UST-LEGAZPI

COLLEGE OF LAW

COURSE OUTLINE
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

I. General Consideratioons
1. Political Law
 definition of political law
- branch of public law which deals with the organization and
operation of the governmental organs of the State and define the
relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory (People
vs. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887, 897 [1922])
 divisions of political law
- law of public administration - deals with theorganization and
management of the different branches of the government.

- constitutional law–deals with the guaranties of the constitution to

individual rights and the limitations on governmental action.

- administrative law–deals with the exercise of executive power in

themaking of rules and the decision of questions affecting private
rights.

- law of public corporations -deals with governmental agencies for

local government or for other special purposes.

 Macariola vs Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77 (1982)

2. Definition of Constitutional law
- designates the law embodied in the Constitution and the
legal principles growing out of the interpretation and
application of its provisions by the courts in specific cases
(Sinco, supra, p.67)
3. Constitution
 Definition
- the document which serves as the fundamental law of the
state. (V. Sinco, Philippine Political Law, 11th ed., p.68- 70);
 function
- constituent – compulsory because constitutive of the very
bonds of society;
- ministrant – undertaken to advance general interest of
society (Bacani v. NACOCO, 100 Phil. 468);
 classification
- written (conventional or enacted) v. unwritten (cumulative or
evolved).
- rigid v. flexible
The Philippine Constitution is written and rigid. (Art. XVII)
 essential qualities
(1) Clarity or Definiteness: ...
(2) Brevity: ...
(3) Comprehensiveness: ...
 (4) Flexibility: ...
(5) Declaration of rights: ...
(6) Independence of Judiciary: ...
(7) Directive Principles of State Policy:
4. The Philippine Constitution
 Definition
- The Philippine Constitution refers to the fundamental law of
the Republic of the Philippines. It is the supreme legal
document that outlines the structure and functions of the
government, the rights and responsibilities of citizens, and
the principles that guide the country's political, social, and
economic systems. The Constitution serves as the highest
source of law in the Philippines and provides the framework
for all other laws and regulations.
 History
- 1899 Malolos Constitution: This was the first constitution of
the Philippines.

- 1935 Constitution: The Philippines was granted a

Commonwealth status under American sovereignty.

- 1973 Constitution: During the Martial Law period under

President Ferdinand Marcos.

- 1986 Freedom Constitution: Following the People Power

Revolution that ousted Marcos, a provisional "Freedom
Constitution" was promulgated by President Corazon Aquino.

- 1987 Constitution: The current and fifth constitution of the

Philippines was ratified in 1987.
 Supremacy
- The highest legal authority in the country. This principle of
constitutional supremacy means that all laws, including
executive orders, presidential decrees, and statutes, must be
consistent with the provisions of the Constitution. If there is
a conflict between a law and the Constitution, the
Constitution prevails, and the law is considered invalid to the
extent of the inconsistency.
 executing and non-executing provisions
- Executing Provisions: These are self-executing provisions
that are complete in themselves and do not require further
legislation for their enforcement. They are immediately
enforceable and can be directly invoked in courts.

-Non-Executing Provisions: These provisions require enabling

legislation for their implementation. They lay down the
general principles but need specific laws to provide the
necessary details and mechanisms for enforcement.
5. Preamble
 object and value
 - Sovereignty: The Preamble emphasizes the Filipino people's
sovereignty, underscoring their authority and power as the
ultimate source of government and law in the country.

- Rule of Law: The Preamble upholds the rule of law as a

principle that guides the governance of the nation. This
implies that the government and individuals are subject to
and must abide by the law.

- Social Justice: The Preamble expresses the commitment to

social justice, recognizing the importance of addressing
economic and social inequalities and ensuring the well-being
of all citizens.

- Equality: The Preamble highlights the value of equality,

indicating that all individuals should be treated fairly and
without discrimination under the law.

- Peace: The Preamble underscores the desire for peace as a

cornerstone of the nation's aspirations. It reflects the
country's commitment to avoiding conflict and promoting
stability.

- Freedom and Democracy: The Preamble extols the virtues of

freedom and democracy, affirming the importance of
individual liberties and the people's participation in decision-
making processes.
 intent of framers
- The Preamble reflects the framers' intent to establish a
democratic, accountable, and inclusive government that
respects human rights and upholds the rule of law.

II. Principles and State Policies

A. principles defined
a. section 1
I. state
 Definition
- refers to the organized political community of people within
a definite territory, people, sovereignty and government
which governed by a set of laws and regulations.

Case: Collector of internal revenue vs Campos Rueda (1971)

FACTS: Spanish national having been a resident of Tangier, Morocco from 1931 up to the
time of her death in 1955... demanding from the former the sum of P161,874.95 as
deficiency estate and inheritance taxes, including interests and penalties, on the transfer of
intangible personal properties situated in the Philippines and belonging to said Maria de la
Estrella Soriano Vda. de Cerdeira... she left, among others, intangible personal properties in
the Philippines... petitioner request ed for the reconsideration of the decision denying... the
claim for tax exemption of the intangible personal properties and the imposition of the 25%
and 5% ad valorem penalties
ISSUE: whether or not the requisites of statehood, or at least much thereof as may be
 necessary for the acquisition of an international personality, must be satisfied for a "foreign
country" to fall within the exemption of Section 122 of the National Internal Revenue
Code... respondent denied the request... for exemption on the ground that the law of
Tangier is not reciprocal to Section 122 of the National Internal Revenue Code.
RULINGS: Court of Tax Appeals... reversed the action taken by petitioner Collector, who
would hold respondent Antonio Campos Rueda... liable for the sum... of P161,874.95 as
deficiency estate and inheritance taxes for the transfer of intangible personal properties in
the Philippines

ii. elements
1. people
i. definition
- The first element of a state is its people, who constitute its
citizenry or population. A state is formed by a community of
individuals who share common ties, including language,
culture, and legal allegiance. Citizens have rights and
responsibilities within the state and are subject to its laws
and governance.
 Preamble
- "We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of
Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society
and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and
aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and
develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our
posterity the blessings of independence and democracy
under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom,
love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this
Constitution."

 art 2, secs 1, 4, 15, 16

- Section 1: This section declares that the Philippines is a
democratic and republican state.
- Section 4: The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of
national policy and adopts a policy of peace, freedom,
cooperation, and amity with all nations.
- Section 15: The State shall protect and promote the right to
health of the people and instill health consciousness among
them.
- Section 16: The State shall protect and advance the right of
the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord
with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

 art 3, secs 2, 7
- Section 2: The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable.
 - Section 7: The right of the people to information on matters
of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official
records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official
acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy development, shall be
afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law.

 art 7, sec 4
- Section 4: The President and the Vice-President shall be
elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years
which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next
following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the
same date, six years thereafter.
 art 13, sec 1
- Section 1: The Congress shall give highest priority to the
enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of
all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and
political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by
equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the
common good.

 art 16, sec 2

- Section 2: The Congress shall establish an independent
central monetary authority, the members of whose
governing board must be natural-born Filipino citizens, of
known probity, integrity, and patriotism, the majority of
whom shall come from the private sector.

 art 18, sec 25

- Section 25: After the expiration in 1997 of the Agreement
between the Republic of the Philippines and the United
States of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military
bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the
Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the
Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a
majority of the votes cast by the people in a national
referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty
by the other contracting State.
2. government
i. doctrine of parens patriae
- the inherent power and authority of the state to act as the
guardian of individuals, particularly those who are unable to
care for themselves, such as minors, mentally incapacitated
individuals, and other vulnerable groups.

ii. de jure and de facto government

- de jure - has a rightful title but no power or control, either,
because same has been withdrawn from it or because same
has not yet actually entered into the exercise thereof.
 - de facto - actually exercises power or control but without
legal title

iii. patterns of government

- Unitary Government: In a unitary system, the central
government holds significant authority and power, and it
delegates limited powers to local or regional governments.

- Federal Government: In a federal system, the powers of

government are divided between a central or federal
government and various constituent states or provinces.
Each level of government has its own areas of authority.

- Presidential Government: In a presidential system, the

executive branch is separate from the legislative branch, and
the president is the head of state and government.

- Parliamentary Government: In a parliamentary system, the

executive branch is drawn from the legislative branch. The
head of government is usually the prime minister, and the
head of state may be a monarch or a ceremonial president.

- Semi-Presidential Government: This is a hybrid system that

combines elements of both presidential and parliamentary
systems. There is a president and a prime minister, each with
distinct powers and functions.

Cases
o US vs Dorr, (1903)
 The defendants have been convicted upon a complaint charging them with the
offense of libel against the Government of the United States and the Insular
Government of the Philippine Islands.

 The complaint is based upon section 8 of Act No. 292 of the Commission, which
is as follows:

 The alleged libel was published as an editorial in the issue of the "Manila
Freedom"... under the caption of "A few hard facts."... appointing rascally
natives to important Government positions

 "There is no doubt but that the Filipino office holders of the Islands are in a
good many instances rascals.

 "The Commission has exalted to the highest positions in the islands Filipinos
who are alleged to be notoriously corrupt and rascally, and men of no personal
character.

 there can be no such thing as a scurrilous libel, or any sort of a libel, upon an
 abstraction like the Government in the sense of the laws and institutions of a
country
Issue: W/N the publication of the subject article falls within the purview of Section
8 of Act No. 292.
Held: No. The article in question produces none of the effects enumerated in
Section 8 of Act No. 292. In addition, the same provision refers to the libel of the
government in general, and not of specific individuals.

o Co Kim Cham vs Valdez Tan Keh (1945)

Facts: Co Kim Cham had a pending civil case initiated during the Japanese
occupation with the CFI of Manila. After the liberation of the Manila and the
American occupation, respondent Judge Dizon refused to continue hearings, saying
that a proclamation issued by General Douglas MacArthur had invalidated and
nullified all judicial proceedings and judgments of the courts of the defunct
Republic of the Philippines

Issue: Whether or not the judicial acts and proceedings made under Japanese
occupation were valid and remained valid even after the American occupation.
Held: Yes. [A]ll acts and proceedings of the legislative, executive, and judicial
departments of a de facto government are good and valid. If [the governments
established in these Islands under the names of the Philippine Executive
Commission and Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military
occupation or regime were de facto governments], the judicial acts and
proceedings of those governments remain good and valid even after the liberation
or reoccupation of the Philippines by the American and Filipino forces.

