (supra.)

20
 Other rules​: “​Raise at earliest opportunity​” & ​“Constitutionality is the very lis
mota”
*​*People v. Vera – 65 PHIL. 56 [1937-1938] (exception to the rule on earliest
opportunity)
*​*​Narra Nickel Mining v. Redmont – 722 SCRA 382 [2014] (capable of
repetition; need to formulate principles)

Political questions; requisites

Baker v. Carr – 369 US 169 [1962] (guidelines)
​*​*​Torrecampo v. Metropolitan – 649 SCRA 482 [2011] (executive policy)

“​Textually demonstrable commitment”

“Judicially discoverable and manageable standards”

Effect of unconstitutionality; par. 2(a); operative fact doctrine

*De Agbayani v. PNB – 38 SCRA 429 [1971] (operative fact)
​*​*Philippine Coconut v. Republic, supra. (retroactive application to avoid
injustice)
*​*CIR v. San Roque Power Corp.- 707 SCRA 66 [2013] and [MR] October 8,
2013
*Araullo v. President Aquino, (supra, A6, S 29)
*​*Katipunan v. Robredo – 730 SCRA 322 [2015] (implementation of
infrastructure project not subject to judicial review)
*​*​Sameer v. Cabiles – 732 SCRA 531 (re-enactment of a void law declared
unconstitutional can’t be done)
*​*Film Dev. Council v. Colon Heritage – 758 SCRA 536 [2015] (acted in good
faith, so, operative fact applied)

Automatic review; par. 2 (d)

*​*People v. Mateo – 433 SCRA 640

Question of law; par. 2(e)

Change of Venue; par. 4

​*​*​People v. Gutierrez – 36 SCRA 172 [1970] (transfer of venue)

Power to Promulgate Rules; par. 5

Enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in

all courts
*​*Santero v. CFI-Cavite – 153 SCRA 728 [1965] (rules of court v. civil code)

21
 *​*Damasco v. Laqui – 166 SCRA 214 [1988] (prescription of crimes v. rules of
court)
*​*Baguio Market Vendors v. Hon. Cortes – GR No. 165922, February 26, 2010
(Congress cannot repeal SC rules)
*​*In re: In the Matter of Clarification of Exemption from Payment of All Court
and Sheriff’s Fees of Cooperatives, A.M. 12-2-03-0, 13 March 2012 (legal fees) –
668 SCRA 1 [2012] (SC rule cannot be modified by law)

Admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar,disciplinary powers, and legal
assistance to the underprivileged
*​*In re Cunanan – 94 PHIL. 534 [1953-1954] (admission to the bar). Read with
​**​In re letter of UP Law Faculty – 644 SCRA 543 [2011] (plagiarism)

Limits of power
Simplified and inexpensive procedure for speedy disposition

Uniform for all courts of the same grade

Not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights

*​*PNB v. Asuncion – 80 SCRA 321 [1977] (procedural v. substantial
rights)
*​*People v. Lacson – 400 SCRA 267 [2003] (time bar rule)

Procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies effective unless disapproved by

SC

Supervision over the Judiciary

*Ampong v. CSC – 563 SCRA 293 [2008] (exclusive supervision)

Sec. 6. Administrative supervision of inferior courts

*​*​Maceda v. Vasquez – 221 SCRA 464 [1993] (falsification). Read with De Vera v. Pelayo,
GR 137354, July 6, 2000; Caoibes v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 132177, July 19, 2001; and,

Sec. 7. Qualifications of Members of Judiciary

Sec. 8. Judicial and Bar Council

Par. 1: Composition
*​*Chavez v. JBC – 676 SCRA 579 [2012] (interpretation of “a representative of Congress”)
*​*Jardeleza v. CJ Sereno, et al., GR No. 213181, August 19, 2014
*​*Villanueva v. JBC – 755 SCRA 182 [2015]
*​*Aguinaldo v. JBC – GR No. 224302, November 29, 2017

