Constitutional Law I (Political Law) - Case Summary/Digest

CONSTI I 1st Sem AY 2014-2015: Catapusan, Kevin C.
Ref.
Case Title
Art. I Sec.I
Facts
Doctrine
Pacta sunt servanda. UNCLOS (multi-lateral treaty) codifies
the worlds oceans and submarine areas, recognizing coastal
and archipelagic authority over a limited span of waters and
submarines along their coasts. Not depart to any depreciable
extent from the general configuration of the archipelago.
Territorial waters 12, contiguous zones 24, exclusive ecozone
200.
Magallona v. CA
RA 9522 on adjusting the countries archipelagic

baselines.
RA is a statutory tool to demarcate the countrys maritime

zones and constitutional shelf under UNLCOS III, not delineate
Philippine territory. UNCLOS is the only way to draw baseline.
Regime of islandscontested islands outside our configuration
Right of innocent passage is customary international law.
Sovereignty over internal waters is not lost. Legislation may be
passed to designate routes. Becomes archipelagic sea lanes
passage.
RA passed to avoid future disputes.
Art. II
Art. II of Constitution is non-self-executing.
2
Tondo Medical v. CA
Health Sector Reform Agenda of DOH passed.

EO redirecting the functions and operation of
DOH passed.
BCDA v. COA
BCDA compensation benefit equivalent to BSP.
President may, by EO or AO, direct reorganization of

government entities under Executive Department. Admin
Code: restructure internal; transfer any function; transfer any
agency. Simplicity, economy and efficiency.
BODs are not salaried officials. Full time consultants are not
paid full basic salary. Giving YEB to them violates RA 7227
on BCDA stating that they are only given per diem. Further,
YEB applies to salaried individuals.
Denial of YEB does not violate constitution. Art. II is non-selfexecuting.
Approval of FVR does not cure the defect. Not required to
refund because in good faith.
1

Ref.
Case Title
Art. II Sec. I
Facts
Doctrine
Constituent v. ministrant; government; functions; incorporated.
Bacani v. NACOCO
Court stenographers ordered to refund the

payment made to them as ordered by the auditor
general on the ground that NACOCO is not a
government entity.
Constituentorder, legal relations, contracts, punishments,

justice
Ministrantpublic works, education, charity, health, trade;
what private not naturally do; government is better equipped.
NACOCO was made subject to the provisions of Corporation
Law. Not a municipal corporation. Should pay stenographers.
Government; functions; unincorporated
ACCFA v. CUGCO
Union strike because of failure to meet the

CBA.
PVTA v. CIR
PVTA does not recognize the overtime in 8Hr

Labor Law because of its governmental
functions.
Republic v. Judge of CFI of Rizal
Rice and Corn Administration, governmental

agency, did not post appeal bond.
ACA was made under Agricultural Reform Code stating that

ACA is not going to be a profit making institution. Falls under
the constituent function of the government.
Prohibition against strike in government should be followed.
Strike cannot be granted.
8Hr Labor Law provides that it applies to both public and
private persons employed.
Though doing mercantile activity, only incident to primary
government function. Hence, still a government agency and
exempt from paying legal fees. No doubt as to solvency of
government.
GOCC
Special laws cannot be passed to create private corporations.
However, GOCCs are allowed.
VFP v. Reyes
Ramiscal v. SB
Dept. of National Defense intends to audit VFP

and Veterans Bank.
AFP makes unilateral and bilateral deeds of sale
VFP is public corporation. Created by RA. Adjunct of

government. Executive functions only to implement RA
creating it.
DND Circular to audit is valid.
GOCC
2

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
for its Retirement Benefit System.
Doctrine
AFP-RSBS is a GOCC. SB has jurisdiction.
Can be charged under Anti-Graft Law and RPC.
10
11
Alzaga v. SB
Petitioners wanted to absolve themselves of the

crime for unilateral and bilateral sales because
they are not managers (certain salary grade).
Javier v. SB
Member of National Book Development Board

is charged with malversation.
Ramiscal defends that he is doing a ministerial function of

signing. But then, he had full knowledge of the crime.
GOCC
SB has jurisdiction since AFP-RSBS is GOCC. Also, being VP
and AVP is more than being mangers.
GOCC
Though not receiving compensation, she is considered to have
public office by the perusal of powers in RA creating NBDB.
SB has jurisdiction.
Can be charged under Anti-Graft Law and RPC. No double
jeopardy:
Instrumentalities
12
MIAA v. CA
MIAA seeks real property tax exemption.
MIAA not a GOCC but instrumentality of National

Government. GOCC is organized as stock or non-stock
corporation. MIAA has no stocks divided into shares, no
stockholders or voting shares, no members. It is a public utility.
MIAA is a mere trusty of the republic.
Charging of fess does not determine the character of property
whether it is of public dominion or not. Outside of commerce
are those for public use.
MIAA not taxable.
Instrumentalities
13
BSP v. COA
COA resolution to conduct an annual audit of

BSP.
BSP Charter shows that it is a public corporation. Created for a

public interest or purpose.
Public corporations are governed by law which creates it.
3

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Art. XII Sec. 16 ban on creation of private corporations by
special law does not preclude creation of public corporation.
COA has jurisdiction.
Quasi-public corporation
14
Phil. Society v. COA
Phil. Society for Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals claims that they cannot be audited by
COA.
Textual foundation of charter shows that it was incorporated in

1905. It was a private juridical entity then. No government
representative sits in BOTrustees. Registered and covered by
SSS.
It is a quasi-public corporation, a species of private
corporations. Private corporations that render public service.
State universities
15
Serana v. SB
Serena, UP Board of Regents, squandered the

budget for renovation of building.
PD has a catch all phrase in relation to office hence SB has

jurisdiction. Serana regarded as public office since she had the
corporate powers of UP.
Though estafa is not particularly enumerated in the PD, the rule
applies: when there is ambiguity, such interpretation, as will
avoid inconvenience and absurdity, be adopted.
De jure and de facto government; government de facto
16
Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh
A pending case was not entertained by CFI

judge because Aquino government did not
effect for the transfer of jurisdiction of cases.
Philippines had a de facto government of the second kind

(military occupation).
MacArthurs decree is to be interpreted as: judicial acts and
proceedings of the courts are valid as long as not of political
complexion. Principle of postliminy.
Further, no substantial change in organization of the courts.
Government; revolution
17
Letter of Assoc. J. Puno
Assoc. J. Punos ranking was changed during

the Aquino administration after the martial law
period.
18
Republic v. SB
Ramas house was raided by Philippine
President Aquino was still exercising her powers of

revolutionary government encompassing both executive and
legislative powers. Courts did not question or correct the
exercise.
De jure and de facto government; rights during interregnum
4

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Constabulary. Done with illegal search warrant.
Doctrine
Constitution was not operative during interregnum.
Revolutionary government was bound by International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
Warrant is illegal. Items confiscated not in warrant. Raiding
team exceeded its authority.
Sovereignty
19
People v. Gozo
Invoking that she should be exempted from

securing a permit for construction/erection of a
building because she is located in US Naval
Reservation.
Philippines has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases. US

has preferential but not exclusive jurisdiction. Philippines has
authority over its entire domain. It decrees are supreme,
commands are paramount.
Autolimitation concept applies. Jurisdiction may be
diminished but not disappear.
Art. II Sec. 2
Adoption of international law and doctrine of incorporation as
applied to treaties and agreements.
Nationalistic portions of the constitution are not self-executing
hence it should not be read in isolation.
Taada v. Angara
GATT-WTO Agreement was concurred by the

Senate but the Final Act, Ministerial
Declarations and Decisions, and the
Understanding on Commitments were not
included in the document concurred.
WTO clauses do not contradict the constitution. Only against

unfair trade practices. In fact, certain provisions are favorable
to the developing countries.
Did not envision a hermit type isolation of the country from the
rest of the world.
By doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by GAP of
international law.
A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally
binding obligation to make its legislations such modifications
as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations
undertaken.
5

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
When Philippines joined UN, it consented to restrict its
sovereignty under the concept of autolimitation.
Does not limit the power of Congress or SC since the
sovereignty is still there.
Non concurrence in the Final Act, Ministerial Declarations and
Decisions does not invalidate since it is not the treaty itself.
Adopted without need for ratification.
Understanding on Commitments does not apply to Philippines.
Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. There should be grave
abuse of discretion.
Sec. 25 Art. XVIII (expiration of agreement of military bases)
and Sec. 21 Art. VII (concurred by 2/3 of all members of
Senate).
The use of comma and the disjunctive word or clearly
signifies disassociation.
Bayan v. Zamora
VFA approved by 2/3 votes of Senate.
Allowed only if (under special law Sec. 25 Art. XVIII):

Treaty
Duly concurred by the Senate (or also with national
referendum if required by Congress)
Recognized by the other party as a treaty (signified
through letter of US Ambassador Hubbard)
Not relevant if US sees it as an executive agreement only. In
international law, no difference between treaties and
executive agreements in their binding effect upon states
concerned. They are equally binding among nations.
Entering into treaties are generally executive functions.
President involving the VFA (his ratification and entering into
a treaty) are within the sphere of his constitutional powers. No
6

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
grave abuse shown.
International agreements may be in the form of treaties or
executive agreements. Treaties take precedence because it has
the authority of the president, the senate and the people.
Executive agreements are given obligatory effect even without
the concurrence of the senate.
Bayan v. Romulo
RP-US no surrender agreement.
Jurisdiction of ICC is complementary only. ICC respects the

municipal laws of the state.
Philippines is not a state party of Rome Statute. Signatory only.
Only to refrain from going against the purpose/objective of the
international agreement.
Customary international law or international custom is a source
of international law: (1) general and consistent practice of
states (2) sense of legal obligation.
Deutsche Bank v. CIR
Deutsche is seeking for a TTRA.
Pacta sunt servanda. Tax treaty should be followed. Tax treaty

does not provide for any period to be complied with in order to
qualify. Hence, the statute created to require such period should
be void. it denies the availment of the tax relief. Impairs the
value of tax treaty.
Equal standing of international and municipal law.
Activities in VFA is deliberately made general in order to
give leeway to both parties. Hence, Balikatan is legitimate.
Lim v. Exec. Secretary
Balikatan exercise lodged under VFA.
Not engage in combat except in self-defense.

Neither MDT nor VFA allow foreign troops to engage in an
offensive war on the Philippine Territory.
7

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Doctrine of incorporation. International law as part of the law
of the land is given an equal standing, not primacy.
Municipal law requires that it should not have been
appropriated. No area/country specified. Hence, Developers
cannot register.
Shangri-La v. Developers
Shangri-La sues Developers for using the same

logo and S mark.
Both entities are not qualified to register.

Municipal law is in effect. Intellectual Property Code of Paris
Convention does not apply yet because it took effect at a later
date. Though no provision on retroactivity, the IPC has no time
limit.
Philip Morris v. FTC
PM sues FTC for use of logo.
Mijares v. Ranada
Claim damages awarded by US courts during

the Marcos regime.

Recognition of foreign judgments.
Philippines is not a party of the foreign judgment treaty but it is
a general principle in international law to which the
Philippines should adhere.
Final judgment in the US courts is not conclusive. It can still be
rebutted by the Marcos.
Soft law.
Pharmaceutical v. DOH
Milk code was enacted in consonance with soft

law (ICMB). RIRR was issued by ODH, alleged
to contravene Milk Code.
Milk Code (municipal law) should prevail over the ICMB.

ICMB was made into law through transformation (as opposed
to incorporation for treaties).
Art. II Sec. 3
Civilian supremacy.
10
IBP v. Zamora
Calling of marines to Metro Manila to prevent

violent crimes.
Power involved may be no more than the maintenance of peace

and order and promotion of general welfare. Not limited to
8

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
time of emergency.
No evidence to show no justification for calling out the armed
forces.
Deployment of marines to assist the PNP and not unmake the
civilian character of the police force. Mutual support and
cooperation between the military and civilian authorities.
Art. II Sec. 5
Maintenance of peace and order. Mere guidelines.
11
Kilosbayan v. Morato
Art. II Sec. 7
Lim v. Exec. Secretary
Art. II Sec. 8
Bayan v. Zamora
Art. II Sec. 11
Invalidating the lease contract between PCSO

and PGMC. A new equipment lease agreement
was made.
Petitioners are speculative.

ELA is a lease contract absent the badges of a lease agreement.
No need for public bidding since it is only a lease.
See # 5
Independent Foreign Policy.
See #2
Freedom from nuclear weapons.

Unborn.
Ancient religion did not bar abortion. Women had broader
rights.
12
Roe v. Wade
Jane Roe wants to get an abortion even if her

life is not in danger (Texas).
Right to privacy, is broad enough to encompass a womans

decisions to terminate pregnancy. However, not absolute.
Prior to compelling point, mother and physician may decide to
abort.
Unborn.
13
14
Imbong v. Ochoa
Meyer v. Nebraska
RH Law
Teaching of foreign language is prohibited for

children who have not passed the 8th grade.
Life begins at conception. Fertilization is the union of sperm

and egg. Abrotifacients killing a fertilized egg is unlawful.
Not violative of OSOT.
Rights and duties of parents. Aid from government.
Parents have the liberty to engage the children so to instruct the
9

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
children. Legislature had materially interfere.
Teaching another language is not injurious to the health,
morals, understanding of a child.
15
Pierce v. Society of Sisters
To send children (18-16) to public schools.

Oregon.
Unreasonably interferes with the liberty of the parents. This is

an arbitrary, unreasonable and unlawful interference. Parents
have the right to choose.
Society of Sisters were not unfit. The law destroys the business
of the Society of Sisters.
16
Wisconsin v. Yoder
Amish opposes the law that sends children to

secondary schools.
However strong the interest of the state is, no means absolute to

the exclusion or subordination of all other interest.
Encroaches to the free exercise of the religious belief.
Religious clause properly buttressed. This is covered by the
Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Obscenity is not within the area of protected speech or press.
17
Ginsberg v. New York
Girlie magazines were sold to a 16 year old boy.

This is prohibited by law.
Parental control guidance cannot always be provided and

societys transcendent interest in protecting the welfare of
children.
Harmful in the statute is not vague. It only prohibits those
sales made knowingly. Exempted are those who did it on
honest mistake and made a bona fide attempt to ascertain the
age of the minor.
18
Orceo v. COMELEC
Air soft guns ban during election. It is included

in the definition of firearms.
The regulation (through subordinate legislation) is germane to

the objective and purposes of the law on gun ban.
A previous regulation on airsoft guns was already passed
through PNP Circular.
10

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Courts excluded replicas and imitations form the term
firearm because not subject to any regulation.
As a long time player, it is presumed that he has a license to
possess. As a lawyer, he should be aware that the license to
possess is not absolute.
Art. II Sec. 13
BSP v. COA
Art. II Sec. 14
See #13
Vital role of the youth.

Role of women and equality of men and women.
19
Garcia v. Drilon
Husband abuses wife. RA 9262 protects the

interest of the wife.
Women and children was the intent to be protected by the RA

as seen in the deliberation. There is an unequal power, gender
biased relationship. Their abuse is supported by statistics.
Art. II Sec. 16
Inter-generational justice and responsibility.
Concerns nothing less than self-preservation and selfperpetuation.
20
Oposa v. Factoran
Stopping the issuance of timberland agreements

since it jeopardizes the future generations.
EO and Administrative Code recognizes environmental right of

the present and future generations.
TLAs can be withdrawn. It yields to the interest of the state.
Contract impairment does not stand since the interest of the
state should always be protected.
Water pollution.
21
LLDA v. CA
Dumping of garbage in Tala Estate done by the

Caloocan government is opposed by LLDA.
LLDA has jurisdiction. mandated to protect and accelerate the

development and balanced growth of Laguna Lake.
Though authority granting LLDA the power to order cease and
desist to Caloocan, jurisprudence abound.
Art. II Sec. 18
Labor protection.
22
PNB v. Dan Padao
Padao is a credit investigator who committed

gross and habitual negligence of duties.
PNB acted within bounds of the law by meting out the penalty
of dismissal. Proven that he has committed gross and habitual
11

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
negligence of duties. PNB, as an employer, may freely select
and discharge employees. It has the authority to impose what
penalty applies.
Padao cannot invoke that he was following the orders of
superior. One cannot evade the liability or culpability based on
obedience to the corporate chain of command.
Art. II Sec. 19
Independent policy.
23
Garcia v. BOI
Transfer if BRC/LPC to Batangas from Bataan.
Nothing is shown to support the transfer from Bataan to

Batangas.
BOI committed grave abuse of discretion in approving the
transfer. Final choice should be on the BOI in order to allocate
the resources of the country.
Taada v. Angara
Art. II Sec. 21
See #1
The provision on 40% limit is for the recognition of the
sensitive and vital position of public utilities both in the
national economy and sector.
24
Gamboa v. Teves
Controlling interest in PLDT share vilates the

40% constitutional limit to foreign owners.
Self-reliant and effectively controlled by Filipinos. Selfexecuting provision in the constitution.