o In re: Letter of Associate Justice Puno, AM 90-11-2697

Facts: Petitioner Assoc. Justice Puno, a member of the Court of Appeals (CA),
wrote a letter dated Nov. 14, 1990 addressed to the Supreme Court about the
correction of his seniority ranking in the CA. It appears from the records that
petitioner was first appointed as associate justice of the CA on June 20, 1980 but
took his oath of office on Nov. 29, 1982. The CA was reorganized and became the
Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, “An Act
Reorganizing the Judiciary Appropriating Funds Therefor and For Other Purposes.”
He was then appointed as appellate justice and later accepted an appointment to
be a deputy minister of Justice in the Ministry of Justice. In Edsa Revolution in Feb.
1986 brought about reorganization of the entire government including the
judiciary. A Screening Committee was created. When Pres. Cory Aquino issued
Executive Order No. 33, as an exercise of her legislative power, the Screening
Committee assigned the petitioner to rank no. 11 from being the assoc. justice of
the NEW CA. However, the petitioner’s ranking changed from no. 11, he now
ranked as no. 26. He alleges that the change in his seniority ranking would be
contrary to the provisions of issued order of Pres. Aquino. The court en banc
ranted Justice Puno’s request. A motion for consideration was later filed by Campos
and Javelliano who were affected by the change of ranking. They contend that the
petitioner cannot claim such reappointment because the court he had previously
been appointed ceased to exist at the date of his last appointment.
Issue: Whether the present CA is a new court or merely a continuation of the CA
and IAC that would negate any claim to seniority enjoyed by the petitioner existing
prior to said EO No. 33.
Rulings: The present CA is a new entity, different and distinct from the CA or the
IAC, for it was created in the wake of the massive reorganization launched by the
revolutionary government of Corazon Aquino in the people power. A revolution has
been defined as the complete overthrow of the established government in any
country or state by those who were previously subject to it as as sudden, radical,
and fundamental change in the government or political system, usually effected
with violence. A government as a result of people’s revolution is considered de
jure if it is already accepted by the family of nations or countries like the US, Great
Britain, Germany, Japan, and others. In the new government under Pres. Aquino, it
was installed through direct exercise of the Filipino power. Therefore, it is the
present CA that would negate the claims of Justice Puno concerning his seniority
ranking.

o Republic vs Sandiganbayan, GR 104768

Facts: The case was commenced on July 21, 1987 by the Presidential Commission
on Good Government (PCGG) in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. The
complaint which initiated the action was denominated one “for reconveyance,
reversion, accounting, restitution and damages,” and was avowedly filed pursuant
to Executive Order No. 14 of President Corazon C. Aquino.

After having been served with summons, Tantoco, Jr. and Santiago, instead of filing
their answer, jointly filed a “Motion to Strike Out Some Portions of the Complaint
and For Bill of Particulars of Other Portions.” The PCGG filed an opposition thereto,
and the movants, a reply to the opposition. Tantoco and Santiago then presented a
“motion for leave to file interrogatories under Rule 25 of the Rules of Court” of
which the PCGG responded by filing a motion.

On March 18, 1988, in compliance with the Order of January 29, 1988, the PCGG
filed an Expanded Complaint of which the Sandiganbayan denied with a
Resolution. Tantoco and Santiago then filed an Answer with Compulsory
Counterclaim. On July 27, 1989 Tantoco and Santiago filed with the Sandiganbayan
a pleading denominated “Interrogatories to Plaintiff,” and on August 2, 1989, an
“Amended Interrogatories to Plaintiff”‘ as well as a Motion for Production and
Inspection of Documents.

The Sandiganbayan admitted the Amended Interrogatories and granted the motion
for production and inspection of documents respectively. PCGG filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Resolution of August 25, 1989, it also filed an opposition to
the Amended Interrogatories. Tantoco and Santiago filed a reply and opposition.

After hearing, the Sandiganbayan promulgated two (2) Resolutions. Hence, this
present petition.
Issue: Whether petitioner can object to the interrogatories served on it in
accordance with Rule 25 of the Rules of Court.
Rulings: No. The State is, of course, immune from suit in the sense that it cannot,
as a rule, be sued without its consent. But it is axiomatic that in filing an action, it
divests itself of its sovereign character and sheds its immunity from suit,
descending to the level of an ordinary litigant. The PCGG cannot claim a superior or
preferred status to the State, even while assuming to represent or act for the State.
 3. sovereignty or imperium
- Sovereignty, often referred to as "imperium," is the supreme and
ultimate authority and power that a state holds over its territory,
people, and affairs. It represents the state's ability to make and
enforce laws, regulate internal and external matters, and exercise
control without external interference.
o distinguish from dominion or dominium
- Sovereignty, often referred to as "imperium," is the supreme
and ultimate authority and power that a state holds over its
territory, people, and affairs. It represents the state's ability
to make and enforce laws, regulate internal and external
matters, and exercise control without external interference.
Cases
o Pp vs Gozo, Oct. 26, 1973
Facts: Loreta Gozo bought a house and lot located inside the US Naval Reservation
within the territorial jurisdiction of Olangapo City. She demolished the house and
built another one in its place without securing a building permit from the City
Mayor of Olangapo City. The City Court of Olangapo found her guilty of violating a
municipal ordinance that requires permit from the municipal mayor for
construction of building as well as any modification, repairs or demolition thereof.

CA: On appeal with the Court of Appeals, Gozo put in issue the validity of such
ordinance by invoking due process.
Issue: W/N the municipal corporation retains its administrative jurisdiction over the
area where Gozo‘s house was located?
Held: YES, the municipal corporation retains its administrative jurisdiction over the
said area. By the agreement, the Philippine Government merely consents that the
United States exercise jurisdiction in certain cases. This consent was given purely as
a matter of comity, courtesy or expediency. The Philippine Government has not
abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or
divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein. Under
the terms of the treaty, the United States Government has prior or preferential but
not exclusive jurisdiction of such offenses. The Philippine jurisdiction retains not
only jurisdictional rights not granted, but also such ceded rights as the United States
Military authorities for reasons of their own decline to make use of.

o Lee hong kok vs David, 48 SCRA 372

Facts: This is in relation to a parcel of land to which Aniano David obtained legal
ownership through his miscellaneous sales application. The Director of Lands issued
an order of award and issuance of sales patent covering said lot after his application
was approved, and the Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
granted a Miscellaneous Sales Patent as a result. David received an original
certificate of title from the Register of Deeds. Lee Hong Kok did not put any
opposition or make an adverse claim during this time.

Lee Hong Kok argued that David’s lot is private property since it was formed the
process of accretion.
Issue: Whether or not Lee Hong Kok has the right to question the government’s
grant.
Rulings: NO, he cannot question it. The legality of the grant is a question between
the grantee and the government. A void certificate of title issued according to a void
patent can only be canceled by the government, represented by the Director of
Lands or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Imperium vs. Dominium

The state’s governing authority, which is suitably incorporated in the idea of

sovereignty, is referred to as imperium, as is the state’s ability to own or acquire
property under dominium. This term is acceptable when referring to lands that the
state owns in its proprietary character. Except as otherwise limited by the
Constitution, it may prescribe for the exploitation and use of lands and other
natural resources, including their disposition, in this role.

4. territory (art 1)

i. the archipelagic doctrine

- The archipelagic doctrine is a legal principle that recognizes
archipelagic states, like the Philippines, as having sovereignty
over not only their land territory but also the waters and air
spaces within certain designated boundaries that connect
the islands. This doctrine is essential for countries with
numerous islands like the Philippines. According to this
doctrine, the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines
are considered internal waters, subject to the sovereign
control of the state.

o method of determining baselines (RA 9522: The New Law on

Determining Baselines)
- Republic Act No. 9522, also known as "The New Law on
Determining Baselines," was enacted in 2009 to define the
baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippines in
accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The key provisions of RA 9522 include:

- Establishing straight baselines connecting the outermost

points of the islands and drying reefs of the archipelago,
effectively delimiting the Philippines' territorial sea.
- Defining the maritime zones of the Philippines, including the
territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone
(EEZ), and continental shelf.
-
o UN Convention on Law the Sea (UNCLOS)
- international treaty that sets out the legal framework for the
use and protection of the world's oceans and seas. It defines
the rights and responsibilities of nations in various maritime
 zones, including territorial seas, exclusive economic zones,
and the high seas.
o Establishment of territorial seas: UNCLOS recognizes
the sovereignty of coastal states over their territorial
seas, extending up to 12 nautical miles from the
baselines.
o Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): Coastal states have
special rights in the EEZ, which extends up to 200
nautical miles from the baselines. They have
jurisdiction over natural resources and certain
economic activities within this zone.
o Continental Shelf: UNCLOS defines the outer limits of
the continental shelf beyond the EEZ, where coastal
states have the right to exploit non-living resources.
o Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
-

Case: Raegan vs CIR, GR 26379

FACTS: Petitioner questioned the payment of an income tax assessed on him by

public respondent on an amount realized by him on a sale of his automobile to a
member of the US Marine Corps, the transaction having taken place at the Clark
Field Air Base. Petitioner contends that the base is outside Philippine territory and
therefore beyond the jurisdictional power to tax.

ISSUE: Whether or not a sale made on a foreign military base is excluded from tax.

HELD: No. The said foreign military bases is not a foreign soil or territory for
purposes of income tax legislation. Philippine jurisdictional rights including the
power to tax are preserved.

iii. inherent powers

- Politice power- Law of overruling necessity - power
promoting public welfare by restraining
and regulating the use of liberty and property.
- Eminent Domain- power of State to forcibly take private
property for public use upon payment of just compensation.
- Power of Taxation- power by which State raises revenue to
defray necessary expenses of the Government.
-
iv. distinction from nation
- A group of people with common cultural or historical
characteristics.

v. distinction from government

- The administrative body within the state that exercises the
state's powers and authority.

II. manifestations of a democratic and republican state

i. separation of powers
Case: Belgica v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013

FACTS: Belgica, et al filed an Urgent Petition For Certiorari and Prohibition With
Prayer For The Immediate Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction seeking that the annual "Pork Barrel System," presently
embodied in the provisions of the GAA of 2013 which provided for the 2013 PDAF,
and the Executive‘s lump-sum, discretionary funds, such as the Malampaya Funds
and the Presidential Social Fund, be declared unconstitutional and null and void for
being acts constituting grave abuse of discretion. Also, they pray that the Court issue
a TRO against respondents.
ISSUE: Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article and all other Congressional Pork
Barrel Laws similar thereto are unconstitutional considering that they violate the
principles of/constitutional provisions on (a) separation of powers; (b) non-
delegability of legislati

Held: Yes, the PDAF article is unconstitutional. The post-enactment measures which
govern the areas of project identification, fund release and fund realignment are not
related to functions of congressional oversight and, hence, allow legislators to
intervene and/or assume duties that properly belong to the sphere of budget
execution. This violates the principle of separation of powers. Congress‘role must be
confined to mere oversight that must be confined to: (1) scrutiny and (2)
investigation and monitoring of the implementation of laws. Any action or step
beyond that will undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by the
constitution. Thus, the court declares the 2013 pdaf article as well as all other
provisions of law which similarly allow legislators to wield any form of post-
enactment authority in the implementation or enforcement of the budget,
unrelated to congressional oversight, as violative of the separation of powers
principle and thus unconstitutional.

ii. principle of blending of powers

- instance when powers are not confined exclusively within
one department but are assigned to or shared by several
departments.
ii. principle of checks and balances
- allows one department to resist encroachments upon its
prerogatives or to rectify mistakes or excess committed by
the other departments.
iii. immunity from suit: royal prerogative of dishonesty
- Under our Constitution the principle of immunity of the
government from suit is expressly provided in Article XVI,
Section 3. The principle is based on the very essence of
sovereignty, and on the practical ground that there can be no
legal right as against the authority that makes the law on
which the right depends. It also rests on reasons of public
policy — that public service would be hindered, and the
public endangered, if the sovereign authority could be
subjected to law suits at the instance of every citizen and
consequently controlled in the uses and dispositions of the
 means required for the proper administration of the
government. (Republic vs. Sandoval; G.R. No. 84607, March
19, 1993)
Cases
Rallos v. City of Cebu, G.R. No. 202651, August 28, 2013
Facts: The instant petition is based on Lucena's allegation that the respondents
obstruct the enforcement of final and executory judgments issued by the Court in G.R.
Nos. 179662 and 194111. These cases originated from a complaint filed by the Heirs
of Fr. Rallos against the City of Cebu concerning expropriated land parcels. The
dispute revolves around Lots 485-D and 485-E, expropriated for public road
construction in 1963.