Sec. 9. Appointment of Justices and Judges

22
Sec. 10. Diminution of Salary
*​*​Nitafan v. CIR – 152 SCRA 284 [1987] (no tax exemption)

Sec. 11. Security of Tenure

*​*​Vargas v. Rilloraza – 80 PHIL. 297 [1948] (temporary replacement; uninterrupted security
of tenure). Read with Estrada v. Desierto, supra.
​*​*People v. Gacott – 246 SCRA 52 [1995] (​en banc​ decision to discipline)

Sec. 12. Non-judicial assignments

Sec. 13. Decision-making process

Sec. 14. Contents of decision

Decision expressing clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based
Sufficient
*​*Air France v. Carrascoso – 18 SCRA 155 [1966] (appellate conclusions: ultimate
facts)
*Francisco v. Permskul – 173 SCRA 324 [1989] (memorandum decision)
*​*Deutsche Bank v. CIR, G​ R No. 188550, August 28, 2013 (applies only to decisions
and not minute resolutions) (supra., Art II, Sec. 2)

Insufficient

*Salazar v. Marigomen – 537 SCRA 25 [2007]

Legal basis must be stated if a petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision
shall be refused due course or denied
Sec. 15 Decision-making period

Sec. 16. Report to the President and to Congress

ARTICLE IX​ . ​Constitutional Commissions

A. ​Common Provisions

Sec. 1. ​The Constitutional Commission

Sec. 2-6. Independence of the Commissions

**Funa v. Chairman, CSC, GR No.191672, November 25, 2014.

Sec. 7. ​Decisions of the Commissions

**Gualberto J. Dela Llana v. The Chairperson, Commission on Audit, GR No.180989, 07

23
 *Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (supra. Art 2, Sec. 26)
*Querubin v. COMELEC, GR No.218787, December 8, 2015

Sec. 8. ​Other functions as may be provided by law

B. Civil Service Commission

Sec. 1. Organization of the Commission

Term
**​Gaminde v. COA, GR No.140335, December 13, 2000

Fiscal Autonomy

Sec. 2. Scope of the System

Under Civil Service Law - ​Distinction between the GOCCs with original charters and
those without

Classifications and Appointments

*Civil Service Commission v. Javier, G.R. No. 173264, Feb. 22, 2008.

Permanent

Reorganization

Appointment vs. designation

Removal for Cause / Security of Tenure

Cause for removal

*Civil Service Commission v. Pililla Water District, G.R. No. 190147, March 5, 2013.

Loss of confidence
Abolition of office
Reorganization

Qualifications for eligibility

Abandonment; acceptance of incompatible position/other
employment

Due process in removal

Security of tenure

24
 Electioneering or Partisan Political Activity

* COMELEC-CSC Joint Circular No. 001, Series of 2016, (Mar. 29, 2016)

Right to Self-Organization and Right to Strike

*DBP v. COA, G.R. No. 210838, July 3, 2018.

Temporary Employees

Sec. 3. Powers of the Commission

Sec. 4. Oath to Defend the Constitution

Sec. 5. Standardization of Compensation

See e.g. ​Republic Act No. 11466 (Salary Standardization Law of 2019)

Sec. 6. Political Lame Ducks

Sec. 7. Political Opportunism and Spoils

*Funa, ​supra
**​Flores v. Drilon – 223 SCRA 568 [1993] (supra, Art. 7, Sec. 13) (prohibition against
designation of elective officer during tenure)

Sec. 8. Additional or Double Compensation

Present, Emolument, Office or Title from a Foreign State

C. Commission on Elections

Sec. 1. Composition, qualifications, appointment, term

**Cayetano v. Monsod – 201 SCRA 210 [1991] (meaning of practice of law)

Sec. 2. Powers and Functions of COMELEC

Administrative power

Election contests

Powers not given

Deputizing law enforcement agencies

Registration of parties and organizations

25
 **​Atienza v. COMELEC – 612 SCRA 761 [2010]

Prosecution of election offenses

**​Arroyo v. DOJ – 681 SCRA 181 [2012]

Recommendatory powers

Sec. 3. Commission Decisions

Sec. 4. Regulation of Public Utilities, Media, Franchises

Sec. 5. Pardons, etc.