The controlling interest should be the measurement, not
whether it is a percentage of the total outstanding shares
(voting and nonvoting).
The term capital stock refers only to share that can vote in the
election of directors.
Art. II Sec. 25
Local autonomy.
25
Navarro v. Ermita
Dinagat Island is made into a province.
Dinagat Island, though violates the 2000km continuous land

area requirement, was made into a province because the IRR of
the LGC provides that when a province is composed of two or
more islands, the 2000km requirement may not be followed.
12

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Logical to infer that the genuine legislative policy decision was
expressed to exempt municipalities and cities. Exemption on
provinces was inadvertently omitted.
BCC intention is to promote development in the previously
underdeveloped and uninhabited land areas. Congress merely
breathed flesh and blood in the exemption made in IRR.
IRR was followed.
Art. II Sec. 26
Equal access to political opportunities for public office is a
privilege subject to limitations. The provision is not selfexecuting.
26
Pamatong v. COMELEC
Navarro v. Ermita
Art. II. Sec. 27
Pamatong is a nuisance candidate.
See #25
Davide amendment: Ensure equal access to to mean that

government would not be mandated to create as many offices
as possible.
COMELEC had valid limitations. Limitations apply to
everybody equally without discrimination. Compelling interest
to ensure that its electoral exercise is rational, objective and
orderly.
Equal access to political opportunities and political dynasties.
Honesty and integrity in public service.
27
Dimapilis-Baldoz v. COA
Labrador was dismissed for bribery in 1997 but

has been continuing her work in POEA while
receiving salary. Dimapilis-Baldoz ordered to
pay the salaries made to Labrador.
Removal from office is immediate. This should have been done

in 1997.
Dimapilis-Baldoz is not at fault because SB only informed her
in 2004. None is indicated in the 201 file of Labrador.
1 Art. II Sec. 28
Full public disclosure.
28
Neri v. Senate
Neri of NEDA is invoking executive privilege

in answering (ZTE NBN Project):
President followed up?
Dictated to prioritize ZTE?
President gave a go ahead?
Sec. 21 Art. VI in aid of legislation

Sec. 22 Art. VI oversight power of Congress
Oversight functions of Congress for compulsory process only
to the extent that it is performed in pursuit of legislation.
13

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Cannot compel the appearance of executive officials under Sec.
22.
The questions are covered by executive privilege.
Two kinds of executive privilege:
Presidential communications privilege
communications, documents, or other materials that
reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations
that the president believes should be confidential
(president)
Applies even to post decisional materials.
Covered are those with operational proximity to the
decision-making of the president.
Deliberative process privilegeadvisory opinions,
recommendations and deliberations comprising part of
a process by which governmental decisions and
policies are formulated (executive officials)
Executive has a right to withhold documents that might reveal
military or state secrets. Highly revered in foreign relations.
Elements of presidential communications privilege:
1. Relate to quintessential and non-delegable presidential
power (executive agreements without concurrence of
senate)
2. Operational proximity (petitioner was a close advisor
of the president)
3. Show adequate need of withholding information (no
crime/wrongdoing)
Claim of privilege properly invoked:
Formal claim of privilege
Precise and certain reason for preserving the
confidentiality
Congress must not require the executive to reveal confidential
information. Respect co-equal departments.
14

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Grave abuse of senate. Capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment. Inquiry did not follow the published procedure.
Constitutional guarantee is not a prohibition of all searches and
seizures but only of unreasonable searches and seizures.
29
Pollo v. Constantino-David
Pollos computer was replicated despite his

opposition. He invoked his right against search
and seizure and communication and
correspondence.
Two fold requirement of existence of privacy:

1. Actual (subjective) expectation of privacy
2. Expectation that society is willing to recognize it
Special needs authorize warrantless searches involving public
employees for work-related reasons. This is a legitimate
intrusion into the privacy of employees in the government
workplace.
Though the complaint came from an anonymous letter and the
same should not be admitted, it is considered that CSC itself
was the one who initiated the complaint. Hence, valid.
30
PSB v. Impeachment Court
PSB refuses to release information on the dollar

accounts of Corona.
There is absolute confidentiality on the FCDs. Can only be

divulged upon a written permission of the depositor.
Principle of separation of powers. Independence of each branch
of government.
31
In Re: Production of Court

Records
The SC is compelled to release the rollo, files,

and other documents involved in the Corona
trials.
Principle of comity. Voluntary observing inter-departmental

courtesy.
Right to information is not absolute. Prohibited to be released:
raffle of cases; actions taken by the Court; deliberations of
members.
This is a deliberative process privilege. Requisites:
Predecisional (before arriving to a decision)
Deliberative (candid discussion)
Art. VI Sec. 1
15

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Delegation to local governments and administrative bodies.
LGU.
Not the literal meaning of non-Christians. Means uncivilized
individuals.
Rubi v. Provincial Board of

Mindoro
A statute was made by the provincial governor

to create a reservation for non-Christian
individuals.
An exception to the non-delegability rule of legislative power

is sanctioned by time immemorial practice of permitting the
central legislative body to delegate legislative powers to the
local authorities since they are better qualified to judge the
necessities of their constituency.
Due process of law:
1. Law prescribed in harmony
2. Reasonable in operation
3. Enforced according to general methods
4. Applicable to all of a class
Administrative.
Antipolo Realty Corp. v. NHA
PITC v. Angeles
Antipolo Realty failed to improve its

subdivision. Yuzon, a buyer, suspended
payments. When the improvements were made,
Yuzon was asked to pay including the arrears
demandable. NHA rules that it is to be
condoned since fault of realty.
PITC issued an admin order on the balancing

program between RP and PROC. The law was
repealed. Importers application for importation
was refused to be processed by PITC for noncompliance before the law was repealed. It has
to settle the arrears first.
NHA has jurisdiction on unsound practice, refunds and specific

performance. Many administrative agencies exercise and
perform adjudicatory powers and functions through a limited
extent only. Dockets of our regular courts have become
crowded and clogged. Valid administrative tribunal.
The very definition of administrative agency includes quasijudicial powers. NHA was created through a PD. It has
exclusive jurisdiction to regulate real estates.
Payments are to be extended only, not condoned. Condonation
would be terse.
Administrative.
Balancing measure was lifted by the president. AO has no force
and effect.
PITC is a GOCC mandated to participate in all official trade
16

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
and economic decisions and adopt measures. PITC is DTIs
line agencies. PITC was not repealed bye EO. No indication in
the EO of removal of powers of PITC of its regulatory
functions.
Grant of quasi-legislative function is not unconstitutional.
Executive power is vested in the executive department who
delegates the exercise of such power among its designated
agencies.
AO not legally effective because not published.
Repealing power.
A rider is a provision which is alien to or not germane to the
subject or purpose of the bill in which it is incorporated.
Test of germaneness:
Particular
Unambiguous
Appropriate
Atitiw v. Zamora
CAR is assailing that 2000 GA is

unconstitutional because of decrease in budget
of CAR. It does not follow EO. Congress
effectively amends.
Deactivate means to render inactive or ineffective or to break

up while abolish means to annul, abrogate or destroy
completely.
No OE has established an autonomous region for CAR.
Petitioner to amend the budget should be raised in Congress.
Nothing could prevent the congress from amending or
repealing an EO when it decides to do so.
SEC v. Interport
SEC sued IRC for nondisclosure. IRC

purchased 100% of GHR and 67% of PRCI. CA
ruled that SEC cannot impose penalty since no
Creation of autonomous region effective when approved by

majority. People have voted against regional autonomy for
CAR.
Absence of IRR.
17

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
IRR of the Revised Securities Act.
Doctrine
Absence of any constitutional or statutory infirmity, provisions
are still legal and binding.
What is required to be disclosed in a fact of special
significancematerial that will change decision of a
reasonable person.
Though no IRR, the provisions in the law are sufficiently clear
and complete by themselves to allow SEC to run after civil,
criminal or administrative actions. SEC maintains jurisdiction.
Requisites of valid delegation. Test of delegability.
Letter of Instruction was issued in the exercise of police power.
In the reflector law, the legislative objective is public safety.
Salutary measure: to insure communal peace, safety, good
order and welfare.
Agustin v. Edu
Installation of EWD in conformance with

Vienna Convention.
Presumption of constitutionality must prevail absent some

factual foundation overthrowing a statute.
Edu v. Ericta: to avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there
must be a standard, which implies at the very least the
legislature itself determines the matters of principle and lays
down the fundamental policy.
What is delegated is authority non-legislative in character.
Philippine to follow pacta sunt servanda under Vienna
Convention.
Requisites of valid delegation. Assumption of jurisdiction in
labor dispute.
FTW v. Min. of Labor
Ministry of Labor is granted the authority to

issue permits on strike.
What is delegated is authority non-legislative in character.

Implementation could be delegated, not the
creation/amendment/repeal of laws passed by Congress.
Rigid application of non-delegation would be an obstacle to the
efforts of government.
18

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Delegation is the dynamo of the modern government.
Requisites of valid delegation. Automatic debt service.
Guingona v. Carague
Appropriation on automatic debt servicing.

Provision is a carryover of the Marcos
administration.
Protecting the credit standing of the country is primordial (than

education although stipulated in constitution to have the highest
budget).
No need for a law to be passed on debt servicing because
transitory provision of the 1987 constitution did not repeal the
statue in Marcos administration on debt servicing.
Parameters were set for the amount of disbursement made. No
undue delegation. There is a fix standard to be followed.
Requisites of valid delegation. Rule-making is not law making.
TIDCORP v. CSC
TIDCORP creates a new position but was

invalidated by CSC since it does not follow the
general law on IOS and PAL.
CSC is an administrative agency that possesses executive,

quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative powers. Though CSC is a
separate/untouchable body made by Congress, it still has its
limits.
Charter of TIDCORP should be followed (special law).
TIDCORP is only encouraged to conform with CSC memo.
Rules made by CSC should be in harmony with other laws.
Complete in itself. Details of implementation only.
10
Araneta v. Gatmaitan
Trawl fishing is banned. Trawl falls under net

prohibition.
EO of Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources is valid.

Under the supervision of the President.
Wisdom of Congress is to protect marine life (Fisheries Law).
It prohibited the use of fish nets.
Complete in itself. Monetary Board authority.
11
Marcos v. CA
Imelda Marcos did not report/register her

foreign accounts as required by the Central
Bank.
Saving clause is valid. Monetary Boards administrative power

includes administrative regulation (including penal). This is for
the effective discharge of the responsibilities. Law itself
provides for penalty in violation of administrative regulations.
Laws itself makes the violation
19

Ref.
Case Title
12
13
Gerochi v. DOE
SJS v. Dangerous Drug Board
Facts
ERC imposes a universal charge.
Mandatory drug testing to students/teachers,

senators, criminals.
Doctrine
Provides for penalty
Complete in itself. Imposition of universal charge.
EPIRA is complete in itself and there is a sufficient standard
(law and order, public interest, justice and equity, public
convenience and welfare, adequate and sufficient instruction).
Complete in itself. Drug testing.
Unconstitutionality for having infringed the constitutional
provision defining qualification for senators.
Citizenship (NBC)
Voter registration
Literacy (read and write)
Age (35)
Residency (2 years)
Right to enroll is not absolute. Allowed in schools for
students/teachers. Parens patriae.
No valid justification for mandatory drug testing for persons
accused of crimes. Violates persons right to privacy.
Complete in itself. LLDAs power.
14
15
Pacfic Steam v. LLDA
People v. Rosenthal
Jurisdiction of LLDA in imposing penalties.
Speculative shares sold in violation of law

created by the Insular Treasurer.
Though Pollution Adjudication Board is created, it did not

eliminate LLDA. It is a special agency granted to issue
orders/decisions for compliance. There is a penalty imposed in
PD being followed by LLDA.
Fixes a standard. Standard of public interest.
No undue delegation. Fix standard is public interest. Blue Sky
Law should be imposed.
Insular Treasurer had limited powers as to determining which
shares are speculative because it is subject to appeal.
Speculative shares is defined.
Fixes a standard. Discretion as to substantive contents.
16
Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA
POEA sets a standard contract.

Fix standard: fair and equitable employment practices among
20

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
OFWs.
Though ESL did not enter into a contract as specified by the
law on standard contract issued by POEA, ESL should have
done so. Provisions of the circular be deemed written into the
contract.
POEA has adjudicatory functions.
Administrative body: filling in the details. It has quasi-judicial
and quasi-legislative powers.
Fixes a standard. Establishment of educational requirements.
17
Tablarin v. Gutierrez
NMAT is required before admitted to medical

schools.
Board of medical education follows a standard on regulating

the medical education. Law states that it is to determine and
prescribe requirements for admission into a recognized college
of medicine.
Fix standard: standardization and regulation of medical
education.
NMAT requirement is a valid exercise of governmental power.
Fixes a standard. Promulgation of rules and regulations.
Fix standard: fair and equitable employment practices among
OFWs.
18
Conference v. POEA
POEA changed the death rates and workmens

compensation.
POEA has rule-making authority.

Classification is reasonable:
1. Substantial distinctions
2. Germane to purpose
3. Not be limited to existing conditions
4. Apply equally to members of the same class
Fixes a standard. Power of ERB to add amounts.
19
Osmea v. Orbos
OPSF creation of trust fund.
ERB is authorized to impose additional amounts to augment

the resources of the fund.
21

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Fix standard: promoting the oil and petroleum industry while
stabilizing the price.
Only those domestic reductions in petroleum are allowed by
law. Payment for forex is not allowed.
Fixes a standard. Power to create positions.
20
Viola v. Alunan
Creating positions for 1st, 2nd, 3rd VP and auditor

in LGU.
Explicitly allowed by by-laws of Liga. LGC allows it to

appoint/create position as it deems it necessary.
National association of LGU is also allowed to create
additional positions. Illogical for it to be disallowed when the
local associations of LGU are allowed.
Fixes a standard. Ascertainment of facts.
21
Abakada v. Ermita
12% VAT is imposed. The president is given

the authority to ascertain the facts. If complied
with, the law will be imposed.
1. Exceed the VAT/GDP 2 4/5%
2. Exceed Deficit//GDP 1 %
No amendment rule refers only to the procedure to be followed

by each house of Congress with regard to bills initiated in each
of the respective houses before the said bill is transmitted to the
other house for concurrence or amendment.
Members of the House for local needs while Senators for
national perspective.
Standby authority. Preliminary ascertainment of facts as basis
for enactment of legislation is not of itself a legislative function
but is simply ancillary to legislation.
Fixes a standard. Promotion of public health sufficient
guideline.
22
Beltran v. Sec. of Health
Commercial blood banks being shut.
23
Bayan v. Ermita
Calibrated preemptive response gives chilling

effect to rallyists.
National Blood Services Act granted to Secretary of Health is

complete (safeguard the people) and has a fix standard
(promotion of public health).
Fixes a standard. Issuance of permits for rally.
No undue delegation. Fix standard: using the clear and present
danger test.
Rallies are not absolutely banned. Only regulate the time, place
and manner of assembly. Content-neutral.
22

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
CPR is null and void. creates confusion.
Fixes a standard. System of rewards.
Attrition Act. No undue delegation. The President may not
decide alone on the target to be set. It is subject to the scrutiny
of the Dept. of Budget and Coordinating Commission.
24
Abakada v. Purisima
BOC and BIR are given incentives if they

exceed their targets.
Unconstitutional for having an oversight function of Congress

in terms of approving the IRR. This can be done by the Board
(executive). Separation of powers.
Congress is only up to scrutiny and investigation. It should not
have legislative supervision. In effect, if there is legislative
supervision (especially in passing the IRR), there is legislative
veto.
Filling in the details. Authority to reorganize.
25
Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas
CSC reorganization by combining three

departments into one.
There is no abolishment of office. There is only change in

organization in CSC. This is expressly granted by
Administrative Code.
No breach of security of tenure. They still hold the same
positions as Dir. IV. Not determined by place of work.
26
Chiongbian v. Orbos
Regrouping of cities in ARMM. Organic Act of

ARMM.
Power to merge lies with the president. Traditionally benn

lodged. President may reorganize National Government.
Fix standard: to promote simplicity, economy and efficiency.
This is an administrative function. Regrouping is only done in
paper. Does not affect legislative districts, constituencies, etc.
Filling in the details. Power to classify.
27
Rodrigo v. SB
DBM set the salary level which qualified the

petitioner to be under the jurisdiction of SB.
Needs no enactment of Congress to set the salary level public

officials. DBM was given the delegation to change/set the
salary level as necessary (through RA 6758).
23

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Fix standard: prescribed in the Benchmark Position Schedule.
DBM did not have the authority to set jurisdiction. Only
incidental effect.
28
Tondo Medical v. CA
See #2 (Art. II)
29
Malaria Employees v. Romulo
Petitioners affected by reorganization.
30
Anak v. Exec. Secretary
PCIP and NCIP were transferred under DAR.