The Heirs of Fr. Rallos claimed that the City of Cebu occupied the lots without proper
authorization. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered just compensation to be paid.
Various appeals and disputes followed regarding the valuation and interest on the
compensation.

The Court of Appeals (CA) and Supreme Court decisions upheld the RTC's judgments.
The City of Cebu paid a portion of the compensation, but disputes remained over the
remaining balance and interest.
Issue: W/N the respondents' actions amount to acts of contempt preventing the
execution of the final judgments in G.R. Nos. 179662 and 194111.
Held: The current petition lacks validity. Lucena engaged in the act of forum shopping.
"Forum shopping is evident when the criteria of litis pendentia are met or when a
final judgment in one case could invoke res judicata in another. Litis pendentia
necessitates the following: (1) identical parties or at least parties representing the
same interests in both proceedings; (2) identical rights and remedies being sought,
based on the same factual basis; and (3) sameness in the preceding two aspects in
both proceedings, leading to the possibility of one judgment invoking res judicata in
the other."

Arigo v. Swie, G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014

Facts: Congress passed Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10067, otherwise known as the
“Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009” for the protection and
conservation of the Tubbataha Reef.
 The US Embassy in the Philippines requested diplomatic clearance for the said
vessel (USS Guardian) to enter and exit Philippine territorial waters, as well as
to arrive at the port of Subic Bay for routine checkups and repair, in December
2012.
 The ship ran aground on the northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha
Reefs, about 80 miles east-southeast of Palawan, on its way to Indonesia and
while traversing the Sulu Sea.
 Petitioners say that the USS Guardian’s grounding, salvaging, and post-
salvaging operations have caused and continue to cause significant
environmental damage to several provinces in the region, infringing on their
constitutional rights to a balanced and healthy ecology.
 They also seek a directive from this Court for the institution of civil,
administrative and criminal suits for acts committed in violation of
environmental laws and regulations in connection with the grounding incident
Issue: W/N petitioners have legal standing
 Held: Yes. Locus standi means the right to bring an action, to be heard in court, or to
address the Court on a matter before it.

In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., we recognized the “public right” of
citizens to “a balanced and healthful ecology.” In the class suit brought by the minor
petitioners in that case, the Supreme Court ruled that ordinary citizens not only have
legal standing to sue for environmental rights protection, but they can do so on behalf
of themselves and future generations.

SM Land, Inc. v. Bases Conversion and Development Authority, G. R. No. 203655, March
18, 2015
Facts:

For reconsideration is the Decision of this Court dated August 13, 2014, which granted
the petition for certiorari filed by SM Land, Inc. (SMLI) and directed respondent Bases
Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) and its president to, among other things,...
subject SMLI's duly accepted unsolicited proposal for the development of the
Bonifacio South Property to a competitive challenge.

The gravamen of respondents' motion is that BCDA and SMLI do not have a contract
that would bestow upon the latter the right to demand that its unsolicited proposal
be subjected to a competitive challenge.
Issue: W/N the existence of such an agreement between the parties, respondents
contend that the same may be terminated by reasons of public interest.
Held: No. Article 1305 of the New Civil Code defines a contract as "a meeting of minds
between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give
something or to render some service."

In the case at bar, there is, between BCDA and SMLI, a perfected contract a source of
rights and reciprocal obligations on the part of both parties. Consequently, a breach
thereof may give rise to a cause of action against the erring party.

SM Land, Inc. v. Bases Conversion and Development Authority, G.R. No. 203655,
September 7, 2015

________________________________________________________________________
2. section 2: the doctrine of incorporation Cases
- Renunciation of War: The Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy and adopts a policy of peace,
freedom, cooperation, and amity with other nations.

Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 188550,
August 19, 2013
Facts: Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch (DB Philippines) withheld 15% branch profit
remittance tax (BPRT) on its regular banking unit net income remitted to Deutsche
Bank Germany (DB Germany) for 2002 and prior taxable years. This amounted to
approximately PHP 68 million.

DB Philippines later believed that it made an overpayment of the withholding tax, and
filed an administrative claim for refund or issuance of its tax credit certificate
 amounting to approximately PHP 22.5 million. On the same date, DB Philippines
requested from the International Tax Affairs Division (ITAD) a confirmation of its
entitlement to the preferential tax rate of 10% under the Germany - Philippines
Income and Capital Tax Agreement (1983) (the Treaty). Alleging the inaction of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) on the administrative claim, DB Philippines then filed
a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).

The CTA Second Division rejected DB Philippines' claim for the refund, on the grounds
that the application for tax treaty relief was not filed with the ITAD prior to its
payment of the BPRT and actual remittance of its branch profits to DB Germany, or
prior to the availment of the preferential tax rate under the Treaty.
Issue: W/N the failure to strictly comply with the 15-day period stipulated in RMO No.
1-2000 will deprive persons or corporations of the benefit of a tax treaty.
Held: The Supreme Court held that DB Philippines was eligible for the benefits under
the Treaty and disagreed with the CTA in that non-compliance with RMO No. 1-2000
negated the availability of treaty benefits to a taxpayer.

Doctrine: The Philippine Constitution provides for the adherence to the general
principles of international law as the law of the land and treaties must be performed
by the parties involved in good faith.

Arigo v. Swie, G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014

Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Guevarra, G.R. No. 167052, March 11, 2015
Facts: The case involves Ayala Corporation and its subsidiaries engaged in various
businesses. The respondent, who served in different roles within Ayala Corporation
and its subsidiaries, was involved in a complex financial situation concerning the
settlement of debts owed by Ventura O. Ducat. Ducat proposed to settle his debts
with assets, including real estate in the U.S. The respondent conveyed this proposal to
the company's CEO, and after evaluation, a property-for-debt exchange was approved
without prior appraisal. An appraisal was later conducted, valuing the property higher
than initially thought.

Negotiations led to an Agreement among relevant parties. Ducat's debts were

reduced, a company owned by the subsidiaries bought the property, and a loan was
granted. However, the company faced difficulties selling the property, failed to pay the
promissory note, and refused to release Ducat's stock portfolio, alleging fraud
regarding the property's value.

Respondent demanded that petitioner pay the amount of US$49,450.00 awarded by

the U.S. District Court in its Order dated March 13, 1990. Given the continuous failure
and/or refusal of petitioner to comply with the said Order of the U.S. District Court,
respondent instituted an action for the enforcement of the same, to the RTC of
Makati City.

RTC ordered in favor of the respondent

CA also the decision of RTC in all respect against petitioner
Issue: W/N AIFL, and ATHONA had reasonable grounds to implead respondent as a
 counter-defendant in Civil Action No. H-86-440.
Held: Negative. The Court is unmoved by petitioner's allegations of denial of due
process because of its U.S. counsel's exorbitant fees and negligence. Moreover,
petitioner is bound by the negligence of its counsel.

The declarations of the Court in Gotesco Properties, Inc. v. Moral42 is applicable to

petitioner:
The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his counsel in
the realm of procedural technique.1âwphi1 The basis is the tenet that an act
performed by counsel within the scope of a "general or implied authority" is regarded
as an act of the client. While the application of this general rule certainly depends
upon the surrounding circumstances of a given case, there are exceptions recognized
by this Court: "(1) where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of
due process of law; (2) when its application will result in outright deprivation of the
client's liberty or property; or (3) where the interests of justice so require."

Republic of the Philippines v. Mupas, G.R. No. 181892, September 8, 2015

Facts: In 1994, Asia’s Emerging Dragon Corp. (AEDC) proposed to build the Ninoy
Aquino International Airport Passenger Terminal III (NAIA-IPT III) under a build-
operate-and-transfer arrangement. The government invited other proposals, and both
AEDC and Paircargo Consortium made offers to build NAIA-IPT III without government
cost and pay revenue shares. Paircargo offered P17.75 billion, while AEDC offered
P135 million for a 27-year period. The DOTC awarded the project to Paircargo
Consortium (PIATCO) when AEDC couldn't match Paircargo's bid.

In 2000, PIATCO engaged foreign corporations Takenaka and Asahikosan for

construction and services. Later, the government declared the PIATCO contracts
invalid. The court ruled the PIATCO contracts void, as Paircargo (PIATCO) didn't meet
minimum equity requirements.

In 2004, the government filed for expropriation of NAIA-IPT III, deposited P3.002
billion, and obtained possession. Disputes arose over just compensation. The RTC
appointed an independent appraiser, DG Jones and Partners, challenged by the
government. Alternative actions were explored to determine compensation. Different
valuations for NAIA-IPT III were presented: the government appraised it at $149.4
million, PIATCO claimed $905.9 million, and Takenaka and Asahikosan argued $360.97
million.

RTC: The RTC adopted the Government’s computed just compensation of

$149,448,037.00. The RTC rejected PIATCO, Takenaka, Asahikosan, and the BOC’s
computation for lack of factual and legal basis.

CA: the CA modified the RTC rulings and arrived at its own formula of the NAIA-IPT III’s
cost.
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in computing just compensation in the
expropriation of the NAIA-IPT III.
Held: this Court exercises its judicial function to fix just compensation in eminent
 domain cases on the basis of the law, the rules, and the evidence — including the
appraisal reports and the embedded formula on how the parties arrived at the
amounts of just compensation — presented by the parties before the trial court and
the entire record of the consolidated cases.

Doctriine: Eminent domain is a fundamental state power that is inseparable from

sovereignty. It is an inherent power and is not conferred by the Constitution. The 1987
Constitution embodies two constitutional safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of
eminent domain: first, private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation; and second, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law.

3. section 3: civilian supremacy over the military

- Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed
Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its
goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the
national territory.
I. relate to Art 7, sec 18
- Constitution allows the judicial review of the proclamation of martial law
or suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus, but limits the review
to the sufficiency of the factual basis behind it.