*​Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC and Estrada (supra., Art. 7, Sec. 19)
*​GMA Network v. COMELEC and Cayetano, GR No.205357, September 2, 2014

Sec. 6-8. Political Rights

Sec. 9. “​Election Period”

Sec. 10. Equal Protection of Candidates
Sec. 11. Fiscal Autonomy

D. Commission on Audit

Sec. 1. Purpose, organization, composition, appointment

*​Mison v. COA – 187 SCRA 445 [1990] (COA as collegial body)

Sec. 2. Powers and Functions

*Development Bank of the Philippines v. COA, G.R. No. 88435, Jan. 16, 2002.

Examine and audit

Government revenues
Government expenditures
*Blue Bar Coconut Phil. Tantuico – 163 SCRA 716 [1988] (post-audit authority)
**​Law Firms v. COMELEC, GR No. 213330, November 19, 2015 (hiring of law firm
unauthorized)

Audit jurisdiction

Settle government accounts

Define scope and techniques for its own auditing procedures

26
 Promulgate accounting and auditing rules

Decide administrative cases involving expenditure of public funds

Sec. 3. ​Exemption from Jurisdiction

Sec. 4. Annual Report

ARTICLE X.​ ​Local Government

Sec. 1. Units of Local Government

Sec. 2. Local Autonomy

* Pimentel v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 195770, Jul. 17, 2012.
*​*San Juan v. CSC 196 SCRA 69 [1991] (power of governor to recommend)
*City of General Santos v. COA, GR No.199439, April 22, 2014

Sec. 3. Local Government Code

Sec. 4. The President and Local governments

**​Province of Negros Occidental v. COA – 631 SCRA 431 [2010] (power of general
supervision​ v power of control)
*Province of Batangas v. Hon. Romulo, G.R. No. 152774, May 27, 2004.

Sec. 5. Sources of Revenue

Powers of Local Government

*​Film Devt. Council of PH v. SM Prime Holdings, INC., GR No.197937, April 3, 2013

(power to tax of LGU)

Sec. 6. Share in the National Taxes(IRA)

*​Alternative Center v. Zamora – 459 SCRA 578 [2005] (not to pass law that will prevent the
release of funds)
*Villafuerte v. Robredo, GR No.195390, December 10, 2014
​**Mandanas v. Executive Secretary Ochoa, GR No. 199802, July 3, 2018 (computation of
just share)

Sec. 7. Share in Proceeds from Natural Resources

Sec. 8. Term of Local Officials

*Borja v. COMELEC – 295 SCRA 157 (term limit for local elective officials)
*Adormeo v. COMELEC – 376 SCRA 90 (winner of recall election)

27
 *Latasa v. Comelec, GR No. 154829, Dec. 10, 2003 (component city)
*Ong. V. Alegre – 479 SCRA 473 (recall election in the mid-way of the term)
*Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR No. 196271, February ​? 2012
(reconsideration; h​oldover provision in RA 9054 unconstitutional, as Congress in passing RA 10153 has
made clear)
**​Naval v. COMELEC, GR No.207851, July 8, 2014

Sec. 9. Sectoral Representation

Sec. 10. Creation, division of boundaries

*​Tan v. COMELEC – 142 SCRA 727 [1986] (creation of a province)
*League of Cities v. COMELEC – GR Nos. 176951, 177499, 178056, February 15, 2011 and
April 12, 2011 (Final Resolution)
*Navarro v. Exec. Sec. Ermita – GR No.180050, April 12, 2011 (Dinagat Island)
**​Umali v. COMELEC, GR No.203974, April 22, 2014 (conduct of plebiscite; Cabanatuan
City as HUC)

Sec . 11. Metropolitan political subdivisions

MMDA no police power

Sec. 12. Classification of Cities

Sec. 13. Common Efforts, services, and resources

Sec. 14. Regional development councils

Sec. 15. Purpose, and how many Autonomous Regions

Sec. 16. Authority of the President over the Autonomous Region

Sec. 17. Authority of the National Government over the Autonomous Region

*Datu Abas Kida, ​supra

Sec. 18.-19.​Organic Act for the Autonomous Regions

*​Abbas v. COMELEC – 179 SCRA 287 [1989] (ARMM)
*Ordillos v. COMELEC – 192 SCRA 100 [1990] (CAR)
*Badua v. CBA – 194 SCRA 101 [1991] (tribal courts)
*Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel (supra. A7, Sec. 1)

Sec. 20. Legislative Power

Sec. 21. Peace and order, defense, national security

28
ARTICLE XI​. ​Accountability of Public Officers

Sec. 1. Public office is a Public trust

Sec. 2. Impeachment: Who can be impeached/Grounds for impeachment

*Republic of the Philippines v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018.