President was the one who executed, not the
Congress.
31
Pichay v. Office of the Deputy

Exec. Secretary
Pichay, who has a case under SB, is being

investigated under IAD-ODESLA. IADODESLA is the product of reorganization of the
president.
LGC has also provided the salary grade level of a municipal

mayor.
President can reorganize National Government. Has power
over all executive departments. Not limited to the office of the
present only.
Filling in the details. Authority to reorganize. PCUP/NCIP.
present only.
Filling in the details. Authority to reorganize and appropriate
funds for this purpose.
present only.
Restructure internal organization
Transfer of function
Transfer of agency
If president proper (i.e., IAD), it can abolish, consolidate,
merge units.
If outside president proper, only transfer functions or agencies.
Not encroach upon the SB. Only fact-finding. Only
recommends. Not quasi-judicial.
Filling in the details. Collaboration of two committees.
32
Arroyo v. DOJ
COMELEC and DOJ to make a Joint

Committee and Fact Finding Committee.
COMELEC can act on election concern and ask the other

departments to quicken the investigation. (Art. IX-C Sec. 2)
24

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Not targeted to Arroyo alone. There are other election fraud
offenses.
No new office is created. Only collaboration. Hence, no need
for legislation. They have concurrent jurisdiction.
Undue delegation. Discretion in implementation.
33
People v. Vera
Probation law takes effect if there is a salary

made to a probationary officer.
34
US v. Barrias
Captain of a lighter was in violation of not using

mechanical engine in transporting a heavily
loaded boat.
35
US v. Panlilio
Use of quarantined carabaos in his farm.
Probation law is not in conflict with the pardoning power of the

president.
Unlawful delegation of legislative authority to the provincial
boards is unconstitutional and void.
No fix standard when to impose probation law.
Undue delegation. Delegated power to fix penalties.
Penalty for violation is a matter purely in the hands of the
legislature, not the Insular Collector of Customs.
Undue delegation. Delegated power to criminalize.
Nowhere does it make it a penal offense if persons do not
comply with the law of the Director of Agriculture.
Charged under penal code only.
Undue delegation. Delegation of power to declare what acts
constitutes a crime.
36
People v. Maceren
A statute made to ban electro-fishing though not

specified in the Fisheries Law.
MANR does not have the power to declare a criminal act not
provided in the law. More so, it exceeds the penalty imposed
by the statute. Law made is void.
Fisheries Law does not include electro-fishing.
Undue delegation. Power to fix term of imprisonment.
37
People v. Dacuycuy
Courts to decide the imprisonment term.
Penal provision of the RA grants the court to decide the

imprisonment term. No parameters set in the law.
There is undue delegation. Intrusion of power of legislative. A
25

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
fine is not transmutable to imprisonment term.
Undue delegation. Implementing rule void.
38
Cebu Oxygen v. Drilon
Credit of annual increase in CBA is voided by

the statute enacted by DOLE.
39
Ynot v. IAC
Violation of transferring carabaos/carabeef.
Roving commission on how to dispose the confiscated

carabao/carabeef as seen fit is invalid. No fix standard on how
to dispose.
40
Abakada v. Purisima
See #9 Art. II
See # 24 Art. VI
The law can be easily circumvented.

Undue delegation. WHO guidelines.
Undue delegation. Encroachment of judicial power.
Undue delegation. UCPB share distribution.
COCOFED v. Republic
COCOFED purchases UCPB shares to be

distributed to famers as private individuals.
41
IRR is void. IRR cannot add or detract the law implementing it.
The prohibition for crediting the annual increase in CBA is not
provided in the law.
Undue delegation. Disposition of confiscated property.
There was an operational problem of distribution of shares. It

led to reversal of priorities. Fix standard are absent as to how
and who. Ended in the hands of private individuals.
Public money should remain as public funds. It should not
transfer to private individuals. COA loses jurisdiction.
42
Tatad v. DOE
Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act was

fully implemented by the president using the
standard of depleting OPSF funds instead of
using lowering prices in oil and stability of
forex.
Executive Misapplication. OPSF Fund.

The president did not follow the standard set by Congress.
Hence, unconstitutional.
Mere directive. Requisite of valid administrative issuance.
No undue delegation.
Fix standard: horseracing industry.
43
Dagan v. PRC
Horses are to be tested for EIA.

No undue delegation to MJCI and PIRC. Only instructive in
character.
No need for publication. Internal only.
26

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Requisites of administrative issuance:
1. Authorized by legislative
2. Promulgated within the prescribe procedure
3. Within the scope
4. Reasonable
Art. VI Sec. 5
Characteristics of political parties to qualify under party-list
system.
44
45
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW v.

COMELEC
VFP v. COMELEC
Political parties are allowed to participate. To open up the

system. Only allowed if they follow statute:
Proportional representation
Marginalized and underrepresented
No jurisdiction
Intent is to give genuine powers.
Inclusion of several political parties is opposed.
Eight rules:
1. Marginalized and underrepresented
2. Follow stator policies
3. Religious sectors not allowed
4. Not disqualified under Sec. 6
5. Not adjunct of government
6. Nominees comply with laws
7. Nominees are marginalized/underrepresented
8. Contribute to legislation
Par. 2. Standards for apportioning seats for party-list
representatives. not mandatory to fill-in sits.
COMELEC granted seats to 28 parties who did

not reach the 2% requirement.
Four inviolable parameters:

1. 20% allocation
2. 2% threshold
3. Three seat limit
4. Proportional representation
20% composition is not mandatory.
2% threshold is precise and crystalline. Patterned after
Germany.
27

Ref.
Case Title
46
AKLAT v. COMELEC
Facts
Seeking for registration but not granted.
Doctrine
One additional seat formula does not use the simplified or
Niemeyer. Philippines has a unique formula.
Disqualified party-list.
COMELEC can change the deadline for filing. It can protract
but not countback (90 days before election).
AKLAT is not qualified because it is not what it purports to be.
It has not track record to speak of.
Reiterates Veterans.
47
Partido ng Manggagawa v.
COMELEC
Petitioners pray for additional seats to be

granted.
Buhay case does not apply. Pro hac vice only.

Vetarans computation applies.
Computation for party-list.
48
Citizens v. COMELEC
Petitioners pray for additional seats to be

granted.
Buhay case does not apply. Pro hac vice only.

Vetarans computation applies.
Disclosure of names.
49
Bantay v. COMELEC
COMELEC will only disclose the nominees of

parties on the date of election.
Infringes on the right to info and public disclosure. COMELEC

stretches the non-disclosure clause provided by law.
Knowing the nominees is a high public interest.
Participation in previous election.
50
Phil. Guardians v. COMELEC
Petitioners was disqualified for failing to garner

2% in 2001 and failing to participate in 2004.
The word or is disjunctive. COMELEC cannot mix the

provision on failure to get 2% and failure to participate. Each
ground should have been committed twice. In this case, not
evident.
Garnering 2% should be interpreted as being qualified to have a
seat.
51
BANAT v. COMELEC
New formula for additional seats.
Stare deicsis on Minero case does not warrant. It was an

erroneous ruling.
Mere ceiling.
28

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
20% representation is a mere ceiling.
2% requirement on additional seats is unconstitutional.
3 seat limit is valid in order to avoid over representation.
Major political parties are not allowed to participate however
sectoral wings may join.
Party-list and HRET.
52
Abayon v. COMELEC
Petitioners aver that they are not under the

jurisdiction of HRET.
HRET has jurisdiction over its members. Though they were

under a party-list, they are seated as a member and not as a
party-list.
Party list matters, HRET has no jurisdiction.
Disapproval of Ladlad due to moral issues.
Though LGBT is not enumerated in the list of marginalized and
underrepresented, the true test is compliance with requirements
of constitution and Party List Act.
53
Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC
Not allowed to register due to moral issues.
Use of religion as a basis for disqualification violates nonestablishment clause.

Laws of general application should be equally enforced to
LGBT.
Every group has the right to promote its agenda.
Jurisdiction of COMELEC over determination of party list
qualification.
54
55
Layug v. COMELEC
Magdalo v. COMELEC
Disqualify BUHAY and Brother Mike on

account of being an extension of El Shaddai.
Magdalo was denied application on account of

using violence and unlawful means to pursue
goals.
Jurisdiction on COMELEC not HRET.

HRET jurisdiction to members only.
In re: Art. IX C Sec. 2(5) and qualification as regional political
party.
Decision of COMELEC was based on facts of common
knowledge (public knowledge).
29

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Presumption of evidence is not violated since this is only
administrative. Preponderance of evidence will suffice.
Had the amnesty (declare Oakwood not unlawful) occurred
before their application, COMELEC could have ruled
otherwise.
Members not belonging to marginalized and underrepresented
sector.
56
Dayao v. COMELEC
Petitioner seeks for the disqualification of a

party-list for not being a representative of
marginalized and underrepresented.
Though final resolution on qualification was released,

COMELEC deprived itself of the power to cancel (as opposed
to deny).
No perpetual infeasible right. Same as a franchise license
which can be revoked anytime if violative of provisions.
Party-list needs to be members of marginalized and
underrepresented.
New guidelines for party-list. Controlling rule.
57
Atong Paglaum et al.
Petitioners disqualified for not meeting the 8pt

guideline of Ang Bagong Bayani.
58
Abang Lingkod v. COMELEC
Petitioner disqualified for using unlawful

statements (photoshop of picture) and having no
track record.
6 guidelines:
1. Three groups (national, regional, sectoral)
2. National and regional need not be marginalized or
underrepresented (as long as it has an advocacy)
3. Political parties can participate. If it fields a candidate
in legislative district, can only run under sectoral
wings.
4. Sectorallack of well-defined constituency (women,
elderly, youth, professionals) or
underrepresented/marginalized
5. Nominees of sectoral must belong to underrepresented
or marginalized or have a track record
Nominees of national or regional must be memebers
6. Party list not disqualified if a nominee is disqualified
as long as one nominee remains
Meaning of national, regional and sectoral.
No requirement for track record needed. Track record in not the
30

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
same as the submission of constitution, bylaws, platform,
government, list of officers, coalition agreement, etc.
National and regional parties are not required to be
marginalize/underrepresented.
Nominees for sectoral parties may either belong to
marginalized/underrepresented or show track record. Three of
five nominees belong to the sector.
Rule #6 does not disqualify the party as long as at least one
nominee remains.
Varying track record would result into absurdity.
Par. 3. Reapportionment through special law (Mandaluyong
City).
59
Tobias v. Abalos
Petitioners oppose the law to make

Mandaluyong as another city granting it one
seat.
A congressional district has a legislative representative as a

logical consequence. Does not violate the one title one subject
rule.
No gerrymandering (creating legislative districts to favor a
particular candidate or party). In fact, decrease in constituency.
The law assumes the presumption that it has satisfied the basic
requirements needed to be passed as law since it is the
Congress who made it.
Par. 3. Reapportionment through special law (Makati City).
Though not defined by metes and bounds, it is still valid. Uses
the word present area.
60
Mariano v. COMELEC
Opposing the conversion of Makati into a city.

Special law is not prohibited to be used in making cities.
61
Sema v. COMELEC
Sema is supposed to be a candidate of Shariff

Kabunsuan. However, law creating said
province was invalidated.
Ordinance appended to the Constitution provides one more

representative when cities exceed 250,000 in population.
Par. 3. ARMM Regional legislative authority.
ARMM cannot create provinces because it creates a position
31

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
for a legislative representative which is lodged to the Congress
only. ARMM can only make municipalities and barangays.
Legislative power of ARMM should only be within the internal
region.
In accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants
and on the basis of a uniform progressive ratio. Par. 3 and 4.
Redistricting Leyte. Mere adjustments.
62
Montejo v. COMELEC
Due to change in legislative districts made by

Congress, COMELEC redistributed the
municipalities to equalize the voters.
COMELEC has no power. Minor changes only (i.e., municipal

city left out or clerical error).
Constitutional Commission deliberations proved that only
Congress can reapportion.
In accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants
and on the basis of a uniform progressive ratio. Par. 3 and 4.
Redistricting province of Guimaras, Also in (3) population size
amd (1) uniform and progressive ratio.
63
Herrera v. COMELEC
Petitioners oppose the division and

reapportionment of Guimaras.
Provincial reapportionment is for Sanguniang Panlalawigan

only and can be done by COMELEC. Should be based on
number of inhabitants and not number of voters.
Should follow general rule on contiguous, compact and
adjacent territories.
Population size. Par. 3. Absence of certification as to income,
population and area are not fatal. Presumed valid.
Proposed city must meet the requirements on income and
population or land area.
64
Samson v. Aguirre
Petitioners oppose the separation of Novaliches

and Quezon City.
Though no proof, BLGF and NSO presence certifying the

population and income are sufficient.
Presumed to be valid in favor of constitutionality. It originated
from the House of Representatives.
Omission of specifying the seats is not fatal. Can be done after.
32

Ref.
Case Title
65
Aldaba v. COMELEC
Facts
Petition to void creation of Malolos.
Doctrine
Does not amend constitution by adding another city. The
number of cities in the constitution is not fixed.
Population size. Par. 3 and 4.
250,000 population is needed. The certification should:
1. Declared official by NSCB
2. Issued by NSO administrative or designated officer
3. Reach 250,000 as of the middle of the year.
Actual or projected population did not meet the requirement.
Hence, Malolos is not to be made a city.
Population size. Par. 3 and 4.
66
Aquino v. COMELEC (GR

189793)
Aquino opposes the creation of a new

legislative district in the province of Camarines
Sur. Population did not meet the 250,000
requirement.
67
Navarro v. Ermita
See #25
68
Bagabuyo v. COMELEC
Petitioners assail the additional legislative

district of CDO due to absence of plebiscite.
Constriction mentions city to reach the population requirement,

not provinces.
Population is an alternative to income requirement of LGC.
Does not require mathematical exactitude.
Population size. Land area as a factor.
Following the return of every census, Congress shall make
reapportionment. Par. 4. No need for plebiscite in
apportionment or reapportionment.
LGU was not created. Hence, no plebiscite needed.
Basis for division should be the number of inhabitants, not
number of voters.
Division should follow the contiguous, compact and adjacent
rule.
Art. VI Sec. 6 Qualifications of district and party-list Representatvies

Citizenship. Recovery of NBC status.
69
Bengzon v. Cruz
Bengson, NBC, lost his citizenship when

naturalized as US citizen (marines). He
reacquired citizenship through repatriation.
NBC are those citizens from birth without having to perform

any act to acquire or perfect citizenship.
Two ways of acquiring citizenship:
1. Birth (NBC)
33

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
2. Naturalization (naturalized citizen)
Reacquisition of a former Filipino citizen:
1. Naturalization
2. Repatriation
3. Direct act of Congress
Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality.
Domicile and residence. Domicile of origin; read in relation to
Sec. 17 on jurisdiction of ET.
COMELEC has jurisdiction.
HRET jurisdiction if:
1. Proclaimed
2. Oath before the speaker in Congress session
3. Assumed office
Residence, for election law purposes, is synonymous of
domicile.
70
Aquino v. COMELEC
Petitioner not proclaimed due to residency

insufficiency.
Domicile is where a party actually or constructively has his

permanent home where he eventually intends to return nad
remain.
Makati residence is only an alleged lease agreement. Petitioner
did not show abandonment of domicile.
Abandonment of domicile:
1. Actual removal or an actual change of domicile
2. Intention of abandoning the former place and
establishing a new one
3. Definite acts which correspond with purpose
71
Marcos v. COMELEC
Marcos is not to be declared as representative of

Leyte because of failing to meet the residency
requirement.
The second placer is just that, a second placer. Voters

preference is volatile.
Domicile and residence. Abandonment of domicile.
Domicile:
34

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Minor follows the domicile of parents.
Domicile not easily abandoned
Only actual residence contemplated in Civil Code
Marcos did not abandon domicile. This is not easily changed.