Case: Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 11, 2014

Facts: The increase of the country’s population at an uncontrollable pace led to the
executive and the legislative’s decision that prior measures were still not adequate.
Thus, Congress enacted R.A. No. 10354, otherwise known as the Responsible
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), to provide Filipinos,
especially the poor and the marginalized, access and information to the full range of
modern family planning methods, and to ensure that its objective to provide for the
peoples’ right to reproductive health be achieved. Stated differently, the RH Law is an
enhancement measure to fortify and make effective the current laws on
contraception, women’s health and population control.

Shortly after, challengers from various sectors of society moved to assail the
constitutionality of RH Law.

Petitioners question, among others, the constitutionality of the RH Law, claiming that
it violates Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution, prescribing the one subject-one
title rule. According to them, being one for reproductive health with responsible
parenthood, the assailed legislation violates the constitutional standards of due
process by concealing its true intent – to act as a population control measure. On the
other hand, respondents insist that the RH Law is not a birth or population control
measure, and that the concepts of “responsible parenthood” and “reproductive
health” are both interrelated as they are inseparable.
Issue: W/N RH Law violated the one subject-one title rule under the Constitution
Held: Negative. The Reproductive Health (RH) Law doesn't violate the one subject/one
bill rule. The court's interpretation of the rule is that it doesn't require precise
language in the title to encompass all the details of the law but demands that the
title's content informs readers of the law's general objective. The court adopts a
liberal construction of the rule to avoid hindering legislation.
 The RH Law's provisions on "reproductive health" and "responsible parenthood" are
interconnected and pertinent to the goal of population control. The law's declaration
of policy highlights the relationship between these terms and their role in achieving
"sustainable human development." The court believes that Congress didn't intend to
mislead the public about the law's contents, considering the close connection
between these concepts.

IBP vs Zamora, GR 141284

Facts: Invoking his powers as Commander-in-Chief under Sec 18, Art. VII of the
Constitution, President Estrada, in verbal directive, directed the AFP Chief of Staff and
PNP Chief to coordinate with each other for the proper deployment and campaign for
a temporary period only. The IBP questioned the validity of the deployment and
utilization of the Marines to assist the PNP in law enforcement.
Issue: 1. W/N the President's factual determination of the necessity of calling the
armed forces is subject to judicial review.
2. W/N the calling of AFP to assist the PNP in joint visibility patrols violate the
constitutional provisions on civilian supremacy over the military.
1. The power of judicial review is granted by the Constitution's Article VIII,
Section 1. This power allows courts to resolve actual disputes involving legally
enforceable rights and to determine if there's been a grave abuse of discretion
by any branch of the Government. Judicial review can be exercised when
specific conditions are met: (1) a valid case exists; (2) the party raising a
constitutional question has a personal interest; (3) the review request is
timely; and (4) the constitutional issue is the central matter in the case.

2. Deploying the Marines doesn't violate civilian supremacy. Using the Marines
for civilian law enforcement is legally acceptable and follows specific
guidelines. The Marines' involvement is limited to joint patrols, managed and
equipped by the appropriate authorities. This deployment doesn't establish
military authority as superior to civilian authority, and it doesn't change the
civilian nature of the police force. The deployment also doesn't constitute an
improper intrusion of the military into law enforcement, as prohibited by the
Constitution's Article XVI, Section 5(4).

4. section 4:
- The prime duty of the government is to safeguard the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippines, and
protect the people's welfare.
5. section 5:
- The maintenance of peace and order, protection of life,
liberty, and property, promotion of general welfare, and
ensuring equal access to opportunities for all are key
priorities of the state.
6. section 6:
-The separation of Church and State is guaranteed. The state shall
respect religious freedom and not establish any religion.

I. relate to art 3, Sec 5; art 9-c, sec 2(5); art 6, secs 5(2), 29(2)
B. state policies defined
1. sections 7 & 8: independent foreign policy and nuclear-free philippines
- Section 7: The state recognizes the vital role of the family as a
basic autonomous social institution and shall protect its
sanctity and strengthen its solidarity.
-
- Section 8: The state shall provide for the rights of workers
and promote their welfare and security, ensuring just and
humane conditions of work.

2. section 9: social order

- The state values the dignity of every individual and
guarantees full respect for human rights.
3. section 10
- The state shall promote a just and dynamic social order that
ensures the prosperity and independence of the nation, as
well as equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and
wealth among citizens.

I. promotion of social justice

- The Philippine Constitution emphasizes the promotion of
social justice as a fundamental principle. It aims to create a
society that provides equal opportunities and ensures
equitable distribution of wealth, resources, and benefits
among its citizens. This is achieved through various laws,
policies, and programs that address the needs of
marginalized and disadvantaged sectors, uplift the living
conditions of the poor, and reduce inequality.

II. definition of social justice

i. under the 1973 constitution
- the “promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption
by the Government of measures calculated to insure
economic stability of all the competent elements of society,
through the maintenance of a proper economic and social
equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the
community, constitutionally, through the adoption of
measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through
the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all
governments on the time-honored principles of salus populi
est suprema lex.”
ii. under the 1987 constitution
- “The State shall promote social justice in all phases of
national development. The State shall provide for the
protection of the consumer, the promotion of his general
welfare and the advancement of his right to healthful
environment, productive employment and a decent standard
of living. The State shall promote the right of the people to
 health, education, adequate food, and a balanced diet,
housing, and the benefits of rural development.”
Cases
Manila Water Company v. del Rosario, G.R. No. 188747, January 29, 2014
Facts: Manila Water essentially questions the award of separation pay to respondent
who was dismissed for stealing the company’s property which amounted to gross
misconduct. It argues that separation pay or financial assistance is not awarded to
employees guilty of gross misconduct or for cause reflecting on his moral character.

Del Rosario for his part maintains that there is no legal ground to justify his
termination from employment. He insists that his admission pertaining to his
involvement in the loss of the water meters was merely coerced by the company.
Since his dismissal was without valid or just cause, Del Rosario avers that Manila
Water is guilty of illegal dismissal rendering it liable for the payment of backwages and
separation pay.
Issue: W/N the award of separation pay is proper.
Held: Negative. the Supreme Court ruled against awarding separation pay to the
dismissed employee, Del Rosario. The Court cited his serious misconduct as the cause
for dismissal, particularly his responsibility for the loss of company water meters,
which violated company policy and undermined the partnership between him and the
employer. The Court referred to the recent Daabay v. Coca-Cola Bottlers case to
emphasize that separation pay is inappropriate for employees found guilty of stealing
company property. Generally, employees dismissed for just causes under Article 282
of the Labor Code are not entitled to separation pay. However, in exceptional cases,
separation pay may be granted for social justice or equitable reasons, provided the
dismissal was not due to serious misconduct and did not reflect on the employee's
moral character

Goodyear Philippines, Inc. v. Angus, G.R. No. 185449, November 12, 2014
Facts: The case involves a labor dispute between the petitioner, Goodyear Philippines,
Inc., and the respondent, Arthur Angus.

Arthur Angus was an employee of Goodyear Philippines, Inc. and held the position of
Plant Accounting Supervisor. He was found to have violated company rules and
regulations by falsifying attendance records and was subsequently dismissed from his
employment. Angus challenged his dismissal and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

The NLRC ruled in favor of Angus and ordered his reinstatement with back wages.
Goodyear Philippines, Inc.
CA affirmed the NLRC's ruling.
Issue: W/N respondent allowed to collect retirement benefits as well as severance
pay.
Held: Affirmative. the Court held that an employee is entitled to recover both
separation pay and retirement benefits in the absence of a specific prohibition in the
Retirement Plan or CBA. Concomitantly, the Court ruled that an employee’s right to
receive separation pay in addition to retirement benefits depends upon the provisions
of the company’s Retirement Plan and/or CBA.

Reyes v. Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc., G.R. No. 189255, June 17, 2015
 Facts: Reyes was hired as the administrator of the Eye Referral Center (ERC) of
Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc. He received his monthly salary until January
2005. However, from February 2005, his salary was withheld without notice. Reyes
continued to work and sent a letter about his unpaid salaries and 14th-month pay. No
response was received, and later, he was informed he was no longer the
Administrator and his office was closed.

Reyes claims he was wrongfully terminated. The employer contends that Reyes was
hired as a consultant for organizational matters, not an employee. He designated
himself as an administrator later. The employer had no control over his work hours or
methods. Their relationship deteriorated, and Reyes left voluntarily.

LA held that petitioner failed to establish that the elements of an employer-employee

relationship existed between him and respondents because he was unable to show
that he was, in fact, appointed as administrator of the ERC and received salaries as
such; he also failed to deny that during his stint with respondents, he was, at the
same time, a consultant of various government agencies
NLRC Reverse and set aside the Decision of LA
CA annulled and set aside the judgment of the NLRC and reinstated the Decision of
the LA.
Issue: W/N COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN RULING THAT
NO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP EXISTS BETWEEN RESPONDENTS AND
PETITIONER.
Held: Negative: The Court held that there is no employer-employee relationship
where the supposed employee is not subject to a set of rules and regulations
governing the performance of his duties under the agreement with the company and
is not require to report for work at any time, nor devote his time exclusively to
working for the company.

Centro Project Manpower Services Corporation v. Naluis, G.R. No. 160123, June
17, 2015
Facts: Centro Project Manpower Services Corporation recruited Naluis for work
abroad as a plumber in Northern Marianas under Pacific Micronesia Corporation. The
initial contract stated 12 months of employment, starting upon his arrival in Northern
Marianas. Later, an addendum changed it to start from his departure. Naluis left on
September 13, 1997, and his employment ended on June 3, 1998.

Naluis filed a complaint for illegal dismissal after not completing 12 months. The Labor
Arbiter ruled that repatriation wasn't dismissal but a result of local laws.

The NLRC found Centro Project was forced to terminate due to Naluis' limited stay as
per the Authorization for Entry (AE).

The CA reversed the NLRC decision, holding AE didn't limit his stay, finding Centro
Project in breach of contract for repatriating him. The CA directed Centro Project to
pay Naluis unpaid salary, overtime pay, placement fee, holiday pay, vacation leave,
and attorney's fees.
Issue: W/N the premature repatriation of Naluis by Centro Project Manpower Services
Corporation constitutes an illegal dismissal
Held: Affirmative. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, emphasizing that
 the AE did not affect Naluis' employment status. The Court ruled that Centro Project
breached the contract by repatriating him prematurely, and as a consequence,
directed the company to pay Naluis the amount for the unpaid portion of his contract,
guaranteed overtime pay, placement fee, legal holiday pay, vacation leave pay, and
attorney's fees.

Ilaw Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) Nestle Philippines Inc. Chapter (Ice Cream
and Chilled Products Division) v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 198675, September 23,
2015
Facts: The labor union alleged that Nestle Philippines, Inc. violated the law by
implementing wage increases, bonuses, and other benefits while CBA negotiations
were still ongoing. The labor union claimed that this act constituted unfair labor
practice and was in violation of the "no negotiation, no strike" policy.