Sec. 3. Procedure and Penalty

​**​Francisco v. HR – GR No. 160261, November 10, 2003 (to initiate meaning)
​*​*​Gutierrez v. House of Representatives – GR No.193459, February 15, 2011 (one-year bar)

Sec. 4. The Sandiganbayan

*Lecaros v. Sandiganbayan – 128 SCRA 324 [1984] (crimes in relation to public offfice)

Sec. 5-6 The Ombudsman

Sec. 7. Tanodbayan now the Special Prosecutor

*Gonzales III v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 196231, Jan. 28, 2014.
**​Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan – 160 SCRA 843 [1988] (powers)

Sec. 8-11. Qualifications, appointment, and term of the Ombudsman

*Ifurung v. Hon. Carpio-Morales, G.R. No. 232131, Apr. 24, 2018

Sec. 12. Duty to act on complaints vs. gov’t. officials

Complaints in any form

*Almonte v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, May 23, 1995.

Sec. 13. Powers and Responsibilities of Ombudsman; deputies

In General
*​Cruz v. Sandiganbayan – 194 SCRA 474 [1991] (concurrent jurisdiction with PCGG)
**​Hernandez v. Ombudsman, GR No.197307, Feb 26, 2014 (power of the OMB to
dismiss v. power to recommend the removal)
**​Carpio-Morales v. CA – 774 SCRA 431 (condonation doctrine abandoned)

Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties

*Buenaseda v. Flavier – 226 SCRA 645 [1993] (when to suspend)
*OMB v. Apolonio, G ​ R No.165132, 07 March 2012 ​(power to directly impose
administrative penalties, including removal from office)

Jurisdiction over Criminal Cases

**​Lastimosa v. Vasquez – 243 SCRA 497 [1995] (prosecutor’s assistance)
*Presidential v. Desierto – 528 SCRA 20 [2007] (exception to the non-interference)

29
 Fact-finding distinguished from Preliminary Investigation

Sec. 14. Fiscal Autonomy of Ombudsman

Sec. 15. Exemption of Gov’t from prescription, laches, estoppel

Sec. 16. Financial Accommodation

Sec. 17. Disclosure of Assets

Sec. 18. Allegiance of public officers

*Caasi v. CA – 191 SCRA 229 [1990] (foreign citizen)

ARTICLE XII. ​National Economy and Patrimony

Sec. 1. General Economic Policy

Sec. 2. Natural Resources
Alienation

Utilization
**​IID v. PSALM -682 SCRA 602 [2012]

Public Domain and Regalian Doctrine

**​La Bugal-B’laan v. Ramos, GR No.127872, Dec. 1, 2004 (Regalian Doctrine)
*Narra Nickel v. Redmont Consolidated, GR No.195580, April 24, 2014
**​Resident Marine Mammals v. Sec. Reyes – 756 SCRA 513
**Maynilad v. DENR - August 6, 2019 (Public Trust Doctrine)

Sec. 3. Lands of the Public Domain

**​Dir. of Lands v. IAC – 146 SCRA 509 [1986] (right of corporations to acquire land)

Sec. 4. Forest Lands and Parks

Sec. 5. Ancestral Lands and Domain

**​Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, GR No.135385, December 6, 2000 (IPRA Law)

30
Sec. 6. Common Good

Sec. 7. Private lands

*Osmena v. Osmena – 611 SCRA 164 [2010] (foreign ownership of lands)
Sec. 8. Exemption for Former Filipino Citizens
**​Republic v. CA – 235 SCRA 567 [1994] (citizenship at time of acquisition; r​ead with
Retention and Reacquisition Law​)

Sec. 9​. Economic and Planning Agency

Sec. 10. Filipinization

**​Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS – 267 SCRA 408 [1997] (national patrimony)
**​Army and Navy v. CA – 271 SCRA 36 [1997] (historical landmark)

Sec. 11. Public Utilities

*​Francisco v. TRB – 633 SCRA 470 [2010] (power to grant license)
**​Wilson P. Gamboa v. Finance Secretary Margarito B. Teves, GR 176579, 28 June 2011.