Honest mistake in writing 7 months because line 7 and 8 are
confusing. Line 8 may easily be understood as stay in actual
residence.
Domicile and residence. Mere lease of house.
72
Domino v. COMELEC
Domino is disqualified for not satisfying the

residency requirement.
MTC jurisdiction is limited only to right of voter to remain in

the list of voters or to declare that the challenged voter is not
qualified. It cannot say that Domino is a resident of Saranggani.
Lack of intention to abandon. Hence, not meeting the residency
requirement.
Domicile and residence. Registration in another district.
73
Perez v. COMELEC
Aguinaldo is being disqualified by Perez for not

being able to comply with the residency
requirement. Aguinaldo transferred to District 3
from Dstrict1 only in January of that year.
He is qualified because he has served as the governor of the

province before. What the law intends is to make sure that
candidates are aware of the issues of the place they are
seeking to serve.
COMELEC has no jurisdiction since Aguinaldo was already a
member of HR. HRET has jurisdiction.
Domicile and residence.
74
75
Fernandez v. HRET
Tagolino v. HRET
Fernandez is to be removed from HR because of

failure to meet the residency requirement.
Richard Gomez ran but was disqualified due to

residency requirement. His CoC was cancelled.
Not expected to be in the residence 24 hours. Affidavit of

contract of lease is sufficient even absent the notarization. Not
required to be the property owner.
Petitioner has real and substantial reason to be domiciled in
Sta. Rosa (has business, children are studying in Sta. Rosa).
Petitioner not a stranger because he has served the Province of
Laguna as a Board Member.
Domicile and residence. One year residency requirement.
35

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Lucy Torres substituted.
Doctrine
CoC was cancelled due to false representation. Hence,
considered void ab initio. Consequently, no substitution can
happen even if Lucy Torres is indeed a resident of Leyte.
Had Richard only been disqualified, substitution could happen.
Domicile and residence. One year residency requirement.
Oath should be made before the Speaker in an open session.
76
Reyes v. COMELEC
Reyes is a subsisting American citizen who did

not comply with the citizenship retention and
reacquisition act.
Filipino NBC status is not proven. By executing an affidavit of

renunciation, it is implied that she is bound by the citizenship
retention and reacquisition act.
Required under retention and reacquisition act:
1. Oath of allegiance to the RP
2. Personal and sworn renunciation of her American
citizenship
After complying with the above, she must show that she is to
establish her domicile in the Philippines.
Art. VI Sec. 7 Term of Representatives

Forfeiture of Elective Position
Constitutional edict: all public officials must serve the people
with utmost loyalty and not trifle.
77
Dimaporo v. Mitra
Dimaporo was stricken out from HR because he

ran as Regional Governor of ARMM. He lost as
a Regional Governor but was not allowed by
HR to resume his office.
Term (legal term imposed by law) is different fromtenure

(actual period holding office). Only the tenure was shortened,
not the term.
Four modes of renunciation: holding another office, expulsion,
disqualification, voluntary renunciation. Filing of COC is
considered as a voluntary renunciation of his office.
Art. VI Sec. 9 Filling in vacancies

Requisites of special elections.
78
Lucero v. COMELEC
Holding of special election in Precinct 13 after

counting the votes in 7 and 16.
Special election:
1. Failure of election
2. Affect the results
36

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
The count of Precincts 7 and 16 should be made first in order to
determine if special election in Precinct 13 should push
through.
Difference between special election in Constitution and
Omnibus Code:
Omnibus code is mandatory because it presupposes that no one
has been declared.
Constitution is discretionary because someone has already
assumed office.
Special and regular elections; RA 6645.
79
80
Tolentino v. COMELEC
13th Senator to be elected to fill the vacancy.

Special election is made simultaneous with
general elections without publication of notice
to voters (not compliant with RA 6645).
Ocampo v. HRET
Ocampo seeks to declare the votes casted to

Crespo as stray votes. Hence, being the second
placer, he should be proclaimed as the
representative.
Law provides that Senate vacancy be held simultaneous with

general elections (provided in RA 7166). No need to inform
voters because this is embodied in a statute to which the voters
are assumed to have known.
Rule on second placers.
To be stray votes, the final judgment should have been made
before the election. In this case, the final judgment was made
after the election. Hence, not stray votes.
Second placer could not be proclaimed. He lost in the elections.
Art. VI Sec. 11 Privileges from arrest

Privileges from arrest. Convicted legislator. Detention as valid
reason not to attend.
Allowed to leave the cell only during emergency cases.
81
People v. Jalosjos
Jalosjos who appealed from a criminal

judgment against him wants to attend session in
Congress.
He has a fully functioning office in jail. He is allowed to have

an inter-department coordination from his prison cell.
No reason to exempt petitioner. Congress can act even without
him.
82
Trillanes v. Pimentel
Trillanes prays to attend session in Congress

despite being detained for Oakwood incident.
Mandate of sovereign will can be enlarged or restricted by law.

Privileges from arrest. Re-election to office and criminal
charge.
37

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Rape and coup d etat charge are punishable by reclusion
perpetua. Hence, not covered by privileges from arrest. Only
civil in nature.
Mandate of the people yield to the constitution.
Parliamentary freedom of speech and debate. Coverage.
83
Jimenez v. Cabangbang
Petitioners are seeking for damages for a

published open letter made.
Publishing the letter in newspaper of general circulation is not

covered by parliamentary freedom of speech/debate. It should
be done within their official functions.
Not libelous to petitioners because it explicitly states that the
petitioners may be unaware that they are being used as tools for
the plans.
Parliamentary freedom of speech and debate. Violation of oath
of lawyers.
Covered by privilege speech.
84
Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago
Defensor-Santaigo made remarks against the

judiciary and JBC.
Not for the courts to discipline Santiago. It is for the Senate to

discipline.
Violated Canon but lawyer holding government office may not
be disciplined as a member of the bar unless violates his oath as
a lawyer.
Art. VI Sec. 13 Disqualifications

Office of PNRC chairman is not government office nor an
office in a GOCC for the purposes of prohibition in Sec. 13.
85
Dante V. Liban v. Richard J.

Gordon
Gordon is elected as chairman of PCNC.

Petitioners want him to leave his seat in
Congress as well.
PNRC is not under government control. PNRC needs to be

autonomous, neutral and independent in order to carry out its
objectives as embodied in the Geneva Red Cross Convention
signed by the Philippines.
PNRC to incorporate under corporation code. Presently, it is
under a special law created by the Congress. A private
corporation cannot be created by Congress.
Art. VI Sec. 14 Prohibitions Lawyer legislators/Conflict of interests

38

Ref.
Case Title
86
Puyat v. De Guzman
Facts
Assemblyman purchases several shares in order

to have legal interest and be able to intervene.
Doctrine
Appearing in intervention on ones behalf
Cannot be allowed to intervene. Initially, assemblyman wanted
to appear as counsel before the SEC but was denied. Buying
shares is an afterthought. Even if being an intervenor is not
appearing as counsel, still not allowed.
What the constitution directly prohibits may not be done
indirectly.
Art. VI Sec. 16 Officers and Internal Business

Officers of Congress. Determination of majority and minority.
Nowhere is minority defined in the constitution.
Majority is greater than one half.
87
Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona
Petitioners assail the election of Guingona as

the minority leader despite voting for Fernan as
the majority leader.
Constitution is dead silent on the method of choosing other

officers. Rules of Senate are also silent.
To accept the petitioners view is to judicially legislate.
No grave abuse of discretion because no specific standard is
presented to be violated.
Par. 2. Quorum.
There is still quorum. 12/23.
88
Avelino v. Cuenco
Avelino, then Senate President, walked out of

the session together with other nine members.
Only 12 remained.
Quorum is defined to be the members of the house, not all

members of the house.
Cuenco, elected Senate President, could have then ordered the
arrest of the 10 who walked away and thus further reducing the
numbers.
Supermajority vote in violation of the Constitution.
89
Datu Michael Abas Kida v.

Senate of the Phil
Constitutionality of RA 10153 on
synchronization of elections in ARMM.
Constitution mandates the synchronization of local election

(includes ARMM even if regional).
No necessity for 3 readings if immediate action from the
39

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
president is present. The Congress recognized this presidents
power.
RA does not amend but provides rules for subsequent election.
No supermajority vote needed (2/3) because does not amend
the Organic Act of ARMM. Unconstitutional to require
supermajority vote because it restricts future legislation. Only
majority is required by the constitution.
Plebiscite not needed because new LGU is not created. If so, it
becomes unconstitutional because it expands the scope of
plebsicte.
Internal rules and discipline. Par. 3. Determination of rules.
In parliamentary procedures, SC has no concern. SC could not
rule on it. Redress to Congress.
90
Arroyo v. De Venecia
Violation of internal rules is violation of the

constitution.
No grave abuse of power. Arroyo was silent after the recess.

Enrolled bill doctrine is not presumptive. Enrolled bill in this
case is not infirm. Even so, journals support the passing of the
bill.
Internal rules and discipline. Disorderly behavior.
91
Osmea v. Pendatun
Osmea is suspended for 15 months for serious

assault of the dignity and premium of the
president.
He can be questioned in the Congress itself. The prohibition is

in any other place.
Parliamentary immunity is still recognized. But for
unparliamentarily conduct, members can be censured,
suspended, expel, prisoned.
SC will not rule on the procedures of parliamentary.
Internal rules and discipline. Order of suspension.
92
Santiago v. Sandiganbayan
Santiago is given a preventive suspension.
Suspension couched in terms all offices is not void because it

is provided for by the law (term office) which is meant to
apply to any office.
40

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
In preventive suspension, guilt is not required to be proven as
long as there is validity of evidence and the accused is heard.
This is not a penalty but a preventive suspension only.
Suspension of SB is different from suspension from Congress.
Duty to keep journals and records.
93
US v. Pons
Pons adjudged to have smuggled opium. He

avers that the law was not passed on Feb. 28
hence he should not be charged.
Journals are relied. This is published and required by law.

Between journals and extraneous evidence, journals prevail.
94
Casco Phil. Commercial Co. v.

Gimenez
Petitioner seeks to be exempted from margin fee

because he imports urea and formaldehyde (not
urea formaldehyde as specified in law).
Enrolled bill is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor

of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the
President.
SC cannot speculate error in printing. Remedy is to amend or
cure the law through Congress.
Enrolled bill doctrine prevails.
95
Morales v. Subido
Law passed omitted the phrase who has served

the police department of a city.
What was officially published by the Bureau of Printing is

official and binding.
House cleaning must be done by the occupants, not SC.
96
97
Astorga v. Villegas
Phil Judges Assn. v. Prado
Vice Mayors five policemen were removed

after the Senate President invalidated his
signature in the enrolled bill.
Withdrawing of franking privileges in judiciary

and other agencies.
Since no enrolled bill because of the revocation of the

signature, refer to the journals.
A law is approved when it is passed by both houses. Signing of
heads of the houses is only an attestation.
Duty to keep journals and records. Conclusiveness of enrolled
bill.
BCC reconciles the two houses and the final bill is approved by
both houses.
41

Ref.
Case Title
98
Angara v. Electoral Commission
Facts
Different deadline was set by Electoral

Commission and the proclamation of the
National Assembly to protest.
Doctrine
Franking privilege not be removed because it is essential. If
they want to stop losses, it should withdraw all agencies, not
from those who need it the most. There is violation for equal
protection because the judiciary is categorized with the class of
AFP, telecommunications, etc.
Transfer in its totality all the powers previously exercised by
the legislature pertaining to contested elections of its members
to an independent and impartial tribunal.
National Assembly has cut off the Electoral Commissions
power.
SC will review HRET if GADLEJ.
Marks made unintentionally do not invalidate the ballot.
Neither do marks made by some person other than the vote.
99
Locsin v. HRET
Election protest on stray ballots.
Failure of BEI chairman to sign/authenticate will not penalize

the voter with disenfranchisement.
Intent rule:
1. Only the oval beside the name of the claimant is
marked
2. Ballot belongs to the clustered precinct
3. Ballot is not marked
4. Ballot is authentic
Senate may adopt rules for its proceedings and may resolve to
defer administration of oath and sitting of petitioners to
exercise the power of self-preservation.
100
101
Vera v. Avelino
Roces v. HRET
Petitioners not sworn by Senate. Votes were

done through coercion.
Violence is not the expression of free will of the people.
Petitioner assails the jurisdiction of HRET.
For any speech or debate in congress, senators and

congressmen shall not be questioned in any other place.
HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to election,
returns, and qualification of the members of HR. It will decide
on questions whether of fact or of law.
COMELEC en banc usurped COMELEC 1st Division.
42

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Void judgment or decree is subject to collateral attack anytime.
This is an internal matter of BUHAY.
102
Seneres v. COMELEC
Nominees made by a president of BUHAY who

is assailed to be a president no more.
Signatory was authorized by BUHAY. Still the valid act of

BUHAY.
Hold over capacity is allowed in corporations until the
successor is chosen. He is a de facto officer.
Citizenship requirement is essential. Not even the plurality of
votes will substitute the requirement of the fundamental law.
103
Limkaichong v. COMELEC
Accuses of not being NBC.
HRET begins when the winning candidate has proclaimed,

taken oath, assumed office.
Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements.
These do not prescribe.
Despite invalidity of proclamation of COMELEC, the
COMELEC lost its jurisdiction when Miranda was proclaimed,
took oath and assumed office.
SET is the sole judge of all contests to the election, returns and
qualifications of the members of senate.
104
Aggabao v. COMELEC
Motion is still in COMELEC but assailed

person is already in HR.
105
Barbers v. COMELEC
Biazon as the 12th senator when there were still

uncanvassed votes.
106
107
Rasul v. COMELEC
Guerrero v. COMELEC
108
Villarosa v. HRET
109
Abayon v. HRET
Uncanvassed votes but declared already.

COC was void but already seated in HR.
JTV as stray votes.
Assailed for not representing the marginalized.
Incomplete canvass cannot be the basis of illegal proclamation

unless it will affect the results of election.
Special election was conducted. Mooted.
Jurisdiction to HRET although void COC.
OEC: by which the candidate is generally or popularly known
before the filing of the COC.
OEC stray votes:
1. Initials only
2. Illegible
3. Not sufficiently identify the candidate
Only one nickname or stage name is allowed.
It is not the organization that sits as the representative and
becomes members of the HR. Hence, subject to jurisdiction of
HRET.
43

Ref.
Case Title
110
111
Garcia v. HRET
Chavez v. COMELEC
Facts
Failed to post cash deposit for quo warranto

proceeding.
Chavez votes were made stray despite prior

announcement of COMELEC.
Doctrine
There was an unreasonable delay on the part of the petitioner.
There is a serious charge and it must be taken seriously in
accordance to HRET rules.
Failure to implement the announcement of COMELEC is
administrative in nature.
Pre-proclamation controversy is defined as any question
pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the BOC which
may be raised by any candidate or by any registered political
party or coalition before the board or directly with the
commission in relation to preparation, transmission, receipt,
custody and appreciation of election returns.
Pre-proclamation cases are not allowed in P, VP, Senate and
HR.
112
Abbas v. SET
Senate members of HRET are to inhibit. Only

judiciary will remain.
113
Pimentel v. HRET
Petitioner wants to reorganize CA and HRET

for proper representation.
114
Bondoc v. Pineda
Disloyalty of a member to a party. Removed

from the tribunal.
115
116
Robles v. HRET
Arroyo v. HRET
Recount was already started but the protest was

withdrawn.
HRET admitted precinct level document

evidence and declared private respondent as
winner.
If re-opening of ballots, the proper recourse is regular election

protest in SET. This is despite the shelling out of expenses.
Constitution intended the sharing of legislative and judiciary in
HRET.
It is not to be misunderstood that any member could not inhibit
anymore.
Composition is entirely an internal matter.
HRET should be independent and impartial.
Disloyalty is not a valid ground for removal from tribunal.
Motion to withdraw does no divest the HRET of jurisdiction.
An election protest is impressed with public interest.
Precinct level based document has no judicial precedence. It
broadened the scope of election protest beyond what was
originally sought.
Election protests must stand or fall upon the issues he had
raised in his original or amended pleading filed prior to the
lapse of the statutory period.
44

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Photocopies violate the best evidence rule.
Annulment of election results due to fraud:
1. More than 50% of the results were involved
2. Affected or vitiated by such fraud or irregularities or
terrorism
Best and most conclusive evidence are the ballots themselves.
If cannot be produced, the ERs.
117
118
Lerias v. HRET
Sandoval v. HRET
HRET used COMELEC copy. Best evidence

should have been COCs and ER. Originals not
flowed.
Petitioner did not receive the summons.
Exercise extreme caution in rejecting returns.