On the other hand, Nestle Philippines, Inc. argued that the wage increases and
benefits were in line with its established practice and were intended to maintain
industrial peace. The company contended that the labor union's refusal to accept
these benefits was an act of bad faith and non-cooperation.

The NLRC ruled in favor of Nestle Philippines, Inc., finding that the company's actions
were not intended to undermine the CBA negotiations but rather to promote
industrial peace. The NLRC also noted that the labor union's refusal to accept the
benefits offered by the company was a failure to bargain in good faith.

The CA affirmed NLRC and held that the labor union failed to show any act of unfair
labor practice on the part of Nestle Philippines, Inc. and that the company's actions
were consistent with promoting industrial harmony.
Issue: W/N the management of Nestle Philippines, Inc. violated the law when it
unilaterally implemented a wage increase, bonus, and other benefits, despite the
ongoing CBA negotiations.
Held: Negative. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts' findings that Nestle
Philippines, Inc.'s actions in implementing wage increases, bonuses, and benefits
during the ongoing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiations were not
unfair labor practices.

The Supreme Court ruled that the company's actions were not intended to undermine
the CBA negotiations but were part of its effort to maintain industrial peace and
harmony. The court emphasized the importance of promoting good faith bargaining
and industrial peace between labor unions and employers.

4. section 11: personal dignity and human rights

- "The State values the dignity of every human person and
guarantees full respect for human rights."
5. section 12: the family
- "The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall
protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the
mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The
natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing
 of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of
moral character shall receive the support of the
Government."
6. section 13: vital role of the youth
- "The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall
protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the
mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The
natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing
of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of
moral character shall receive the support of the
Government."
Cases
Rosaldes v. People, G.R. No. 173988, October 8, 2014
Facts: Seven year old Michael Ryan Gonzales, then a Grade 1 pupil at Pughanan
Elementary School located in the Municipality of Lambunao, Iloilo, was hurriedly
entering his classroom when he accidentally bumped the knee of his teacher,
petitioner Felina Rosaldes, who was then asleep on a bamboo sofa. Roused from
sleep, petitioner asked Michael Ryan to apologize to her. When Michael did not obey
but instead proceeded to his seat, petitioner went to Michael and pinched him on his
thigh. Then, she held him up by his armpits and pushed him to the floor. As he fell,
Michael Ryan’s body hit a desk. As a result, he lost consciousness. Petitioner
proceeded to pick Michael Ryan up by his ears and repeatedly slammed him down on
the floor. Michael Ryan cried.

After the incident, petitioner proceeded to teach her class. During lunch break,
Michael Ryan, accompanied by two of his classmates, Louella Loredo and Jonalyn
Gonzales, went home crying and told his mother about the incident. His mother and
his aunt reported the incident to their Barangay Captain, Gonzalo Larroza who advised
them to have Michael Ryan examined by a doctor.

Crime charged: violation of Anti-Child Abuse Law (Section 10 (a) of R.A. 7610)
Issue: Whether or not the acts of petitioner constitute child abuse penalized under
Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610 (YES)
Held: The contention of the petitioner is utterly bereft of merit. She is guilty of child
abuse, a violation of R.A. 7610. Although the petitioner, as a schoolteacher, could duly
discipline Michael Ryan as her pupil, her infliction of the physical injuries on him was
unnecessary, violent and excessive. The boy even fainted from the violence suffered at
her hands. She could not justifiably claim that she acted only for the sake of
disciplining him. Her physical maltreatment of him was precisely prohibited by no less
than the Family Code, which has expressly banned the infliction of corporal
punishment by a school administrator, teacher or individual engaged in child care
exercising special parental authority (i.e., in loco parentis), viz:

People v. Ancajas, G.R. No. 199270, October 21, 2015

Facts: AAA, a 19-year-old household help, encountered appellants Vergel and Allain
on the evening of July 16, 1998, while heading to her parents' house. They attempted
to accompany her, but she refused. As she continued on her way, appellants
reappeared, held her hands, and covered her mouth with a handkerchief. Allain held
her down while Vergel punched her in the stomach, causing her to lose
 consciousness.

When AAA regained consciousness around 1 a.m. on July 17, 1998, she found herself
wearing only a t-shirt, and her lower garments were beside her. She experienced pain
all over her body, including her genital area. She went back to her employers' house
and reported that she had been raped by appellants.

AAA was taken to the police station and underwent a medical examination, which
revealed lacerations on her hymen and perineum, as well as the presence of
spermatozoa, indicating recent sexual intercourse.

Appellants denied the accusation, claiming they were elsewhere at the time of the
alleged rape. They presented alibis and witnesses to support their claims. Appellant
Allain's birth certificate was also presented to prove that he was only 17 years old
when the incident occurred.

RTC found the accused guilty of the charge and sentence to suffer Reclusion Perpetua.
CA affirmed the RTC decision.
Issue: W/N the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt appellants'
guilt for the crime of rape.
Held: Affirmative. The court finds that the prosecution has discharged its burden of
proving the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

Under Article 266-B, in relation to Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, simple rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua. However, when rape is
committed by 2 or more persons, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. The RTC
imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on both appellants notwithstanding that
appellant Allain was only 17 years old, a minor, at the time of the commission of the
crime on July 16, 1998. His birth certificate59 showed that he was born on December
19, 1980. The RTC did not consider such minority saying that the penalty imposed
upon the two accused is reclusion perpetua which is a single indivisible penalty; and
pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, the said penalty should be applied
and imposed regardless of the presence of the mitigating circumstance of minority.

7. section 14: equality of women and men

- The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building,
and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of
women and men.
Cases
Dabalos v. Regional Trial Court, G.R. No. 193960, January 7, 2013
Facts: The petitioner was charged with violating Section 5(a) of RA 9262 (Anti-
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act) for allegedly using personal violence
on his former girlfriend, as stated in the Information. The incident involved the
petitioner pulling the complainant's hair, punching her back, shoulder, and left eye.
The complainant admitted that their relationship had ended before the incident. She
confronted the petitioner about spreading rumors, which led to an altercation where
she slapped him and he retaliated with physical violence.

The petitioner filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause with
Motion to Quash the Information, claiming that they were no longer in a dating
 relationship at the time of the incident, making RA 9262 inapplicable.
Issue: W/N the petitioner's actions fell under the scope of RA 9262, given that they
were no longer in a dating relationship when the incident occurred.
Held: the court rejected the petitioner's argument. The court referred to Sec. 3(a) of
RA 9262, which defines "violence against women and their children" and specifies the
conditions for an act to be considered a crime of violence under the law. The court
emphasized that the law covers acts committed against women with whom the
offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, regardless of whether the violence
is a direct consequence of that relationship. It upheld the RTC's ruling that as long as
there is sufficient evidence showing a past or present sexual or dating relationship
between the offender and the victim when the violence was committed, the act falls
under the scope of RA 9262.

The court also emphasized that the legislative intent behind RA 9262 is to impose a
more severe penalty on offenders whose violent acts physically harm women with
whom they have or had a sexual or dating relationship, and/or their children.

Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013

Facts: Rosalie Jaype-Garcia (private respondent) filed a verified petition for a
Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her husband, Jesus C. Garcia (petitioner),
under R.A. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act) due to
physical abuse, emotional, psychological, and economic violence, and threats.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a TPO, later modified and renewed, to ensure
her safety and that of her children. Private respondent filed another application for a
TPO due to continued harassment and lack of financial support from petitioner.

Petitioner, meanwhile, filed a petition before the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging
the constitutionality of R.A. 9262 and the validity of the TPOs issued in the civil case.
The CA issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the enforcement of the
TPOs but later dismissed the petition, citing failure to raise the constitutional issue
before the trial court and considering the challenge to R.A. 9262 as a collateral attack.

The court dismissed petitioner's arguments, emphasizing that the trial court has
jurisdiction to address constitutional issues in the civil case. Moreover, challenging the
validity of R.A. 9262 through a petition for prohibition and seeking to annul the
protection orders issued by the trial court was deemed a collateral attack on the law.
Issue:
Held:

8. section 15: right to health

I. relate to art 3, sec 13
9. section 16: right to balanced and healthful ecology Cases: Oposa vs Factoran, GR
101083
LLDA vs CA, GR 110120
Tano vs Socarates, GR 110249
10. section 17: priority to educa>on, science, technology, arts, culture and sports
11. section 18: labor
12. section 19: self-reliance
13. section 20: role of private sector
 14. section 21: comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform
15. section 22: indigenous cultural community
16. section 23: community-based private organiza>on (Art 13)
17. section 24: communica>on and informa>on (Art 16)
18. section 25: autonomy of local government
Case: Belgica v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013
19. section 26: equal access of opportuni>es for public service Case: Pamatong vs
COMELEC, GR 161872
20. section 27 & 28: honesty and integrity in public service (Art. 11) Case: Chavez vs
PEA, GR 133250
_______________________________________________________________________
III. The Legisla>ve Department (Art VI)
A. The Legisla>ve Power
1. defini>on
2. where vested
i. excep>ons
1. ini>a>ve
2. referendum
Case: Garcia vs COMELEC, GR 111230
3. non-delegability
i. excep>on: permissible delega>on
1. delega>on to the power of the president
1. tariff powers
2. emergency powers
2. delega>on to the people
3. delega>on to local government
4. delega>on to administra>ve bodies
a. test of delega>on
i. completeness test
ii. sufficiency test
Cases: Commissioner of Customs v. Hypermix Feeds Corpora>on, G.R. No.
179579, February 1, 2012
Bureau of Customs Employees Associa>on v. Teves, G.R. No. 181704, December 6, 2011
Garcia v. Drilon, G. R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013
Belgica v. Execu>ve Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013 Vivas v. The
Monetary Board, G.R. No. 191424, August 7, 2013 Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819,
April 11, 2014
Robosa v. NLRC - G.R. No. 176085, February 8, 2012
Monetary Board v. Philippine Veterans Bank, G.R. No. 189571, January 21, 2015 Sps.
Sinamban v. China Banking Corpora>on, G.R. 193890, March 11, 2015
Go v. Bureau of Immigra>on and Deporta>on, G.R. No. 191810, June 22, 2015
Department of Health v. Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Inc., G.R. No. 202943,
March 25, 2015
Cawad v. Abad, G.R. No. 207145, July 28, 2015
Securi>es and Exchange Commission v. Universal Righmield Property Holding, Inc., G.R.
No. 181381, July 20, 2015
Lexber, Inc. v. Dalman, G.R. No. 183587, April 20, 2015
San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders and Developers Group, Inc. v. Bayang, G.R. No. 194702, April
20, 2015
Besaga v. Sps. Acosta, G.R. No. 194061, April 20, 2015
Clark Investors and Locators Associa>on v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 200670, July 6,
2015
Carolino v. Senga, G.R. No. 189649, April 20, 2015
Assis>o v. People, G.R. No. 200465, April 20, 2015
United Overseas Bank of the Philippines v. The Board of Commissioners- HLURB, No.
182133, June 23, 2015
Con>nental Micronesia, Inc. v. Basso, G.R. No. 178382-83, September 23, 2015 Securi>es
and Exchange Commission v. Laigo, G.R. No. No. 188639, September 2, 2015
Unduran v. Aberasturi, G.R. No. 181284, October 20 2015
Smart Communica>ons, Inc. v Solidum, G.R. No. 197763, December 7, 2015 Pilipinas
Total Gas v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G. R. No. 207112, December 8, 2015