Sec. 12. Filipino First Policy

Sec. 13. Economic Exchange

Sec. 14. Filipino Professionals and skilled workers

Sec. 15. Development of Cooperatives

Sec. 16. Private Corporations

Sec. 17. Temporary Take-Over

Sec. 18. Nationalization

Telephone Interconnections

Sec. 19. Monopolies and combinations

*​Avon v. Luna – 511 SCRA 376 (exclusivity clause)

Sec. 20. Central Monetary Authority

Sec. 21. Foreign Loans

Sec. 22. Penal Sanctions

31
ARTICLE XVI​ . General Provisions

Sec. 1. The Flag

Sec. 2. National name, anthem and seal

Sec. 3. Immunity from Suit

Foundation of the Rule: A suit against the State

**​Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzons (2005) (differentiate with presidential immunity)

Unincorporated Agencies

**​Mobil Philippines v. Customs Arrastre – 18 SCRA 1120 [1966]

**​Del Mar v. PVA – 51 SCRA 340[1973] (exception to general rule)

Government Officers
**​Ministerio v. CFI – 40 SCRA 464 [1971]
**​Syquia v. Almeda-Lopez – 84 SCRA 312[1978]

Foreign Government

**​The Holy See v. Rosario – 238 SCRA 524 [1994]

*Minucher v. CA – GR No.142396, Feb. 11, 2003
**​Arigo v. Swift, GR No.206510, September 16, 2014 (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 2)

Consent by Law
*​Carabao v. Agricultural Product Com. – 35 SCRA 224 [1970]

Exceptional Circumstance to avoid injustice

**​DOH v. Canchela – 475 SCRA 218 [2005]

Agency – Proprietary
*​United States v. Guinto – 182 SCRA 644 [1990]

Waiver

32
 Resulting Liability

Sec. 4. Armed Forces

Sec. 5. Quality of Service (AFP)

Sec. 6. Police Force

Sec. 7-8. Remuneration and Benefits

Sec. 9. Consumer Protection

Sec. 10. Communication Policy

Sec. 11. Media

Sec. 12. Consultative Body for Indigenous Communities

33
ARTICLE XVII. ​Amendments or Revisions

Sec. 1. Revision/Amendment

Sec. 2. Direct Proposal

*​Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC – 270 SCRA 106 [1997] and MR – [1997] (initiative
and referendum)
*Lambino v. COMELEC – 505 SCRA 160 (unstated purpose)

Sec. 3. Congressional Prerogative

Sec. 4. Ratification and date of effectivity

34
ARTICLE XVIII ​Transitory Provisions

Sec. 1. First Elections Under the New Constitution

Sec. 2. Team of first House Members and first Local Officials

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

Sec. 4. Status of Treaties and International Agreements

Sec. 5. Presidential Term and Synchronization

Sec. 6. Presidential Legislative Powers

Sec. 7. Sectoral Representation

Sec. 8. Metropolitan Authority

Sec. 9. Sub-Provinces

Sec. 10-11. Security of Tenure of Judges

Sec. 12-14. Cases filed prior to effectivity of New Constitution

Sec. 15. Term of Carry-over Commissioners

Sec. 16. Career Civil Service Officers

Sec. 17-18. Readjustment of salaries

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 No.138570, October 10, 2000 (VFA)

Sec. 26. Sequestration Orders

*Republic v. Sandiganbayan – 221 SCRA 189 [1993] (powers of PCGG)

35
Sec. 27. Date of Effectivity

☺​ ☺ ​END​ ☺​ ☺
B​ ​ L​

36