Having agreed to use COMELEC copy between the parties
does not work to estop the use of the ER or COC.
Substituted service derogates the regular method of personal
service. It can only be done if:
1. Impossibility of the service of summons
2. Efforts exerted to locate the petitioners
3. Service upon a person of sufficient age and discretion
residing therein or some other competent person
Maintenance man is not tasked to deal with or handle
documents.
Telephone calls should first be authenticated.
Election protest proposes to oust the winning candidate. It is
strictly a contest between the deated and the winning.
Quo warranto may be initiated by any voter. It is a question of
disloyalty to the state or ineligibility of the winning candidate.
119
Lokin v. COMELEC
CIBAC substituted its nominees.
Valid IRRs:
1. Promulgation is authorized by legislature
2. Within the scope of authority
3. Promulgated in accordance with prescribed procedure
4. Reasonable
No change of nominees unless:
1. Dies
45

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
120
Sema v. HRET
Sema protested the election results.
121
Duenas v. HRET
HRET wanted to complete the revision of

ballots and order the candidate to pay.
Candidate refused. HRET still continued.
122
123
Daza v. Singson
Coseteng v. Mitra
Daza removed from CoA after joining a new

party.
Coseteng wanted a seat in CoA but member of a

coalesced party.
Doctrine
2. Withdraws his nomination
3. Becomes incpacatitated
Publication of nominees is to warn the public. Subsequent
substitution is generally not allowed.
When ballots are unavailable, the next recourse is the
untampered and unaltered ER.
HRET could continue or discontinue based on its own accord.
Jurisdiction, once acquired, cannot be lost.
HR to change its representation in CoA to reflect at any time
the changes that may transpire in the political assignments.
No need to test the pass of time of permanence of the new
party.
CoA members are not merely elected by respective political
parties but are nominated by the respective floor leaders in the
House. They were elected by the house and not by the party.
Fractional membership must be rounded up.
Any number less than two will not entitle such a party to
membership in CoA.
Where there are more than two political parties represented in
senate, a political party/coalition with a single senator cannot
constitutionally claim a set in the commission.
124
Guingona v. Gonzales
Fractional representation is in favor of minority.

The Constitution requires that there be at least a majority of the
entire membership for CoA to function. Does not strictly
require the presence of 12 senators and 12 representatives.
Only quorum is required.
Nothing to stop from forming a coalition with other party in
order to fill up the vacancies.
125
Senate v. Ermita
126
Gudani v. Senga
Gudani was ordered not to go to Senate for

questioning on 2004 election fraud.
Whatever rank are liable under military law for violating a

direct order of an officer of superior rank.
46

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
President can issue gag order. She has the constitutional
authority as CIC, not as CE.
Gudani has adequate remedies under the law.
Between the President and Senate, the President should be
followed by Gudani but subject to judicial relief.
Congress is not the same as LGU.
127
Negros Oriental II Elec. Coop. v.

Sangguniang Panlungsod
Power of inquiry is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the

legislative function.
NORECO is being subpoenaed by LGU.
For congress, it is a matter of self-preservation. This is not true
to LGU.
No express provision granted in LGC.
Power to conduct inquiries is not absolute or unlimited. Bill of
Rights must be respected.
In Aid of Legislation are inquiries referring to implementation
or re-examination of laws in relation to existing or future laws.
128
Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon

Committee
Questioned by senate about the Romualdez

properties.
Questions of privilege are those affecting the rights, privileges,

reputation, conduct, decorum and dignity of the senate or
members as well as the integrity of its proceedings.
Not really in aid of legislation if only wanted to ask if they
have violated Sec. 5 of anti-graft act.
There may be a possibility of conflicting judgments in senate
and judiciary if they will ask these questions.
Objective of the investigation is to prevent occurrence of
similar fraudulent activity.
129
Standard v. Senate
Standard sold securities that are unregistered.
A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the

absence of information.
The exercise by congress or any of its committees of the power
to punish contempt is based on the principle of self47

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
preservation.
This may have involved public money.
130
De la Paz v. Senate
Moscow incident.
The Philippines is a state party to the UN Convention Against

Corruption and UN Convention Against Transnational
Organized Crimes. This involves the commitment of the
Philippines.
Blue Ribbon Committee may conduct investigations on all
matters relating to malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance.
In aid of legislation and court proceedings have different
purposes.
131
Romero v. Estrada
Illegal investment of OWWA funds.
Proceedings in court not to bar legislative proceedings.

Unremitting obligation of every citizen is to respond to
subpoena.
Publication of rules of procedures must be undertaken whether
or not there were any amendments.
132
Garcillano v. House
Playing of tape in congress.
133
Neri v. Senate
See #28 Art. VI
Publication in website is not sufficient. Electronic document is

only for evidentiary purposes. It is not a medium of publishing
laws.
Subsequent publication does not cure prior defect.
A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the
absence of information.
134
Arnault v. Nazareno
Did not disclose the person to whom he gave

the money.
No person should be punished for contumacy (stubborn refusal)

as witness before either house unless his testimony is required
in a matter in which they have jurisdiction.
Committee has power to require witness to answer questions
subject to right against self-incrimination.
If not pertinent to the matter under inquiry, the witness may
refuse to answer.
48

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Senate as a continuing body does not cease to exist.
To hold that it may punish the witness only during the session
is to deny it essential and appropriate means of performance. If
it is to resume again in the next and succeeding sessions, it
would be absurd, unnecessary and vexatious.
The state may deprive him the right to life if he deprives the
right of others.
power of inquiry is broad enough to cover members of the
executive branch.
135
136
137
138
139
140
Sabio v. Gordon
SANLAKAS v. Executive
Secretary
PCGG summoned for anomalies in DOTC,

PHILCOM, etc.
Oakwood mutiny.
Ampatuan massacre.
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance
VAT imposition.
Southern Cross Cement v. Phil.

Cement
The right to privacy is not absolute where there is an overriding

compelling state interest.
Calling out power does not need a declaration of state of
rebellion.
Merely an exercise of the wedding of her CE and CIC powers.
There was only a state of emergency, not a national emergency.
To suppress the lawless violence.
Ampatuan v. Hon. DILG Sec.

Puno
Alvarez v. Guingona
Law excluding PCGG puts PCGG members beyond the reach

of courts and public accountability.
SB passed earlier than HB. But SB public

hearings made only after HB passed.
Importation of cement from Portland.
Deployment was not an exercise of emergency powers by

itself.
Purpose of three readings:
1. Inform members
2. Give notice of progress
VAT is not a license tax.
IRAs are items of income and form part of the gross accretion
of the LGU.
Constitution does not prohibit the senate of filing a substitute
bill.
Court did not grant provisional relief of taxes because this is
traditionally frowned upon.
49

Ref.
Case Title
141
Pascual v. Secretary of Public

Works
Facts
Project feeder in private subdivision.
Doctrine
Legislative record should be approached with extreme caution.
Public revenue is for anything that is public in purpose.
Taxing power is for public purpose only.
Taxpayers have sufficient interest in the project feeder to be
made.
COMELEC is proscribed from conducting an official canvass
of P and VP. Much so an unofficial.
No money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance
of an appropriation made by law.
143
Brillantes v. COMELEC
Quick unofficial count.
The power to augment from savings lies dormant until

authorized by law.
NAMFREL is the only entity to conduct unofficial count.
Absurd to have two kinds of electoral counts. They may
substantially differ.
This will not cure the dagdag-bawas system since the human
intervention is not eliminated.
No bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than
one subject.
144
145
Garcia v. Mata
Farinas v. Executive Secretary
Rider provision in GAA.
Fair election act. Elective officials not deemed

as resigned upon filing of COC.
146
Demetria v. Alba
Transfer of public money.
147
Liga v. COMELEC
Funds for barangay elections published in

Manila Bulletin.
The statutory provision on reversion from inactive to active is

not within GAA.
The title is comprehensive enough to include provisions on
status of elective official upon filing of COC.
Appointive officials are strictly prohibited from engaging in
any partisan political activity.
Transfer may be allowed for the purposes of augmenting an
item and such transfer may be made only if there are any
savings.
Funds of LGU may be used to defray the costs of barangay
elections.
50

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Court did not rule because the reports are not verified.
Power of the purse belongs to congress subject to veto power
of the president.
Power of appropriation carries with it the power to specific
project or activity.
GAA of 1994 is imaginative as it is innovative.
President and Speaker has the power to augment for their
respective offices from savings in other items of their
appropriation, whenever there is a law authorizing such
augmentation.
148
Philconsa v. Enriquez
President vetoed portions of GAA.
A GAA is special type of legislation. President may veto

separately not only items but also provisions.
When legislature inserts inappropriate provisions in a GAA,
provisions are treated as items that may be vetoed.
An appropriate provision cannot be vetoed (i.e., conditions set
by Congress).
Congressional veto is either negative (ask for disapproval) or
affirmative (ask for approval). This is subject to serious
questions involving principle of separation of power.
Impoundment is the refusal of the president to spend funds
made available by congress.
COA has free rein to examine and audit expenditures of public

funds.
149
Sanchez v. COA
Task force was created to implement local

authority. Deputy ES agreed and asked DILG.
Power to transfer savings is exclusive to P, P of Senate,

Speaker of the HR, CJ, and heads of ConCom.
Actual savings must be real or substantial.
51

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
To say that augmentation is already needed even on January is
putting the cart before the horse.
DAP was not an appropriation measure, hence no appropriation
law was required to adopt or implement it.
Requisites of transfer of appropriated funds:
1. Law
2. Savings from respective offices
3. Purpose is to augment
DAP shortened the period of availability of appropriations for
MOOE and capital outlays.
149.5
Araullo v. Aquino
DAP.
Balances of unexpended projects be reverted to general fund.

President was required to remain faithful to GAA.
Cross border transfer, whether as augmentation or as an aid,
were prohibited.
150
Cordero v. Cabatuando
Transfer of who will defend tenants.
151
Philconsa v. Gimenez
RA allowing gratuity and commutation of SL

and VL granted to members of Congress.
152
Alalayan v. NPC
Increasing capital stock of NAPOCOR.
153
Insular Lumber Company v. CTA
Wanted to claim for refund. Sawmill v. Forest

v. Oil.
154
Tio v. Videogram Regulatory

Board
30% tax to LGU.
155
De Guzman v. COMELEC
Voters Registration Act includes transfer of

election officer.
156
Cawaling v. COMELEC
Sorsogon City assailed to have not complied
Doctrine of operative fact produced consequences that cannot

always be erased or ignored or disregarded. But it can only
apply to those who relied in good faith (not applicable to
authors, etc.).
Though not in the Agricultural Tenancy Act, the assignment of
lawyers to tenants is germane to the purpose.
Violative of OSOT because it only covers those under GSIS.
Members of Congress are not necessarily under GSIS.
Interest is of the general welfare.
Not violative of OSOT.
OSOT not violated. Increase in highway fund act through
increase in specific tax of manufactured oils.
Power to impose tax is unlimited in force and so searing in
extent.
Not violative of OSOT since law seeks to prevent familiarity.
COMELEC is bound to follow congress.
Merging of municipalities is allowed as long as it complies
52

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
with plebiscite and LGU requirement.
156.5
157
BANAT v. COMELEC
Giron v. COMELEC
Automated election provisions assailed not to

be germane.
Substitution and repealing clauses of the Fair
election act.
Doctrine
with the code. Not restricted to conversion of municipality to
city.
Abolition is a logical consequence. Need not to be in title.
OSOT not violated. RA is general enough to include manual
counting also.
Not violate OSOT.
Not violate OSOT.
157.5
158
159
Remman v. PRB of Real Estate
Developers also required to be registered.
CIR v. CTA
Manila Golf is a clubhouse/golf course.
Gonzales v. Macaraig
Vetoed provisions in GAA.
Developers is a sector that hires or employs largest brokers,

salespersons, etc.
An item in a revenue bill does not refer to an entire section
imposing a particular kind of tax but rather to the subject of the
tax and the tax rate.
Any provision in GAA shall relate specifically to some
particular appropriation therein.
Inappropriate provisions are treated as items for purpose of
vetoing.
Executive is not allowed to veto a condition or proviso.
Congress cannot impair the constitutional and statutory
authority to augment appropriation from savings.
President must veto a bill in its entirety or none at all (except
for revenue/tariff bill or GAA).
160
Bengzon v. Drilon
Veto on pension on justices.
President has no power to enact or amend statues promulgated

by her predecessors.
Fiscal autonomy guarantees full flexibility to allocate and
utilize resources. Freedom from outside control.
If the purpose is revenue generation, it is a tax.
161
Planters v. Fertiphil
Fertiphil claiming for refund.
Revenue from tax should be used for public purpose.

Doctrine of operative fact applies when it imposes an undue
burden on those who have relied on an invalid law.
53

Ref.
Case Title
162
CIR v. Lingayen Gulf
Facts
Deficiency tax is imposed. Charter v. General

tax.
163
Tan v. Del Rosario
Constitutionality of SNIT among GPP.
164
CIR v. CA
Imposition to Hope, Champion, and More.
165
Spouses Constantino v. Cuisia
166
Abra Valley College v. Aquino
Financing program for debt reliefs.

Use of school as residence. First floor also used
as commercial space.
167
Bayan v. Zamora
168
Republic v. City of Kidapawan
Use of government land without payment of

local taxes.
Doctrine
A tax is uniform when it operates in the same force and effect
in every place where the subject of it is found.
Charter granting the franchise is clear that the lower rate is to
be used in lieu of all taxes.
Not violative of OSOT. Merely clarified the allowable
deductions.
Uniformity in taxation:
1. Substantial and not arbitrary
2. Categorization is germane
3. Law applies to present and future conditions
4. Applies equally to all
Violates uniformity in taxation since other brands in the same
footing were not charged in the same manner.
Doctrine of qualified political agency to his alter egos.
More liberal and non-restrictive interpretation of exclusively
used for educational purposes.
PNOC-EDC machineries cannot be levied because it shows
that MAGRA is the one deficient. However, there will be
personal liability on the part of PNOC-EDC owners because
they were the beneficial user.
Administrative remedies should be exhausted before judicial
remedies.
Only Subic SEZ was exempted by Congress.
169
John Hay People's Alternative

Coalition v. Lim
Camp John Hay claims for exemption since it is

similar to Subic SEZ.
170
Lung Center v. QC
Lung Center assailed for not being charitable.
171
MIAA v. Mabunay
Granting security agency to another without

public bidding.
172
COMELEC v. Hon. Quijano
VRIS project did not push through.
Exemption should be concurred by majority of all the members

of congress.
It is a non-profit, non-stock which was organized for the
benefit and welfare of the Filipino people.
Lease to private entities are not exempt.
Public bidding must be followed though expensive. It is the
accepted method. Nothing in the provision does away with
public bidding.
No rule of law is better settled than that mandamus never lies to
enforce the performance of private contracts.
54

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Amount appropriated is insufficient. Hence, cannot enter into a
formal agreement. There was an oversight in the public bidding
process. COMELEC cannot be compelled.
No agency shall enter into a multi-year contract unless the law
so provides.
Congressional oversight:
1. Scrutiny
2. Investigation and monitoring
173
Belgica v. Hon. Ochoa
PDAF.
The legislators are given post-enactment roles in
implementation. This is not allowed. It will be difficult for
them to be disinterested observers.
Stabilization fees were collected in the nature of a tax for
regulatory purpose with an exercise of police power.
174
Gaston v. Republic Planters Bank
Levies on sugar.
175
First Lepanto Ceramics v. CA
Filed in a wrong court relying on a wrong EO of

Aquino.
176
Diaz v. CA
Appraisal of property.
177
Fabian v. Desierto
Violated OMB and CSC.
178
Villavert v. Desierto
Unsold tickets for PCSO.
179
Tirol v. COA
Tirol entering into contracts that is unfavorable

to the government.
Funds in trust intended by the legislative are levied for special

purposes to which the balance will revert to general funds.
Revenues derived from tax are to be used for public purpose.
180
Cabrera v. Lapid
Petitioners fishpond was blasted due to

flooding.
181
SBMA v. COMELEC
Locals of Subic wanted to impose other
SC jurisdiction cannot be enlarged without concurrence.

An appeal taken to either the SC or CA by wrong or
inappropriate mode shall be dismissed.
Observed to be appealable in SC (for OMB) and CA (for CSC).
Remanded to CA and voided the law saying that OMB can be
directly appealed to SC.
Though wrong court filed, can still be tried by CA because
within the March 15, 1999.
Question of fact is to SB in this case. Pleading show that
petitioner wanted us to review the evidence.
Petiiotner and counsel employed modified forum shopping.
Petition does not impute grave abuse. Hence, availed remedy is
wrong.
It was for the best interest of the public.
Ordinances and resolutions are appropriate subject of local
55

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
requirements in SSEZ passed by congress.
Doctrine
initiative.
Initiative is the power of the people to propose amendments:
1. On the constitution
2. On statute
3. On local legislation
Indirect initiative is sent to congress or the local legislative
body for action.
Referendum is the power to approve or reject a legislation:
1. On statues
2. On local laws
Although OSOT, two or more propositions may be submitted
in an initiative.
182
Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC
Delfin petition on amending the constitution.
COMELEC to supervise closely initiative.