B. Congress
a. composi>on

C. The Senate
1. composi>on
2. qualifica>ons of a senator
Cases: Jalosjos v. Commission on Elec>ons, G.R. No. 193314, June 25, 2013
Jalover v. de la Pena, G.R. No. 209286, September 23, 2014
Caballero v. Commission on Elec>ons, G.R. No. 209835, September 22, 2015
3. term and tenure of office

D. The House of Representa>ves a. composi>on

i. district representa>ves ii. party-list representa>ves (RA 7941) Cases: Coali>on
of Associa>ons of Senior Ci>zens in the Philippines v. Commission on
Elec>ons, G.R. Nos. 206844-45, July 23, 2013
Coali>on of Associa>ons of Senior Ci>zens in the Philippines v. Commission on Elec>ons,
G.R. Nos. 206844-45, July 23, 2013
COCOFED v. Commission on Elec>ons, G.R. No. 207026, August 6, 2013 Alliance for
Na>onalism and Democracy (ANAD) v. Commission on Elec>ons, G.R. No. 206987,
September 10, 2013
Abang Lingkod Party-List v. Commission on Elec>ons, G.R. No. 206952, October 22, 2013
Lico v. Commission on Elec>ons, G.R. No. 205505, September 29, 2015 b.
appor>onment
i. gerrymandering
Cases: Tobias vs Abalos, GR L-114783
Mariano vs COMELEC, GR 118577
Montejo vs COMELEC, GR 179271

c. qualifica>ons
i. ci>zenship ii. age iii. residence
Case: Jalover v. de la Pena, G.R. No. 209286, September 23, 2014

d. terms of office
Case: Naval v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207851, July 8, 2014

E. Common Provisions for both Chambers

1. elec>on and filling vacancies
i. regular
 ii. special
Cases: Codilla vs De Venecia, GR 150605
Tolen>no vs COMELEC, GR 148334
2. salaries
Case: Phiconsa vs. Mathay, 18 SCRA 300 (1966) Ligot vs. Mathay, 56 SCRA 823 (1974)
3. privileges
i. immunity from arrest
ii. privilege of speech
Cases: Pp vs Jalosjos, Feb.3, 2000 Jimenez vs Cabangbang, GR L-15905
Antonio vs Valencia, GR L- 26526
4. disqualifica>on and other prohibi>ons
i. incompa>ble office
ii. forbidden office
Case: Puyat vs De guzman (1982)
Adaza vs Pacana, Jr. 135 SCRA 431 (1985)
5. sessions
i. regular ii. special iii. joint
6. recess/adjournment
7. officers
8. quorum
9. rules of proceedings

i. discipline of members Cases

Avelino vs Cuenco, GR L-2821
San>ago vs Guingona, GR 134577 Arroyo et al., vs De Venecia, GR 127255 Osmena vs
Pendatun (1960)
Paredes vs Sandiganbayan, GR118364

F. Legisla>ve Journal and other Congressional Records a. record and books of account
i. records and books of account
ii. legisla>ve journal
1. entries
2. enrolled bill theory
3. journal entry vs enrolled bill
Cases
US vs Pons (1916)
Casco vs Gimenez, 7 SCRA 347, (1963) Astorga vs Villegas, 56 SCRA 714 iii.
congressional records

G. Electoral Tribunal
a. composi>on
b. power: iden>ty separate from congress
Cases Tanada v. Commission on Elec>ons, G.R. Nos. 207199-200, October 22, 2013
Lico v. Commission on Elec>ons, G.R. No. 205505, September 29, 2015
Abbas vs. SET, 166 SCRA 651 (1988)
Sampayan vs Daza, 213 SCRA 807 (1992)
Bondoc vs Pineda, 201 SCRA 792 (1991)
Pena vs. HRET, G.R. No. 123037, March 21, 1997 Guerrero v. Comelec, G.R. No. 137004
(July 26, 2000) Codilla v. De Venecia, G.R. 150605, December 10, 2002
H. Commission on Appointments
1. composi>on
2. powers: iden>ty separate from congress Cases
Daza vs Singson (1989)
Coseteng vs Mitra 187 SCRA 377 Guingona Jr vs Gonzales, GR 106971 Cunanan v. Tan, 5
SCRA 1 (1962)
of Congress

I. Powers
a. general legisla>ve powers
i. limita>ons 1. substan>ve
a. express
b. implied 2. procedural
a. >tle of law: One subject, one >tle
Cases
Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Si>o Masigasig, Inc. v. Military Shrine Services, G.R. No.
187587, June 5, 2013
Securi>es and Exchange Commission v. Laigo, G.R. No. No. 188639, September 2, 2015
Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board, 151 SCRA 208
Lidasan vs. Comelec, 21 SCRA 479 (1967)
Demetria vs. Alba, 148 SCRA 208 (1987)
Guingona vs. Caraque, 196 SCRA 221 (1991)
Tolen>no vs. Sec. of Finance, G.R. 115455, Aug. 25, 1994
Philconsa vs. Enriquez, G.R. 113105, August 19, 1994
Abakada Guro v. Ermita, G.R. No. 168207, October 18, 2005
Lung Center v. Q. C., G.R. No. 144104. June 29, 2004
Tan v. Del Rosario, 237 SCRA 324 (2000)
Garcia v. Execu>ve Secretary, 211 SCRA 219 (1992)
John Hay PAC v. Lim, G.R. No. 119775, October 24, 2003
2. schedule of readings
3. legisla>ve process
i. requirements 1. riders
2. house of origin
ii. procedure
1. bicameral conference commi^ee

iii. approval of bills

1. signed by the president
2. vetoed by the president, congress overrides veto
3. failure to act 30 days aeer transmi^al
Cases
Tolen>no v. Secretary of Finance, supra
Philconsa v. Enriquez, supra
Gonzales vs Macaraig. G.R. No. 87636, Nov. 19, 1990 Bengzon vs Drilon, 208 SCRA 133
(1992)
INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)
Bowsher v. Synar, 476 U.S. 714 (1986)
Miller vs. Mardo, 2 SCRA 898 (1961)

d. power of appropria>on
i. defini>on
Cases
Belgica v. Execu>ve Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013
Technical Educa>on and Skills Development Authority v. The Commission on Audit, G.R.
No. 196418, February 10, 2015
Jacomille v. Abaya, G.R. No. 212381, April 22, 2015
Daraga Press, Inc. v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 201042, June 16, 2015
Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014

ii. classifica>on
1. general appropria>on la
2. special appropria>on laws
3. limita>ons
Cases
Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014
Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, February 3, 2015
Goh v. Bayron and COMELEC, G.R. No. 212584, November 25, 2014

e. power of taxa>on
i. policy
ii. limita>ons
1. special fund
Cases
Swedish Match Philippines, Inc. v. The Treasurer of the City of Manila, G.R. No. 181277,
July 3, 2013
Mactan-Cebu Interna>onal Airport Authority v. City of Lapu-Lapu, G.R. No. 181756, June
15, 2015

f. power of legisla>ve inves>ga>on

i. limita>ons
Cases
Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006
Sabio, v. Gordon, et al. - G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006
Armault vs. Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29 (1950)
Armault vs., Balagtas, 97 Phil. 358 (1955)
Bengzon vs. Sen. Blue Rib. Comm., 203 SCRA 767 (1991)

g. ques>on hour
h. war powers
i. power to act as board of canvassers in elec>on of president
Cases
Pimentel v. Joint Com., G.R. No. 163783. June 22, 2004
Brillantes v. Comelec, G.R. No. 163193. June 15, 2004
j. power to call a special elec>on for president and vice president
k. power to judge president’s physical fitness to discharge the func>ons of the
presidency
l. power to revoke or extend suspension of privilege of writ of habeas corpus or
declara>on of mar>al law
m. power to concur in presiden>al amnes>es
 n. power to concur in trea>es and interna>onal agreements Case Pimentel v. Execu>ve
Secretary, G.R. No. 158988, July 6, 2005 o. power of impeachment Cases:
Francisco v. House of Rep., G.R. No. 160261, Nov.10, 2003
Nixon v. U.S., 113 S. CT. 733 (1933)
p. power rela>ve to small scale u>liza>on of natural resources
q. power to propose amendments to the cons>tu>on

J. Other Cons>tu>onal Provisions

a. ban on increasing the appellate jurisdic>on of supreme court

b. ban on royal >tles

VI. The Execu>ve Department

1. The President
1. qualifica>ons
2. execu>ve immunity Cases
Beltran vs. Macasiar, G.R. 82585, November 14, 1998
Gloria v. CA, G.R. No. 119903, August 15, 2000
Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001
Nixon v. Fitgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982)
Harlow v. Fitgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)
Clinton v. Jones, 117 S. Ct. 1636 (1997)
3. official residence
2. The Vice-President
a. qualifica>ons
b. vacancy

3. Common Provisions to both Offices

a. term/elec>ons/canvassing procedure
b. prohibi>ons/inhibi>ons
Case: Espiritu v. del Rosario, G.R. No. 204964, October 15, 2014
CLU vs. Exec. Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (1991)
Cruz v. COA, G.R. No. 138489, Nov. 29, 2001 NAC v. COA. G.R. 156982, September 8,
2004 c. rules on succession
i.temporary and permanent vacancy
ii.beginning of term
iii.during the term
Case: Estrada v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001

4. Powers of the Presidency

a. execu>ve power Cases:
Republic of the Philippines v. Bayao, G.R. No. 179492, June 5, 2013
Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon Strait, e.g., Toothed
Whales, Dolphins, Porpoises, and other Cetacean Species, Joined in and Represented
herein by Human Beings v. Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015
Laurel vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 92013, July 25, 1990
Marcos vs. Manglapus, 178 SCRA 760 (1989)
DENR v. DENR Empl., G.R. No. 149725, August 19, 2003 b. power of appointment
i. special limita>ons
 1. appointment of family members and rela>ves
2. appointment made by ac>ng president
3. appointment two months immediately before the next presiden>al
elec>ons and up to the end of the term
Cases
Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 203372, June 16, 2015
The Provincial Government of Aurora v. Marco, G.R. No. 202331, April 22, 2015
Bermudez v. Torres, G.R. No. 131429, August 4, 1999

5. The Military Powers

1. commander-in-chief
2. suspension of writ of habeas corpus
3. mar>al law
Case: Yusay v. Segui, G.R. No. 193652, August 5, 2014 IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284,
August 15, 2000 Sanlakas v. Exec. Sec., G.R. No. 159085. Feb. 3, 2004 Aquino v. Enrile, 59
SCRA 183 (1974)
Olaquer vs. MC No. 4, 150 SCRA 144 (1987)
Navales v. Abaya, G.R. No. 162318, October 25, 2004 Lansang vs. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448
(1971)
In Re De Villa, G.R. No. 158802, November 17, 2004 David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171390,
May 3, 2006

6. The Pardoning Power

a. execu>ve clemency in general
Cases
i. pardon ii. commuta>on iii. parole iv. amnesty
Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015 Maruhom v. People, G.R. No.
206513, October 20, 2015

7. The Borrowing Power Cases

Constan>no v. Cuisia, G.R. No. 106064, October 13, 2005

8. The Diploma>c Power

a. treaty vs execu>ve agreement Cases
People's Movement vs. Manglapus, September 13, 1988
Comm. of Customs vs. Easter Sea, 3 SCRA 351 (1961)

9. Budgetary Power

10. The Informing Power

a. state of the na>on

11. Other powers

a. call congress to a special session

b. power to approve or veto bills
c. consent to depu>es of government personnel by COMELEC
d. discipline such depu>es
e. emergency powers and tariff powers as delegated by congress
f. general supervision over local governments and autonomous regional governments
Cases:

Espiritu v. del Rosario, G.R. No. 204964, October 15, 2014

Abad v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 207422, March 18, 2015

V. The Judicial Department (Art VIII)

1. judicial power
Case: Daabay v. Coca-Cola Bo^lers Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 199890, August 19, 2013
Miranda v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 133064, September 16, 1999

2. fiscal autonomy
Cases
In The Ma^er of Save the Supreme Court Judicial Independence and Fiscal Autonomy
Movement v. Aboli>on of Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) And Reduc>on of Fiscal
Autonomy, UDK-15143, January 21, 2015
Mari>me Industry Authority v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 185812, January 13, 2015
Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, February 3, 2015

3. The Supreme Court

a. composi>on
b. cons>tu>onal challenge of trea>es and laws
Cases
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corpora>on, G.R. No. 187485,
October 8, 2013
Mirallosa v. Carmel Development, Inc., G.R. No. 194538, November 27, 2013

Belgica v. Execu>ve Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013

SameerOverseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014
Go v. Bureau of Immigra>on, G.R. No. 191810, June 22, 2015
Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, February 3, 2015
Film Development Council of the Philippines v. Colon Heritage Realty Corpora>on, G.R.
No. 203754, June 16, 2015
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Puregold Duty Free, Inc., G.R. No. 202789, June 22,
2015 Central Bank Employees Associa>on v. Bangko Sentral, G.R. No. 148208, December
15, 2004 Luz Farms v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 86889, December 4, 1990

c. en banc/division cases Cases

Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways v. Sps. Tecson, G.R. No.
179334, April 21, 2015
SM Land, Inc. v. Bases Conversion and Development Authority, G.R. No. 203655,
September 7, 2015

4. powers
1. Poli>cal Ques>ons
Cases
Vinuya v. Execu>ve Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, August 13, 2014
In The Ma^er of Save the Supreme Court Judicial Independence and Fiscal Autonomy
Movement v. Aboli>on of Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) And Reduc>on of Fiscal
Autonomy, UDK-15143, January 21, 2015
 2. Temporary assignment of judges
3. order change of venue
4. rule-making power
Cases
Re: Le^er dated April 18, 2011 of Chief Public A^orney Persida Rueda-Costa Reques>ng
Exemp>on from the Payment of Sheriff’s Expenses, A.M. 11-10-03-0, July 30, 2013
Republic v. Uy, G.R. No. 198010, August 12, 2013
Yusay v. Segui, G.R. No. 193652, August 5, 2014
Bureau of Customs v. Devanadera, G.R. No. 193253, September 8, 2015 Carpio-Morales
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 217126-27, November 10, 2015 5. power of administra>ve
supervision Cases:
Request for Guidance/Clarifica>on on Sec>on 7, Rule III of Republic Act No. 10154
Requiring Re>ring Government Employees to Secure a Clearance of
Pendency/Nonpendency of Case/s from the Civil Service Commission, A.M. No. 13-09-
08-SC, October 1,
2013
Mamiscal v. Clerk of Court, A.M. No. SCC-13-18-J, July 1, 2015
6. qualifica>ons
7. judicial and bar council
Cases
Jardeleza v. Sereno, G.R. No. 213181, August 19, 2014
Villanueva v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 211833, April 7, 2015 Gonzales v. Serrano.
G.R. No. 175433, March 11, 2015
Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549 (1987)
Concepcion-Bau>sta vs. Salonga, 172 SCRA 160 (1989)
Calderon vs. Carale, G.R. No. 91636, April 23, 1992
Manalo v. Sistoza, G.R. 107369, August 11, 1999
Soriano v. Lista, G.R. No. 153881, March 24, 2003
8. power of appointment
9. salary
Case: Nitafan vs. CIR, 152 SCRA 284 (1987)
10. tenure
Cases
Que v. Revilla, A.C. No.7054, November 11, 2014
Re: Le^er of Court of Appeals Jus>ce Vicente S.E. Veloso for En>tlement to Longevity Pay
for His Services as Commission Member III of the Na>onal Labor Rela>ons Commission,
A.M. No. 12-8-07-CA, June 16, 2015
Zoleta v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 185244, July 29, 2015
Re: Decision dated 17 March 2011 in Criminal Case No. SB-2836 en>tled People of the
Philippines v. Joselito C. Barrozo, A.C. No. 10207, July 21, 2015
11. prohibited designa>on
12. consulta>on/decisions (>me frame)
Cases
Re: Complaint dated January 28, 2014 of Wenefredo Parreno, OCA IPI No. 14-220-CA-J,
March 17, 2015
Office of the Court Administrator v. Re>red Judge Filemon A. Tandinco, A.M.. No. MTJ10-
1760
Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 188550,
August 19, 2013
Republic v. Cortez, G.R. No. 197472, September 7, 2015
Ola v. People, G.R. No. 195547, December 2, 2015
Valladolid vs. Inciong, 121 SCRA 205 (1992)
Nunal vs. COA, 169 SCRA 356 (1989)
People v. Bugarin, 273 SCRA 384 (1996)
Hernandez v. Court of Appeals, 228 SCRA 429 (1993) Yao v. CA, G.R. No. 132428, October
24, 2000
Dizon v. Judge Lopez, A.M. 96-1338, September 5, 1997
Asiavest v. CA, G.R. No. 110263, July 20, 2001
13. annual report
14. cons>tu>onal safeguards to insure dependence of judiciary

VIII. Cons>tu>onal Commission (Art IX) A. common provision

a. composi>on
b. aspects of independence
c. disqualifica>on/independence
Case: Funa v. The Chairman, Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 191672, November 25,
2014
d. decisions
Case: City Government of Maka> v. Odena, G.R. No. 191661, August 13, 2013

B. the civil service commission

a. composi>on and term of office
b. objec>ves/func>ons
c. scope of civil service
d. classes of service
i. career ii. non-career
e. appointments in civil service i. qualifica>ons
1. excep>ons
a. policy-determining
b. primarily confiden>al
c. highly technical
Cases
Buena v. Benito, G.R. No. 181760, October 14, 2014
Abad v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 207422, March 18, 2015
Seneres v. Sabido, G.R. No. 172902, October 21, 2015
The Provincial Government of Camarines Norte v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 185740, July 23,
2013

iii. disqualifica>on/inhibi>ons

Cases
Posadas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000, July 17, 2013

iv. rights and security of tenure

Cases
Pat-og v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 198755, June 5, 2013
Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corpora>on v. Marquez, G.R. No. 191877,
June 18, 2013
Dimapilis-Baldoz v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 199114, July 16, 2013
The Provincial Government of Camarines Norte v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 185740, July 23,
2013
CAAP Employees’ Union v. CAAP, G.R. No. 190120, November 11, 2014 Davao City Water
District v. Aranjuez, G. R. No. 194192, June 16, 2015 Ca>pon v. Japson, G.R. No. 191787,
June 22, 2015
CAAP Employees’ Union v. CAAP, G.R. No. 190120, November 11, 2014 Seneres v.
Sabido, G.R. No. 172902, October 21, 2015

v. right to self-organiza>on
Cases
Davao City Water District v. Aranjuez, G.R. No. 194192, June 16, 2015 vi.
protec>on to temporary employees

vii. standardiza>on of compensa>on

viii. double compensa>on
Cases
Ocampo v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 188716, June 10, 2013
Na>onal Transmission Corpora>on v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 204800,
October 14, 2014
Na>onal Transmission Commission v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 204800,
October 14, 2014
Mari>me Industry Authority v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 185812, January
13, 2015 ix. oath of allegiance

C. the commission on elec>ons

a. composi>on and qualifica>ons of members
b. powers
i. general powers
1. nature
2. power to annul
3. power to call special elec>on ii. exclusive original jurisdic>on
1. limita>ons iii. exclusive appellate jurisdic>on
1. power to issue writs of cer>orari, mandamus and prohibi>on
2. execu>on pending appeal iv. adjudicatory func>on
v. registra>on of par>es
vi. exclusive and sole preroga>ve to prosecute viola>ons of elec>on laws
vii. recommendatory powers
c. decision-making procedure
i. decision of elec>on contests
Cases
Garcia v. Commission on Elec>ons, G.R. No. 216691, July 21, 2015
Villarosa v. Fes>n and Commission on Elec>ons, G.R. No. 212953, August 5, 2014
Legaspi v. Commission on Elec>ons, G. R. No. 216572, September 1, 2015 De Jesus vs.
People, 120 SCRA 760 (1983)
People vs. Judge In>ng, 187 SCRA 788 (1990)
Baytan v. Comelec, G.R. No. 153945, February 4, 2003 ii. decision of
administra>ve ques>ons Cases
Romeo Jalosjos v. The Commission on Elec>ons, G.R. No. 205033, June 18, 2013
Querubin v. Commission on Elec>ons, G.R. No. 218787, December 8, 2015 Guevarra v.
Comelec, 104 Phil 269 (1968)
Jaramilla v. Comelec, G.R. No. 155717, October 23, 2003 d. elec>on
i. period
Case: Aquino v. Commission on Elec>ons, G.R. No. 211789-90, March 17, 2015 iii.
failure of elec>on iv. funding
D. the commission on audit
1. composi>on and term
2. powers and func>ons
i. general audit
ii. post audit
iii. special audit
Cases
Ocampo v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 188716, June 10, 2013
Dimapilis-Baldoz v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 199114, July 16, 2013
Re: Applica>on for Survivorship Benefits, A.M. No. 14155-Ret., November 19, 2013
Mari>me Industry Authority v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 185812, January 13, 2015
Technical Educa>on and Skills Development Authority v. The Commission on Audit, G.R.
No. 196418, February 10, 2015
The Law Firm of Laguesma, etc. v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 185544, January 13,
2015
Daraga Press, Inc. v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 201042, June 16, 2015
Silang v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 213189, September 8, 2015
Almadovar v. Chairperson Ma. Gracia M. Pulido-Tan, Commission on Audit, G.R. 213330,
November 16, 2015
DBP v. COA, 231 SCRA 202, (1994)
Sambeli vs. Province of Isabela, 210 SCRA 80 (1992)
Albert v. COA, G.R. No. No. 126537, March 6, 2001
Bustamante v. COA, 216 SCRA 164 (1992)
DBP v. COA, G.R. No. 88435, January 16, 2002
3. report