Amendment of constitution:
1. Twelve percentum of total registered voters
2. At least three percentum for every LD
3. Not oftener than five years made
Without implementing legislation, the amendment of
constitution cannot operate.
Before signing, there should already be a draft shown to them.
They must first see the full text.
Elements:
1. People must be the author
2. Proposal must be embodied in the petition
183
Lambino v. COMELEC
Change from bicameral to unicameral system.
A peoples initiative to change the Constitution applies only to

an amendment and not to its revision.
Only congress or constitutional convention may propose
revisions to constitution.
Revision alters a basic principle in the constitution.
56

Ref.
Case Title
Art. VII Executive
Facts
Doctrine
Whatever power inherent in the government that is neither
legislative nor judiciary has to be executive.
Marcos v. Manglapus
The Marcoses were not allowed to come back to

the Philippines.
The power involved is the Presidents residual power to protect

the general welfare of the people. it is borne by the duty to
preserve and defend the constitution. It may be viewed as
power implicit in the presidents duty to take care that the laws
are faithfully executed. President as the steward of the people.
Executive powers are more than those enumerated in the
constitution.
Philconsa v. Enriquez
Webb v. De Leon
Alfaro as state witness.
Djumantan v. Domingo
Undesirable alien.
Chavez v. PCGG
Negotiation agreements with Marcoses.
In truth, the prosecution of crimes appertains to the executive

department of government whose principal power and
responsibility is to see that our laws are faithfully executed. A
necessary component of this power is the right to prosecute
their violators.
Generally, the right of the President to expel or deport aliens
whose presence is deemed inimical to the public interest is as
absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent
their entry into the country. This right is based on the fact that
since the aliens are not part of the nation, their admission into
the territory is a matter of pure permission and simple tolerance
which creates no obligation on the part of the government to
permit them to stay.
It is incumbent upon the PCGG and its officers, as well as other
government representatives to disclose sufficient public
information on any proposed settlement they have decided to
take up with the ostensible owners and holders of ill-gotten
wealth.
However, the following are some of the recognized restrictions:
(1) national security matters and intelligence information
(2) trade secrets and banking transactions
(3) criminal matters
(4) other confidential information
The absence of then President Ramos' approval of the principal
57

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Agreement, an express condition therein, renders the
compromise incomplete and unenforceable.
The power to tax and to grant tax exemptions is vested in the
Congress and, to a certain extent, in the local legislative bodies.
The decision on whether to prosecute and indict is executive in
character.
The prosecutorial powers include the discretion of granting
immunity to an accused in exchange for testimony against
another.
Pontejos v. Ombundsman
OMB granted immunity of Pontejos employee,

Atos. Atos is going to be a state witness.
It is permissible for the Congress to vest the prosecutor with

the power to determine who can qualify as a witness and be
granted immunity from prosecution.
SC has previously upheld the discretion to grant immunity
from prosecution to DOJ, COMELEC and PCGG.
President has the power to reorganize the offices and agencies
in the executive department.
There must be a formal declaration on the part of the
government to withdraw such property from being public
domain (and thus convert it to patrimonial).
Banda v. Ermita
National Printing Office.
Laurel v. Garcia
Japan Roponggi property.
Review Center v. Ermita
CHED is made to include review centers.
It is not for the President to convey valuable real property of

the Government on his or her own will. Any such
conveyance must be authorized and approved by a law
enacted by Congress. It requires executive and legislative
concurrence.
CHEDs coverage under RA 7722 is limited to public and
private institutions of higher education and degree-granting
programs in all public and private post-secondary educational
institutions.
Philippine Truth Commission was established to

investigate reports of graft and corruption of the
The President may not amend RA 7722 through an Executive

Order without a prior legislation granting her such power.
The power to create is delegated from Congress or based in
inherent duty to faithfully execute laws. There was no undue
10
Biraogo v. Truth Commission
58

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Arroyo administration. It would have the
powers of an investigative body only.
Doctrine
delegation.
The power to conduct investigation will aid the president in
ensuing that laws are faithfully executed. It is inherent.
This power to conduct investigation and create bodies to
investigate is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution but it
does not mean that he is bereft of such authority.
11
US v. Nixon
Subpoena duces tecum.
However, PTC was declared void due to failure to meet equal

protection clause. It only attacks the Arroyo administration and
other administration are based on the Presidents discretion.
The legitimate need of the judicial process outweighs the
Presidential privilege.
Executive privilege does not apply. There is no claim that
military or diplomatic secrets will be disclosed by production
of records.
12
Almonte v. Vasquez
Economic Intelligence Investigation Bureau

(EIIB) claims executive privilege.
EIIB function has nothing to do with such. And even if valid

reasons did exist in 1988, such would have disappeared by
now, while the need to account for use of funds still exists.
13
Senate v. Ermita
EO 464 on executive privilege.
14
Neri v. Senate
ZTE scandal.
15
Akbayan v. Aquino
JPEPA negotiation process wanted to be

disclosed by the petitioners.
Further, above COA Circular states that, in fact, only items

referring to purchase of information an payment of rewards
should be treated as confidential.
EO 464, to the extent that it bars the appearance of executive
officials before Congress deprives Congress of the information
in the possession of these officials. The Congress has the power
to call upon officials pursuant to Sec. 21 of Art. VI of the
Constitution.
The expectation of a President to the confidentiality of his
conversations and correspondences, like the claim of
confidentiality of judicial deliberations.
JPEPA is a public concern thereby covered by right to
information. However, the diplomatic negotiations renders the
documents and information being requested in relation to the
JPEPA exempted from the general rules on transparency and
public disclosure.
59

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Secrecy of the negotiations with foreign countries is not
violative of the right to information.
Disclosing it would impair the ability of the Philippines to deal
with foreign governments in future negotiations.
The power to enter into treaties and international agreements
are vested in the President subject only to the concurrence of at
least two thirds vote of all the members of the Senate.
President is the head of the state. Regarded as the sole organ
and authority in external relations. Thus, Congress may not
interfere in the field of treaty negotiations.
It is for the courts to determine on a case by case basis whether
the matter at issue is of interest or importance. There must be a
sufficient showing need.
Presidential immunity from suit is to allow the president to do
his job without distractions. However, no law prohibits the
president from waiving this immunity. It is the president alone
who can waive this immunity.
16
Soliven v. Makasiar
Cory Aquino was accused to have hidden under

the bed during a coup attempt. Cory sued for
libel.
Filing of the libel case, though Cory may be called to be a

witness, is allowed. She may have waived her right to be
immune from suit.
Presidential immunity does not mean disability to file a suit.
Publication is claimed by the accused to have a privileged
status, hence, cannot be sued. This is a question of fact, hence,
left to TC.
17
Harlow v. Fitzgerald
18
Clinton v. Jones
19
Gloria v. CA
Sexual advances of Clinton.
A sitting President of the United States does not have immunity

from civil lawsuits based on the Presidents private actions
unrelated to his public actions as President.
Petition is directed against petitioners (one of whom is a
Cabinet member) not against the president. The questioned acts
are those of petitioners and not of the president. Presidential
decisions may be questioned before the courts where there is
60

Ref.
Case Title
20
Estrada v. Desierto
Facts
Jueteng. Erap steps down.
Doctrine
grave abuse of discretion or that the President acted without or
in excess of jurisdiction.
The principle of non-liability - not apply if official acts beyond
his power of authority and he is now personally liable.
For resignation, there is no formal requirement, only the intent
is important. there is the TOTALITY test (acts and ommissions
during and before and after jan 20.
The proclamation is constitutional insofar as it constitutes a call
by the president for the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless
violence. Sec. 18 Art. VII This is also under the calling-out
power of the president.
Take care powerfaithful execution of laws (suppress lawless
violence)
21
David v. Arroyo
GMA issued Presidential Proclamation

declaring a state of national emergency due to
plot attempts during Edsa People Power
Anniversary. She directed the AFP and PNP to
take appropriate actions to suppress violence.
Several columnists were arrested after a raid
inside their offices.
However, with regard to the provision in the same

proclamation on AFP to follow all laws decreed by the
president is unconstitutional. This is ultra vires.
Sec. 17 Art. XII says that the President, absent legislation,
cannot take over privately-owned public utility and private
business affected with public interest.
Exercise if emergency powers requires a delegation from
congress.
Acts of terrorism included in the general order have not been
defined. It is for the courts to interpret.
The process of establishing and executing a strategy for
managing the governments debt is deep within the relief of the
expertise of the Department of Finance.
22
Constantino v. Cuisia
Debt relief program.
23
Funa v. Exec Secretary
Concurrent positions.
It is within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Finance, as the

alter ego of the President to formulate a scheme for the
implementation of the policy publicly expressed by the
President herself.
At the center of the controversy is the correct application of
Art. VII, Sec 13 in relation to Article IX-B, Sec 7.
61

Ref.
Case Title
24
25
Facts
Ex officio capacity:
1. The Vice-President being appointed as a member of the
Cabinet under Section 3, par. (2), Article VII;
2. or acting as President in those instances provided under
Section 7, pars. (2) and (3), Article VII;
3. and, the Secretary of Justice being ex-officio member
of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Section 8
(1), Article VIII.
PGMA is not running for reelection, for she was not elected
President before. Neither does she fall under the prohibition
against a person who has succeeded as President, for she shall
not have served more than 4 years as such successor.
Congress to canvass the returns of every election for President
and Vice President.
Anson-Roa v. Arroyo
Brillantes v. COMELEC
Doctrine
Quick Count.
The accredited citizens arm of is NAMFREL. No other entity

other than NAMFREL is authorized by law to use a copy of the
election returns for the purpose of conducting unofficial
count.
Contravenes the constitutional provision on no money shall be
paid out of treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation.
The power to augment savings lies dormant until authorized by
law.
Adjournment of the congress did not terminate the JC.
26
Pimentel v. Joint Committee
The Joint Committee is assailed to have ceased

to exist upon the adjournment of Congress. The
JC is tasked to determine the authenticity of
certificate of canvass of for President and Vice
President.
27
Lopez v. Senate
Joint public session of congress.
Sec. 15 Art. VI does not pertain to the term of Congress but to

its regular annual legislative sessions.
The legislative functions of the congress may have ended upon
the final adjournment of its regular sessions but it does not
affect the non-legislative functions (i.e., being the national
board of canvassers). Only when the board of canvassers has
completed its functions shall it be rendered functos officio.
The creation of the Joint Committee does not constitute
grave abuse and cannot be said to have deprived petitioner
and the other members of Congress of their congressional
prerogatives, because under the very Rules under attack, the
62

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
28
BANAT v. COMELEC
Law passed enumerating guidelines for preproclamation controversy. This may include
P/VP.
29
Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos
Santiago lost presidency in 1992.
Doctrine
decisions and final report of the said Committee shall be
subject to the approval of the joint session of both Houses of
Congress, voting separately.
The Constitution grants Congress the power to promulgate
its own rules for the canvassing of election certificates.
The Rules enjoy the presumption of legality and the
petitioner has miserably failed to overcome this
presumption.
No, because the said law does not really allow Congress to hear
pre-proclamation controversies. It merely sets out the
procedures to take when there is such controversy.
Furthermore, the jurisdiction granted by the law is only
exercised prior to the proclamation of the winning president.
When the winning president is proclaimed, jurisdiction
transfers to SC en banc.
The election protest filed by Miriam Santiago has been
rendered moot and academic by its abandonment or withdrawal
by the Protestant as a consequence of her election and
assumption of office as Senator and her discharge of the duties
and functions thereof.
In the 1935 Constitution, to where FPJ has first seen light,
conferred citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino
regardless of whether they are legitimate or illegitimate.
Only the registered candidate for the President or VP who
received the second and third highest number of votes may
contest the election of the P or VP with the SC and PET. It can
only be done after the election has been conducted.
30
Tecson v. Lim
The nationality of FPJ is being assailed.
Ordinary usage would characterize a contest in reference to a

post-election scenarioeither as an election contest or a quo
warranto.
Rules categorically speak of jurisdiction of the tribunal over
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of P
and VP, not of candidates thereof.
It does not include cases brought directly before it questioning
63

Ref.
Case Title
31
Poe v. GMA
Facts
Doctrine
the qualifications of candidates before the elections are held.
NO, a widow (Susan Roces) cannot substitute for the protestant
(FPJ) in an election protest.
Susan Roces protested the presidency of GMA.

Only the 2nd and 3rd placers may contest the election. The rule
clearly defines the proper protestant.
Macalinatal has no legal standing since he has appeared before
the PET as counsel of former PGMA in 2004. That would have
been the proper time to contest the validity of PET.
32
Macalintal v. PET
PET is assailed as being unconstitutional.
PET is not inferior to the SC. It is the same court although of

peculiar functions. It is independent but not separate from the
judicial department.
PET performs a judicial function. It id derivative of the plenary
judicial power allocated to courts of law, expressly provided by
the constitution.
Even though Erap did not write any formal letter of resignation,
he resigned based on his acts and omissions before, during and
after the EDSA II. Seen through posterior facts and
circumstantial evidence.
He is not temporary unable to act as president. That claim has
been laid to rest by Congress (by passing bills) and the decision
that GMA is the de jure president made by co-equal branch of
the government cannot be reviewed by SC.
33
Estrada v. Desierto
Estrada steps down as the President but later

claimed that he was only temporarily vacating
his seat.
Two letters:
1. Leaving Malacaang for countrys sake but has strong
doubts as to GMAs presidency
2. Sec. 11 Art. VII, he is declaring himself as President
on leave. Congress has the ultimate authority to declare
whether the President is incapable.
EDSA I is a political question. EDSA II is not. It only affects
the office of the President, not the government. It is an intraconstitutional question.
Arroyo government is not revolutionary. She categorically
64

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
swore to preserve and defend the constitution.
Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to court
during the period of incumbency but not after.
Unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the state. He
stands in the same footing as any other trespasser.
The pressure exerted to the Estrada to resign did not completely
vitiate the voluntariness of his resignation.
34
Rafael v. Embroidery & Apparel

Control Board
Composition of the Board is assailed. It thwarts

the Presidents power to appoint.
Prejudicial publicity does not stand because he was not

deprived of his constitutional rights.
No new appointments are necessary because the representatives
are merely performing duties in the board in addition to those
that they are already performing. Ex officio capacity on the
departments identified by Congress is not to be reviewed.
The private organization is a dominant organization. The
choosing is justified.
The rule under Section 13 of Article VII of the 1987
Constitution really stands to impose a stricter restriction on the
President, Vice-president, and cabinet members from holding
other positions in the government. May do so only iof the
constitution itself allows it, not by mere laws which is allowed
among appointive officials in civil service.
35
CLU v. Exec Secretary
EO allowing cabinet members, undersecretaries

and their assistant secretaries to hold other
government offices or position.
The president and his/her official family may only hold one
position in the government subject to exceptions provided for
in the constitution or as may be derived from the official
capacity of his/her position because unlike other government
officers who may hold other offices as may be provided for by
law, the position of president and that of all of his/her alteregos are positions which require much time, focus and
dedication in order to be efficient.
Sec. 13 Art. VII does not include the phrase in the
government and so it is all embracingboth public and
private office and employment.
65

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Ex-officio positions mean positions that must be taken on by
the official by duty and right of his position, and as such, is no
other office but rather an extension of his duties as president,
VP or cabinet member.
The agent can never be larger than the principal. If the principal
is absolutely barred, so should the agent be.
36
De la Cruz v. COA
Petitioner was given a notice of disallowance as

BOD of NHA.
Ex-officio means from office or by the virtue of the office.

Services are already paid for and covered by the compensation
attached to his principal office.
Alternates cannot likewise be entitled to receive compensation.
Presence is as representative, so ex-officio also.
37
Bitonio v. COA
Petitioners notice if disallowance as BOD of

PEZA (from DOLE).
Although enacted after CLU case, it still cannot negate the

constitution. In fact, the law providing for per diems among
PEZA members were amended already.
COA has exclusive and broad auditing powers over all
government entities, trusties, without exceptions.
Internal and interpretative regulation or letter of instruction
does not need publication to be effective and valid.
Designation does not entail payment of additional benefits or
grant.
38
National Amnesty Com. v. COA
Petitioners honoraria was removed.
Ex-officio member representatives are covered by the strict

constitutional prohibition imposed on the president and his
official family.
The agent/representative/alternate can never be larger than the
principal. If the principal is absolutely barred, so should the
agent be.
Government is never estopped by mistake or error on part of its
agent. Erroneous application of law may be corrected.
Representatives cannot be considered as de facto officers
66

Ref.
Case Title
39
Funa v. Ermita
Facts
USEC of DOTC was also serving as MARINA

administrator. Concurrent capacity but no
remuneration and lasted only for four months.
Doctrine
because they were not appointed but merely designated to act
as such.
Failed to demonstrate that it was as an ex-officio capacity.
Hence, violative of constitution.
The prohibition is on hold office not on designation v.
appointment. Hence, prohibited.
Time of service is irrelevant.

His termination is now valid. Approved by the board.
40
Betoy v. The Board of Directors,

NAPOCOR
Betoy was terminated. His separation pay is

now raised as an issue.
Reorganization involves reduction of personnel, consolidation

of offices or abolition thereof by reason of economy of
redundancy of functions. Ultimate test is good faith, otherwise
void.
The cabinet to for the board of private company is not violative
of the prohibition. Privatization would involve financial,
budgetary, environmental concerns. Also, they were
proclaimed to be in ex-officio capacity only.
41
Funa v. Exec Secretary

(prohibition to hold any other
office)
A new preliminary investigation may be required if asked by
the accused even though the facts may be the same as long as
there is a new case filed. This is a substantial right.
42
43
Doromal v. Sandiganbayan
In re Appointment of Valenzuela
Petitioner participated in contract with DECS.

He is also the commissioner of PCGG.
Valenzuela and Vallarta were appointed as

judges of RTC during election ban on
appointments.
Although indirect interest, Sec. 13 Art. VII applies to directly

or indirectly participation.
Preventive suspension is in order however order the release
because already exceeded the maximum of 90 days.
Sec. 15 Art. VII directed against two types of appointments:
1. Made for buying votes
2. For partisan considerations (aka midnight
appointments)
It is to limit the abuse of presidents prerogative.
67

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
It is the clerk of court who thereafter advises the individual
appointees of their appointments, not the executive.
There is a command to fill up the vacancy in the judiciary (Sec.
4(1) Art. VIII).
The word shall is imperative.
Sec. 15 Art. VII does not apply to all other appointments in the
judiciary. This is confined in the executive department.
No possibility of defects for vote buying and partisan
considerations since JBC is there to screen.
44
De Castro v. JBC
CJ Puno is to retire. GMA appoints CJ Corona.
Revocability at will in the judiciary by the president will only

undermine the independence of the judiciary. That is why, only
through impeachment.
In Art. VII, Sec. 14 only applies to executive. Sec. 16 only
applies to executive. Hence, Sec. 15 must only apply to
executive also.
45
46
Sana v. Career Executive Service

Board
GMA granted CESO rank to those who

completed graduate programs.
Government v. Springer
Governor general and national assembly outvote

the executive in appointing the members of
BOD of a GOCC. But governor general asserts
that it is his right to appoint.
No Acting Chief Justice to be made. CJ should be permanent.

Historically, no wide gap between the retirement and the
resignation of CJs.
Rendered moot. But according to OSG, the vesting of CESO
rank is valid because it does not contemplate any hiring or
appointment since it involves only the conferment of a rank
rather than a selection for a position.
Appointment is generally looked upon as an executive
function. It is intrinsically an executive act.
The legislature may add to, but may not diminish the power of
the governor general.
The legislative creates the office. They ought to have nothing
to do with designating.
Government, as a majority shareholder, should insure that it
68

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
has proper governmental supervision and control.
Caring for government property is executive in nature.
President is the head of the government and includes the power
of control.
The right of choice is the heart of the power to appoint.
47
48
Bermudez v. Exec Secretary
Datu Michael Abas Kida v.

Senate
Bermudez is to vacate provincial prosecutor of

Tarlac but refused because there is no
recommendation yet from the DOJ.
See #89 Art. VI
The phrase upon the recommendation of the secretary in the

administrative code is not binding or obligatory. Nothing more
than an advisory in nature.
In this case, the Secretary of Justice and the President has not
sharing of power.
Three ways to address the problem of synchronization:
1. Holdover capacity (violative of maximum term)
2. Special elections (only done if there is a failure in
election)
3. Appointive powers of the president (appoint OICs)
Power to appoint is executive in nature.
CoA, though composed of members in Congress, is executive
and not legislative.
49
Pimentel v. Ermita
GMA appointed acting secretaries without CoA

while Congress is in session.
Acting capacity is temporary in nature. This is allowed by law

to be made by the president. Not necessarily the undersecretary
will succeed.
The president can choose who her alter ego should be.
Congress cannot impose.
Ad interim are submitted to CoA and extended only during a
recess of Congress.
50
Sarmiento III v. Mison
Petitioner bars the appointment of respondents

due to lack of CoA confirmation.
Acting appointments are not submitted to the CoA and may be

done even if not in recess.
Four groups of officers:
1. Heads of:
a. executive departments,
69

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
b. ambassadors,
c. other public ministers and
d. consuls,
e. officers of the armed forces from the rank of
colonel or naval captain and
f. other officers whose appointments are vested
in him in this constitution.
2. Other officers of the government whose appoints are
not otherwise provided by law
3. Those whom the president may be authorized by law to
appoint
4. Officers lower in rank whose appointments the
congress may by law vest in the president alone
First group needs CoA consent.
1935-venue of horse-trading
1973-hardly any check on the part of the legislature
1987-middle ground
Also does not mean in the same manner since it may mean
in addition, as well as, besides too.
51
Bautista v. Salonga
Appointed as acting commissioner. Summoned

by CoA but refused to because he was made
permanent by the president.
52
Quintos-Deles v. CA
Executive Secretary appointed sectoral

representatives.
53
Pobre v. Mendieta
Pobre was replaced by the more senior even

though appointed already.
54
Flores v. Drilon
Drilon is to be made SBMA chairman as

provided in the law.
Alone is a slip or lapsus. Carryover from the 1935

constitution. Intent is to prevail.
Commissioner on CHR is not under the jurisdiction of CoA.
No need for confirmation of CoA even though the president
sent a letter to CoA to confirm.
Sectoral representatives fall under group 1 of Mison doctrine.
Hence, they need CoA consent.
Unacceptable that every vacancy shall be filled by succession
or by operation of law since it would deprive the president of
his power to appoint.
Sec. 7 Art. IX-B prohibits the concentration of several public
positions in one person.
Appointive officials when allowed by law or primary function
may hold multiple offices. Elective officials does not provide
70

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
any exceptions excepts only when provided by the constitution
itself (i.e., President as the head of the economic and planning
agency, the VP as a member of the cabinet, member of
Congress as ex-officio member of JBC).
Congress cannot limit the choice of the president.
Abuse of congressional authority where one and only one can
qualify.
Elective officials remain ineligible for appointment to another
public office. Ineligibility is not the same as forfeiture of office.
CCP does not fall under the legislative or judicial. It must fall
under the executive.
President exercises control over all the executive departments,
bureaus, and offices.
55
Rufino v. Endriga
Board of Trustees in CCP.

Legislature cannot enact a law that puts a government office
outside the control of the president.
56
Calderon v. Carale
Appointment in NLRC without CoA consent.

Congress required confirmation.
57
U-Sing v. NLRC
Jurisdiction of NLRC is assailed for not having

been appointed by CoA.
58
Tarrosa v. Singson
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas does not need

confirmation from CoA.
59
Manolo v. Sistoza
Police officers assumed office even without
Power of control of the president does not extend to quasijudicial bodies.

NLRC chairman and commissioners are under the third group
of Mison doctrine. If the Congress requires confirmation, then
it will amend the constitution.
NLRC is not in first group of Mison.
U-Sing is estopped from raising the defense of jurisdiction
because it has previously recognized such.
Appeal is a statutory right and must comply with strict
requirements of bond.
The action should have been a quo warranto proceeding as it
seeks to ouster the respondent for unlawfully holding or
exercising the powers of a governor.
Congress cannot by law expand the powers of CoA.
Congress cannot expand the power of confirmation of CoA.
71

Ref.
Case Title
CoA confirmation.
Facts
Doctrine
PNP is separate from the AFP. Hence, does not fall under the
first group of Mison.
60
Soriano v. Lista
Philippine Coast Guard is under DOTC. No

longer under DND.
61
Pimentel v. Ermita (Recess or adinterim appointments and

temporary appointments)
See #49 Art. VII
Sec. 4 Art. XVIAFP

Sec. 6 Art. VXIPNP
No need for confirmation. Only refers to military officers
alone.
Control is the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify

or set aside what the subordinate officer had done.
62
63
Lacson-Magallanes v. Pano
Ang-Angco v. Castillo
President, through ES, reversed the decision of

Secretary of Agriculture.
Petitioner is removed by president although he

belongs to classified service of CSC.
64
Villaluz v. Zaldivar
Presidential appointee who belongs to the noncompetitive or unclassified service is removed.
65
NAMARCO v. Arca
Manager of traffic storage department was

removed.
66
PASEI v. Torres
EO is to amend and LOI. This is on ban of

granting licenses to agencies for OFW
employees.
67
De Leon v. Carpio
NBI does not obey Secretary of Justice. There

was a change in Secretary of Justice.
President is not expected to perform in person all multifarious

executive and administrative functions. ES is an auxiliary unit.
ESs decision is that of the president.
Removal, separation and suspension of officers and employees
of the classified service are subject to saving clause except as
provided by law.
However, no law provides such. President cannot do so with
regard to those officers or employees who belong to classified
service.
CSC has no jurisdiction.
NAMARCO charter provides that the BOD may remove
employees but does not mean that the president cannot review
or reverse such decision.
Not all LOI form part of the law of the land.
LOI is law if it was in response to grave emergency or threat.
Otherwise, mere administrative issuance that can be amended
by EO.
Presidents power of control is directly exercised. It is selfexecuting.
Secretary of Justice is an alter ego of the president. Hence,
72

Ref.
Case Title
68
Joson v. Torres
Facts
Grave misconduct and abuse done in the session

hall by the respondent. There was a resistance
on a pending legislative action.
Doctrine
should be respected by the NBI.
Administrative complaints:
1. Elective officials of a province, highly urbanized city
an independent component city or component city shall
file before the office of the president.
2. Elective officials of a municipality shall be filed before
the sangguniang panlalawigan appealable to the
president.
3. Elective barangay officials shall be filed in
sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan which
is final and executory.
Disciplining authority is the president, whether through him or
ES.
Secretary of DILG is the investigating authority. However, this
is not exclusive. A special investigating committee may be
created.
Preventive suspension may be imposed by the discipline
authority at any time:
1. Issues are joined
2. Evidence of guilt is strong
3. Gravity of the offense
SBMA, a chartered institution, is always under the president.
69
Hutchison v. SBMA
Marine terminal container contract did not push

through.
70
Cruz v. Sec of DENR
Petitioners are assailing the creation of NCIP

may divest it from the office of the president.
71
Domingo v. Zamora
PSC is created. BPESS personal either

transferred to DECS or PSC.
Rebidding is within the authority.

HPPL is incapacitated to bring the petition since not registered
in the Philippines.
7-7 vote. Kapunan commented that assailed provision does not
infringe upon the presidents power of control since IPRA itself
puts the NCIP under the office of the president.
Office of the president proper: abolish, consolidate/merge,
transfer of functions.
Outside the president proper: transferring of
functions/agencies.
73

Ref.
Case Title
72
DENR v. DENR Region 12

Employees
Facts
Transfer of office form Cotabato to Koronadal.
Doctrine
Transfer of function is not abolition.
Doctrine of qualified political agency. The power of the
president to reorganize the national government may be delated
to his cabinet members.
The president has the power to determine the regional centers.
This is on the wisdom rather than legality.
President shall have control over the executive departments.
PNP Chief succeeded the Constabulary Chief.
Right to bear arms is for the defense of the state not to the
citizens individual right to own.
73
Chavez v. Romulo
Gun ban IRR made by PNP chief.
All licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive

action (Factoran).
Ex post facto law:
1. Action done before passing the law and which was
innocent when done criminal and punishes such action
2. Aggravates crime or makes it greater
3. Changes the punishment to greater degree
4. Alter legal rules to disadvantage the accused
Presidents power cannot extend to judiciary or legislative.
74
KMU v. Dir-Gen of NEDA
ID system being implemented in the executive

body.
75
Phillips v. BOI
Appeal to ITH exemption.
76
Angeles v. Gaite
Alleged kidnapping. Sent to the office of the

president.
Appeal from BOI decision to president only when:

1. Arise between registered enterprises and the
government agencies in Art. 7 of the BOI Code
2. Investment priorities plan
Each head of the government is the presidents alter ego. DOJ
investigations are binding.
See #13 Art. II
CoA can audit BSP.
Manila Revenue Code being set-aside by the
Secretary of justice may only review the constitutionality or
77
78
Boy Scouts of the Phil v.

Commission on Audit
Drilon v. Lim
President did not make any law. Merely implemented existing

laws.
Right to appeal is not a constitutional, natural, or inherent right.
It is a statutory privilege.
74

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
secretary of justice.
Doctrine
legality but not to substitute his own judgment.
There is only supervision on the secretary of justice, not
control.
DBM can review PRA.
79
80
81
PRA v. Bunag
Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan
National Artist for Lit Virgilio

Almario
DBM modified the compensation of PRA.

Marcos (brother in law of Ferdinand) is being
accused.
National Artists for 2009.
This is in keeping with the equal pay for equal work policy.
Immunity from suit is not absolute.
Derivative immunity is generally not allowed.
To recommend or to advise is only persuasive. Presidents may
or may not adopt.
However, he cannot declare a name that was not nominated by
the Committee on Honors. They have undergone a rigorous
process.
This is in keeping with the faithful execution of laws of the
president.
The authority to decide on whether exigency has arisen belongs
to the president. It is conclusive.
Two conditions: (1) there must be invasion, insurrection,
rebellion or imminent danger and (2) public safety so requires.
82
Lansang v. Garcia
Two hand grenades were thrown during the

public meeting of Liberal Party at Plaza
Miranda. Eight were killed. Marcos issued a
suspension of writ of habeas corpus thereafter.
Petitioners arrested without warrant. Marcos
believed that there was insurrection/rebellion.
Members of the court have the authority to inquire into the

existence of factual bases.
Writ will not be suspended except on invasion, insurrection or
rebellion.
NPA existence is proof of rebellion. Though small, cannot
negate the fact. RPC defines rebellion as any part of the
Philippines.
Illegal for military courts to assume jurisdiction over civilians
when civil courts are normally functioning.
President did not act arbitrarily because he based it on his
75

Ref.
Case Title
83
84
Aberca v. Ver
IBP v. Zamora
Facts
Task force Makabansa who did damages for

illegal searches conducted by military
personnel.
PNP and Marines to conduct a visibility patrol

in Metro Manila.
85
Lacson v. Perez
Arroyo is seated in office. Violence outside

Malacaang.
86
Lim v. Exec Secretary
Balikatan exercise is covered by VFA.
87
Sanlakas v. Exec Secretary
Oakwood mutiny.
88
89
David v. Arroyo
Ampatuan v. DILG Sec
See #21 Art. VII

Ampatuan massacre.
90
Fortun v. Arroyo
Martial law and suspend the privilege of writ in

Maguindanao declared.
Doctrine
available data. He acted in good faith.
Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus does not destroy the
petitioners constitutional rights.
There is a clear textual commitment under the constitution to
bestow on the president full discretionary powers to call out the
armed forces and to determine the necessity of such power.
The conditions for the suspension of the writ and imposition of
the martial law are not required in case of the power to call out
armed forces.
Individual subjected to warrantless arrest is not without
adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law.
Pacta sunt servanda applies.
Activities is broad enough to include balikatan.
The only criterion for the President to exercise calling out
power is whenever it becomes necessary. Hence, declaration of
a state of rebellion is a superfluous.
The calling out of armed forces vests in the President.
Power to proclaim martial law and suspend the privilege of writ
is shared with Congress:
1. Good only for 60 days
2. Report his action within 48 hours
3. Both houses of Congress would convene within 24
hours
4. Congress may revoke or affirm
If the Congress procrastinates, the courts can step in to
ascertain if factual basis are enough.
91
Cristobal v. Labrador
Petitioner to remove the respondent from the list

of voters.
The 30-day period does not operate to divest the court of

justification because jurisdiction, once acquired, cannot be lost.
Limitations of pardon:
1. Grant after conviction
2. Not extend to impeachment
Absolute pardon removes all disabilities resulting from
76

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
conviction.
We do not follow US where the privilege of voting is not
restored because the right of suffrage in US rests in the hands
of the state and not in the federal government.
Executive clemency may be extended to both criminal and
administrative since the law does not distinguish. It only speaks
of conviction.
92
Llamas v. Orbos
Executive clemency extended even to

administrative case.
Administrative case is lesser than criminal case. No reason not

to be included in the executive clemency.
However, the president can only extend executive clemency to
administrative cases in the executive branch, not to judiciary
and legislative.
Limitation of pardoning power is that it should be given after
final conviction.
93
People v. Salle
Conditional pardon granted even if there was an

appeal pending.
94
People v. Bacang
Conditional pardon granted despite appeal.
95
Drilon v. CA
Ganzon was under house arrest.
96
Torres v. Gonzales
Violation of conditional pardon.
97
People v. Casido
Amnesty was granted.
Conviction is final:
1. No appeal is seasonably perfected
2. Accused commences to serve sentence
3. Appeal is expressly waived
4. Accused applies for probation
Conditional pardon is voided.
Commuted by the president. Hence, served his sentence
already.
Pardoning power of the president is final and unappeasable, so
is commutation.
He can no longer be reinvestigated for the same offense.
Conditions and violations of conditional pardon will not be
reviewed by the courts. It is purely an executive act.
Amnesty may be granted before or after the institution of
criminal prosecution and sometimes even after conviction.
Amnesty is granted to classes of persons or communities who
may be guilty of political offenses. It looks backward and puts
into oblivion the offense itself.
77

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Pardon looks forward but does not work the restoration of the
rights to hold public office, or the right to suffrage, unless such
rights are expressly reinstated.
In pardon, principal penalty is eliminated and the accessory
penalty continues unless expressly remitted.
Pardon implies guilt. It does not erase the fact of the
commission of the offense. It cannot bring back lost reputation.
98
Monsanto v. Factoran
No backpay after pardon. She needs to reapply.