IX. Local Government (Art. X)

1. general
1. territorial and poli>cal subdivisions/local autonomy
2. local government code
3. power of the president: general supervision
4. powers/rights of local government units
i. power to create own source of revenues
ii. share in na>onal taxes
iii. share in natural resources iv. local groupings
5. term of office of elec>ve officials
6. sectoral representa>on
7. crea>ons, aboli>on, mergers of LGUs
8. special metropolitan poli>cal subdivisions
9. classifica>on of ci>es
10. regional development councils
2. autonomous regions
1. two autonomous regions: muslim Mindanao and cordilleras
2. powers of the president
3. powers not given to autonomous regions
4. enactment of organic act/crea>on of autonomous region
 5. powers granted by organic act
6. peace and order/na>onal defense

Cases
Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011
Boracay Founda>on, Inc. v. The Province of Aklan, G.R. No. 196870, June 26, 2012 Social
Jus>ce Society v. A>enza, G.R. No. 156052, February 13, 2008
Rimando v. Naguilian Emission Tes>ng Center, G.R. No. 198860, July 23, 2012
Heirs of Dr. Jose De!este v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G. R. No. 169913, 8 June 2011
Jamar M. Kulayan, et al. vs. Gov. Abdusakur M. Tan etc., et al., G.R. No. 187298, July 3,
2012 Vicencio v. Villar, G.R. No. 182069, July 3, 2012
Ambil v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 175457, July 6, 2011
New Sun Valley Homeowners’ Associa>on, Inc. v. Sangguniang Barangay, Barangay Sun
Valley, G.R. No. 156686, July 27, 2011
Republic of the Philippines v. City of Paranaque, G.R. No. 191109, July 18, 2012
COMELEC v. Cruz, G.R. No. 186616, November 20, 2009
Abundo v. Commission on Elec>ons, G.R. No. 201716, January 8, 2013
Navarro v. Ermita, G.R. No. 180050, April 12, 2011
The Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines
Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008
Ruzol v. Sandiganbayan, G. R. Nos. 186739-960, April 17, 2013
Valcurza v. Tamparong, G.R. No. 189874, September 4, 2013
Ferrer v. Bau>sta, G.R. No. 210551, June 30, 2015
Demaala v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 199752, February 17, 2015
Film Development Council of the Philippines v. Colon Heritage Realty Corpora>on, G.R.
No. 203754, June 16, 2015
Batangas City v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Philippines, G.R. No. 187631, July 8, 2015
Naval v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207851, July 8, 2014
Aquino v. Municipality of Malay, Aklan, G.R. No. 211356, September 29, 2014

X. Accountability of public officers (Art XI)

1. Nature of public office
2. impeachable officers
3. ini>a>on of impeachment/impeachment rules
a. where vested: House of Representa>ves
b. requisites/limita>ons
Case: Gonzales v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 196231, September 4, 2012
4. the Sandiganbayan
5. the ombudsman/officials and employees
1. the ombudsman and the tanodbayan
2. qualifica>ons
Case
Gonzales v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 196231, September 4, 2012
Gonzales v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 196231, January 28, 2014, Resolu>on on
Mo>on for Reconsidera>on; see Concurring and Dissen>ng Opinion of J. Leonen. PCGG v.
Ombudsman, G.R. No. 206357, November 12, 2014
3. appointment and rank
4. term of office
5. powers
Cases
Ampil v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 192685, July 31, 2013
Busuego v. Office of the Ombudsman Mindanao, G.R. No. 196842, October 9, 2013
People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 185729-32, June 26, 2013
Orais v. Almirante, G.R. No. 181195, June 10, 2013
Office of the Ombudsman v. de Chavez, G.R. No. 172206, July 3, 2013
Dagan v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 184083, November 19, 2013
People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188165, December 11, 2013
Ombudsman v. de los Reyes, G.R. No. 208976, October 13, 2014
Bueno v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 191712, September 17, 2014
Office of the Ombudsman v. Valencerina, G.R. No. 178343, July 14, 2014 14
Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 217126-27, November 10, 2015 Bueno v.
Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 191712, September 17, 2014 Ciron v. Gu>errez, G.R.
No. 194339-41, April 20, 2015
Gonzales v. Serrano. G.R. No. 175433, March 11, 2015
Aguinaldo v. Ventus, G.R. No. 176033, March 11, 2015
Office of the Ombudsman v. Valencerina, G.R. No. 178343, July 14, 2014 Office of the
Ombudsman v. Castro, G.R. No. 172637, April 22, 2015 Carpio-Morales v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 217126-27, November 10, 2015 Ledesma v. CA, G.R. 161629, July 29.
2005
Ombudsman v. Madriaga, G.R. No. 164316, September 27, 2006
6. recovery of ill-go^en wealth
7. prohibi>ons and obliga>ons

XI. Na>onal Economy and Patrimony (Art XII)

1. the na>onal economy: goals
Case: Bureau of Fisheries v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 169815, August 13,
2008
2. development of natural resources
1. regalian doctrine
Cases
Republic of the Philippines v. Imperial Credit Corpora>on, G.R. No. 173088, June 25,
2008
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources v. Yap, G.R. No.
167707, October 8, 2008
Republic v. Munoz, G.R. No. 151910, October 15, 2007
Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179987, April 29, 2009
Republic of the Philippines v. Hanover Worldwide Trading Corpora>on, G.R. No. 172102,
July 2, 2010
Republic of the Philippines v. Roche, G.R. No. 175846, July 6, 2010
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources v. Yap, G.R. Nos.
167707 and 173775, October 8, 2008, 568 SCRA 164, 192
Republic v. de la Paz, G.R. No. 171631, November 15, 2010
Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N. Proper>es, G.R. No. 154953, June 26, 2008 Republic
v. Ching, G.R. No. 186166, October 20, 2010
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 150824, February 4,
2008
Mercado v. Valley Mountain Mines Explora>on, Inc., G.R. No. 141019, November 23,
2011
Valiao v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170757, November 28, 2011
Aranda v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 172331, August 24, 2011
Republic v. Sps. Benigno, G.R. No. 205492, March 11, 2015
Republic v. Lualha>, G.R. No. 183511, March 25, 2015
Republic of the Philippines v. Dayaoen, G.R. No. 200773, July 8, 2015
Republic v. Cortez, G.R. No. 197472, September 7, 2015
2. limits imposed on jura regalia
3. filipiniza>on of natural resources
4. aliena>on of natural resources
5. u>liza>on of natural resources
3. land of the public domain
a. classifica>on
b. disposi>on and exploita>on of agricultural lands of public domain
c. right of corpora>on to acquire land
d. acquisi>on by private individuals
4. forest lands and na>onal parks a. safeguards
5. rights of indigenous cultural communi>es a. ancestral lands
6. social character of property
a. free private enterprise
7. capacity to acquire private lands a. condi>on
8. former Filipinos
1. private lands
Cases
Borromeo v. Descallar, G.R. No. 159310, February 24, 2009
Ho v. Gui, G.R. No. 130115, July 16, 2008
Muller v. Muller, 500 SCRA 65
Hulst v. PR Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 156364, September 25, 2008
Republic of the Philippines v. Register of Deeds of Roxas City, G.R. No. 158230, July 16,
2008
Espina v. Zamora, G.R. No. 143855, September 21, 2010
2. aliens and private lands
cases: Ramirez vs Vda. de Ramirez, 1982
Republic vs CA, GR 108998
3. recovery of invalidly sold private land
Case: Halili vs CA GR 113539
Frenzel vs Ca>to, GR 143958
4. right of former filipinos

9. economic planning agency

a. role of NEDA
10. Filipiniza>on of investments
a. foreign investments
Case: GArcis vs Board of Investment, GR 92024 b. na>onalism
Case: Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS, GR 122156 Tanada vs Angara, GR 118295
11. franchises
1. public u>li>es
2. limita>ons cases
Albano vs Reyes, 1989
Tatad vs Garcia, GR 114222
Assoc. Communica>on vs NTC, GR 144109 JG Summit Holding vs CA, GR 124293
12. preferen>al use of Filipino labor and materials; “The Filipino First” Policy
13. Trade Policy
 14. Prac>ce of Profession
15. Coopera>ves
16. Forma>on of corpora>ons
a. forma>on of private corpora>ons
Case: Na>onal Dev. Co. vs Phil Veterans Bank, GR 84132-33
17. emergency takeovers
Cases
Divinagracia v. Consolidated Broadcas>ng System, Inc., G.R. No. 162272, April 7, 2009
Republic of the Philippines v. City of Paranaque, G.R. No. 191109, July 18, 2012
Bank of Commerce v. Planters Development Bank, G.R. Nos. 154470-71, September 24,
2012
18. expropria>on of public u>li>es
1. telephone interconnec>ons
2. the NTC Interconnec>on Order Cases
Republic vs PLDT, 1969
PLDT vs NTC and Cellcom Inc., GR 88404 Agan vs PIATCO, GR 155001
19. monopolies
20. central monetary authority
a. the Central Bank of the Philippines

21. foreign loans

a. restric>ons on contrac>ng of foreign loans

22. circumven>ons

XII. General Provisions (Art XVI)

1. the Philippine flag
2. na>onal anthem and seal
3. state immunity from suit without its consent
4. the armed forces
5. oath of affirma>on of armed forces
6. the na>onal police Cases:
Quilona vs The general court mar>al, GR 9660 Carpio vs Exec. Secretary, GR 96409
7. war veterans
8. re>rees
9. consumer protec>on
10. communica>on structure
11. ownership of mass media and adver>sing agencies
Case: Chang Ik Jin v. Choi Sung Bong, G.R. No. 166358, September 8, 2010
12. indigenous cultural communi>es
XIII. Amendments and Revisions (Art XVII)
1. amendments or revision
2. amendment by ini>a>ve
a. requirements for people’s ini>a>ve C. cons>tu>onal conven>on
1. amendment, revision
2. proposal of amendments
D. ra>fica>on
Cases
Gonzales vs. Comelec, 21 SCRA 774 (1968)
San>ago vs. Comelec, G.R. 127325, March 19, 1997 Lambino v. Comelec, G.R. No.
174153, October 25, 2006 Tolen>no vs. Comelec, 41 SCRA 702 (1971)
Del Rosario vs COMELEC, 36 SCRA 367(1970)
Imbong vs COmelec (1970)
Planas vs Comelec (1973)
Mitra vs Comelec,April 4, 1981