Petitioner could not receive backpay.
99
Garcia v. COA
No need to reapply if proven to be innocent.
Pardon removed her disqualification form holding public

employment but it cannot go beyond that. She cannot be
reinstated automatically. She has to reapply.
If the pardon is based on the innocence, it makes him a new
man and as innocent as if he had not been found guilty.
Right to back wages is given.
Protection of local planters.
Stockpile of the army is not for the civilian population.
100
Gonzales v. Hechanova
Contract of rice and corn importation with

Vietnam and Burma.
The president may not, by an executive agreement, enter into

transaction which is prohibited by the statute enacted prior
thereto. Not defeat legislative enactments by indirectly
repealing through EA.
Constitution authorizes the nullification of treaty not only when
it conflicts with the fundamental law but also when it runs
counter to an act of Congress.
In any system of accounting, the unexpended sum should be
returned later.
101
USAFFE Veterans Association v.

Treasurer
Romulo-Snyder agreement is valid.
The president had power to contract budgetary loans.

Executive agreements, even without the concurrence of the
senate, are effective.
78

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
In international law, there is no difference between a treaty and
an executive agreement.
Two classes of EA:
1. Purely executive acts affecting external relations
2. Agreements entered into in pursuance of acts of
Congress (Congressional-Executive Agreements)
102
Taada v. Angara
WTO GATT.
103
Bayan v. Zamora
VFA.
104
Abaya v. Ebdane
Exchange of notes with Japan.
105
See #9 Art. II
Congress yearly appropriation constitutes ratification.

A final act is an instrument which records the winding up of the
proceedings of a diplomatic conference. It is not the treaty
itself.
The power to concur with treaties is lodged to the senate alone.
The negotiation of VFA is an exclusive act of the President.
The Senate, much so the Congress, cannot interfere. Absent
GADLEJ, the courts will not calibrate it.
Treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols,
declarations, memoranda of understanding, modus vivendi and
exchange of notes all refer to international instruments binding
at international law.
Exchange of notes do not need the vote of Senate or Congress.
106
Vinuya v. Romulo
Comfort women.
Executive department has determined petitioners cause is

inimical to our countrys foreign policy interests. It will disrupt
our relations with Japan.
Peace Treaty with Japan is not for atonement.
Art. XI
In Re: Gonzales
Estrada v. Disierto
Disbarment case to an impeachable officer,

Tandobayan/Special Prosecutor.
Jueteng controversy.
Impeachable officer cannot be disbarred during incumbency.

Also, cannot be charged criminally with a penalty of removal
from office.
Member of SC should first be removed through constitutional
route before be held criminally or administratively liable.
Unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the state. They
stand in the same footing as any trespasser.
79

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Intent of the framers is to be immune only during his tenure
and not his term.
No requirement that conviction in impeachment is sine qua non
to prosecution.
Initiate means filing plus the referral thereof to the House
Committee on Justice (the initial action).
Second impeachment complaint violated the 1-year ban under
the constitution.
Francisco v. HR
Impeachment complaint filed by Erap against

CJ Davide and AJs. Later, Gibo Teodora filed
the same.
To file:
1. Verified complaint for impeachment by any member of
the HR
2. By any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by
any member
3. By at least 1/3 of all the members of the house
The house has the exclusive power to initiate all cases of
impeachment.
SB has jurisdiction. It is a statutory court.
Lecaros v. SB
Mayor was charged of grave coercion by taking

over a gas station.
Zaldivar v. SB
Questioned the power of Tanodbayan to

investigate and file with SB.
Almonte v. Vasquez
Anonymous letter as basis of OMB to

investigate.
Presidents power to remove from office
petitioners under OMB.
Gonzales III v. OP
OP dismissed Gonzales (Chinese bus hostage
taking). OP to investigate Chief Procurement
Law-making authority (exercised by the President) granted it

power to include all public office-related offenses.
Only the OMB can file to SB, not Tanodbayan.
Tanodbayan is subordinate to OMB. It cannot have a right to sit
as OMB while waiting for person to be appointed.
OMB is given the power to act on a complaint of any form or
manner.
General investigations in OMB is precisely for the purposes of
protecting those against whom a complaint is hastily filed and
securing the state from expenses.
OMB is clothed with constitutional independence. However, it
cannot be made to extend to wrongdoings and permit unbridled
acts of its officials to escape administrative actions.
Congress restrictions over OP to OMB:
80

Ref.
Case Title
Officer of AFP.
Cruz v. SB
Facts
PCGG claims to investigate despite creation of

OMB.
Doctrine
1. Removal of deputy ombudsman must be for any of the
grounds provided (treason, bribery, graft, corruption,
other high crimes, betrayal of public trust)
2. There must be due process
Concurrent jurisdiction of PCGG and OMB:
1. Relate to ill-gotten wealth
2. Of the late President Marcos, immediate family
relatives, subordinates and close associates
3. Took undue advantage of their public office and used
their power, authority, influence, connections,
relationships
PCGG has no jurisdiction to prosecute since did not meet all
requirements above.
Ad hoc fact finding committee on behest loans

was created.
Also, they were not assigned by the President to investigate the

case (EO 1 2b).
OMB has no jurisdiction to question the constitutionality of
laws.
Salvador v. Mapa
OMB deciding that the complaint has already
prescribed.
OMB erroneously dismissed the complaint. Remanded to OMB

for proper evaluation.
Under the constitution, the OMB can recommend to suspend
and can suspend also.
When the constitution vested OMB the power to recommend
suspension, it referred to suspension as a punitive measure, not
penal.
Buenaseda v, Flavier
OMB and power to recommend suspension.
The OMB must make an intelligent determination of

investigation. He may need to suspend respondents in order to
do this.
Preventive suspension is valid even without a full blown
hearing.
Presidential Ad Hoc v. Desierto
OMB can suspend government official and employees working

in offices other than OMB, pending investigation.
OMB can motu propio dismiss complaints even if additional
81

Ref.
Case Title
(2007)
Facts
Doctrine
evidence were not adduced to support complaint.
Courts will not unduly interfere in the OMBs exercise of
investigatory and prosecutory powers.
The court may only interfere if GADLEJ.
OEC provides that permanent resident of foreign country are
not allowed to run for any elective office.
He was not able to secure a waiver of his residency status.
Hence, disqualified to run.
Caasi v. CA
Mayor has a green card for convenience when

traveling to US.
Constitutional provision in Sec. 18 Art XI does not apply to

him because he acquired his immigrant status before he was
elected to public office. This only applies to those who change
his status during tenure as public official.
Filing of COC is not a waiver of residency.
Art. XII
Regalian doctrine refers not only to lands but also to natural
wealth therein that may be found in the bowels of the earth.
Exploration, development and utilization of natural resources is
under the full control and supervision of the state.
In large scale EDU, the president may allow foreign owned
corporations to participate. But this is interpreted as not to own
anything but only for technical and financial assistance.
La Bugal Blaan v. Ramos
By allowing foreign contractors to manage, we have in effect
conveyed beneficial ownership which would leave the state a
bare title only.
Cruz v. DENR
Safeguards:
1. Contract be crafted according to general law
2. President is the signatory for the government
3. President reports the executive agreement to congress
within 30 days
Petitioner: the all-encompassing definition of ancestral domain
82

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Ramirez v. Vda. De Ramirez
Usufruct given to foreigner.
Halili v. CA
Alien son inherited lands but subsequently sold.

Neighbors wanted to claim right of redemption.
Osmea v. Osmea
Land in the name of brother because the mother

could not own lands. This was fraudulently
made. Mother died. Sister now claims the land.
Doctrine
and ancestral lands might even include private lands and
violate the rights of private owners.
Usufruct, albeit a real right, does not vest title.
Only the vesting of land title to aliens are prohibited by the
constitution.
The sale to third persons ratified the possession of alien son of
the lands.
Aliens cannot acquire or hold title to private lands or to lands
of public domain, except by way of legal succession.
No right of redemption in urban lands.
Party cannot claim fraudulent use of contract because she was a
party to it.
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS
An alien bids for Manila Prince Hotel.
Granting that she was not a party, she still could not own
because she is an alien.
National patrimony not only refers to natural resources but also
to cultural heritage of Filipinos.
It did not amount to national heritage because it did not comply
with the requisites.
Army and Navy v. CA
Lessee was not able to pay lease on an alleged

historical site.
Even if it complied with the requisites, it is still bound to

follow contract of lease.
Bagatsing v. Committee
Whether Petron is a public utility.
David v. Arroyo
Republic v. PLDT
Bureau of Telecommunications violated

agreement with PLDT.
National Historical Commission cannot vest ownership or

possession of the private property to the petitioner.
A public utility is one organized for hire or compensation to
serve the public, which is given the right to demand its service.
Petron is not engaged in oil refining for hire and compensation
to process the oil of other parties. Hence, the refining of
petroleum sourced abroad is not within the purview of the law.
Exercise of emergency powers, such as the taking over of
privately owned public utility or business affected with public
interest, requires a delegation from Congress.
Eminent domain is usually on real property but there is no
reason why it cannot apply to private property subject to
burden for public use and benefit.
83

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
Of course, just compensation should be given.
Art. XVI
The state may not be sued without its consent is a necessary
consequence of the principles of independence and equality of
states.
Indonesia v. Vinzons
Maintenance agreement with the diplomatic

mission of Indonesia here in the Philippines.
An existence of a paragraph in the contract saying that legal

actions be settled in Philippine courts is not necessarily a
waiver of sovereign immunity from suit.
Diplomatic agent does not enjoy immunity from:
1. Real action relating to private immovable property
2. Action relating to succession where he is involved as
executor, administrator, heir or legatee
3. Action outside his official functions
Cannot sue Customs Arrastre. It has a necessary governmental
service.
Mobil Philippines v. Customs

Arrastre
Delivered cases was short of one case.
Del Mar v. PVA
PVA discontinued pension because he was

already receiving from US.
Ministerio v. CFI
Cebu property was used by government without

any just compensation.
Syquia v. Almeda Lopez
Lease of three rooms to US armed forces.
Shauf v. CA
Not considered for the position of guidance

counselor although qualified.
Although it may be deemed as proprietary, it is a governmental

function. It does not necessarily become suable.
Generally, the state is immune from suit without its consent.
Exception: when the claimant institutes an action claimed
against a functionary who fails to comply with his statutory
duty to release the amount claimed from public funds already
appropriated by statute.
Doctrine of immunity cannot be used to wreak injustice upon
citizens.
When a state officer violates or invades property and personal
rights under an unconstitutional act which he does not have,
such suit is not against the state.
When the private parties not only sue for recovery of property
but also for money claims which may result in financial
liability of a foreign government, the Philippines cannot
exercise jurisdiction.
The cloak of immunity afforded to officers and agents of the
government are removed once they are sued in their private
84

Ref.
Case Title
Facts
Doctrine
capacity.
Defendants are being sued for their personal discriminatory
acts.
Baer v. Tizon
Logging in Subic military base/
US v. Ruiz
Collins avers that the contract with him be

granted.
Carabao v. Agricultural Product

Commission
300 extinguishers unpaid.
Acts contrary to law are not covered by constitutional

immunity.
Doctrine of state immunity is not limited to cases which would
result in pecuniary charge against the sovereign or would
require the doing of any affirmative action by it. prevention of
sovereign from doing an affirmative act direcyly and
immediately to the most important public function of any
governmentdefense of stateis equally untenable as
requiring it do an affirmative act.
State immunity now extends only to acts of the sovereign (jure
imperil).
Projects are integral part of the naval base. Hence, cannot be
sued on these contracts.
Wrong law invoked. Mandamus is the remedy. There was
inaction in auditor general already.
85

Constitutional Law I (Political Law) - Case Summary/Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law I (Political Law) - Case Summary/Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTI I 1st Sem AY 2014-2015: Catapusan, Kevin C.

RA 9522 on adjusting the countries archipelagic

RA is a statutory tool to demarcate the countrys maritime

Health Sector Reform Agenda of DOH passed.

BCDA compensation benefit equivalent to BSP.

President may, by EO or AO, direct reorganization of

CONSTI I 1st Sem AY 2014-2015: Catapusan, Kevin C.

Court stenographers ordered to refund the

Constituentorder, legal relations, contracts, punishments,

Union strike because of failure to meet the

PVTA does not recognize the overtime in 8Hr

Republic v. Judge of CFI of Rizal

Rice and Corn Administration, governmental

ACA was made under Agricultural Reform Code stating that

Dept. of National Defense intends to audit VFP

AFP makes unilateral and bilateral deeds of sale

VFP is public corporation. Created by RA. Adjunct of

CONSTI I 1st Sem AY 2014-2015: Catapusan, Kevin C.

Petitioners wanted to absolve themselves of the

Member of National Book Development Board

Ramiscal defends that he is doing a ministerial function of

MIAA seeks real property tax exemption.

MIAA not a GOCC but instrumentality of National

COA resolution to conduct an annual audit of

BSP Charter shows that it is a public corporation. Created for a

CONSTI I 1st Sem AY 2014-2015: Catapusan, Kevin C.

Phil. Society v. COA

Phil. Society for Prevention of Cruelty to

Textual foundation of charter shows that it was incorporated in

Serena, UP Board of Regents, squandered the

PD has a catch all phrase in relation to office hence SB has

Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh

A pending case was not entertained by CFI

Philippines had a de facto government of the second kind

Letter of Assoc. J. Puno

Assoc. J. Punos ranking was changed during

Ramas house was raided by Philippine

President Aquino was still exercising her powers of

CONSTI I 1st Sem AY 2014-2015: Catapusan, Kevin C.

Invoking that she should be exempted from

Philippines has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases. US

GATT-WTO Agreement was concurred by the

WTO clauses do not contradict the constitution. Only against

CONSTI I 1st Sem AY 2014-2015: Catapusan, Kevin C.

VFA approved by 2/3 votes of Senate.

Allowed only if (under special law Sec. 25 Art. XVIII):

CONSTI I 1st Sem AY 2014-2015: Catapusan, Kevin C.

RP-US no surrender agreement.

Jurisdiction of ICC is complementary only. ICC respects the

Deutsche Bank v. CIR

Deutsche is seeking for a TTRA.

Pacta sunt servanda. Tax treaty should be followed. Tax treaty

Lim v. Exec. Secretary

Balikatan exercise lodged under VFA.

Not engage in combat except in self-defense.

CONSTI I 1st Sem AY 2014-2015: Catapusan, Kevin C.

Shangri-La sues Developers for using the same

Both entities are not qualified to register.

Philip Morris v. FTC

PM sues FTC for use of logo.

Claim damages awarded by US courts during

Doctrine of incorporation. International law as part of the law

Milk code was enacted in consonance with soft

Milk Code (municipal law) should prevail over the ICMB.