ARTICLE I: National Territory
convention. Two recent conflicts occurred in the Gulf of Sidra where Libya has
Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea[1], is a belt of coastal waters extending at most
twelve nautical miles from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a
coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state,
although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage
through it; this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below.
The term "territorial waters" is also sometimes used informally to describe any area of
water over which a state has jurisdiction, including internal waters, the contiguous
zone, the exclusive economic zone and potentially the continental shelf.
BASELINE: Normally, the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured is the
low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized
by the coastal state. This is either the low-water mark closest to the shore, or
alternatively it may be an unlimited distance from permanently exposed land,
provided that some portion of elevations exposed at low tide but covered at high tide
(like mud flats) is within 12 nautical miles (22 km) of permanently exposed land.
Straight baselines can alternatively be defined connecting fringing islands along a
coast, across the mouths of rivers, or with certain restrictions across the mouths of
bays. In this case, a bay is defined as "a well-marked indentation whose penetration is
in such proportion to the width of its mouth as to contain land-locked waters and
constitute more than a mere curvature of the coast. An indentation shall not, however,
be regarded as a bay unless its area is as large as, or larger than, that of the semi-circle
whose diameter is a line drawn across the mouth of that indentation". The baseline
across the bay must also be no more than 24 nautical miles (44 km) in length.
INTERNAL WATERS: Waters landward of the baseline are defined as internal
waters, over which the state has complete jurisdiction: not even innocent passage is
allowed. Lakes and rivers are considered internal waters, as are all "archipelagic
waters" within the outermost islands of an archipelagic state such as Indonesia or the
Philippines.
TERRITORIAL SEA: A state's territorial sea extends up to 12 nautical miles (22 km)
from its baseline. If this would overlap with another state's territorial sea, the border is
taken as the median point between the states' baselines, unless the states in question
agree otherwise. A state can also choose to claim a smaller territorial sea.
Conflicts still occur whenever a coastal nation claims an entire gulf as its territorial
waters while other nations only recognize the more restrictive definitions of the UN
claimed the entire gulf as its territorial waters and the U.S. has twice enforced
freedom of navigation rights (Gulf of Sidra incident (1981), Gulf of Sidra incident
(1989)).
CONTIGUOUS ZONE: The contiguous zone is a band of water extending from the
outer edge of the territorial sea to up to 24 nautical miles (44 km) from the baseline,
within which a state can exert limited control for the purpose of preventing or
punishing "infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and
regulations within its territory or territorial sea". This will typically be 12 nautical
miles (22 km) wide, but could be more (if a state has chosen to claim a territorial sea
of less than 12 nautical miles), or less, if it would otherwise overlap another state's
contiguous zone. However, unlike the territorial sea there is no standard rule for
resolving such conflicts, and the states in question must negotiate their own
compromise. The United States invoked a contiguous zone on 24 September 1999.[2]
CONTINENTAL SHELF: Article 76[4] gives the legal definition of continental shelf
of coastal countries. For the physical geography definition, see the continental shelf
page.
The continental shelf of a coastal nation extends out to the outer edge of the
continental margin but at least 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the baselines of the
territorial sea if the continental margin does not stretch that far. The outer limit of a
country's continental shelf shall not stretch beyond 350 nautical miles (648 km) of the
baseline, or beyond 100 nautical miles (185 km) from the 2,500 meter isobath, which
is a line connecting the depths of the seabed at 2,500 meters.
The outer edge of the continental margin for the purposes of this article is defined as:
a series of lines joining points not more than 60 nautical miles (111 km) apart
where the thickness of sedimentary rocks is at least 1% of the height of the
continental shelf above the foot of the continental slope; or
a series of lines joining points not more than 60 nautical miles apart that is not

more than 60 nautical miles from the foot of the continental margin.
The foot of the continental slope is determined as the point of maximum change in the
gradient at its base.
The portion of the continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile limit is also known
as the extended continental shelf. Countries wishing to delimit their outer continental
shelf beyond 200 nautical miles have to submit information on their claim to the
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. The Commission must make
recommendations on matters related to the establishment of the outer limits of their
continental shelf. The limits established based on these recommendations shall be
final and binding.
Countries were supposed to lodge their submissions to extend their continental shelf
beyond 200 nautical miles within 10 years of UNCLOS coming into force in the
country, or by 13 May 2009 for countries where the convention had come into force
before 13 May 1999. As of 1 June 2009, 51 submissions have been lodged with the
Commission, of which 8 have been deliberated by the Commission and have had
recommendations issued. The 8 are (in the order of date of submission): Russian
Federation; Brazil; Australia; Ireland; New Zealand; the joint submission by France,
Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom; Norway and Mexico. A coastal nation has
control of all resources on or under its continental shelf, living or not, but no control
over any living organisms above the shelf that are beyond its exclusive economic
zone. This gives it the right to conduct petroleum drilling works and lay submarine
cables or pipelines in its continental shelf.
Article II
Section 1: Philippines as a democratic and republican State
Bacani vs. NACOCO
Government Functions: (revised Admin. Code) refers only to government entity
through which the function of the government are exercised as an attribute of
sovereignty, and in this are included those arms to the government through w/c
political authority is made effective whether they be provincial, municipal or other
form of local government. These are what we call municipal corporations. They do
not include government entities which are given a corporate personality separate and
distinct from the government and which are governed by the Corporation law. Their
powers, duties and liabilities have to be determined in the light of that law and their
corporate charters.
ACCFA vs. CUGCO
Governmental functions:
1) constituent – the very bonds of society and are compulsory
2) ministrant – undertaken only by way of advancing the general interest of
society; optional.
Land reform program – governmental function and cannot be undertaken by any
private enterprise (no capacity).
PVTA vs. CIR
Government to provide for general welfare. Government entrusted to be responsible
for coping with social and economic problems with commensurate power of control
over economic affairs: live up to commitment of promoting general welfare through
state action.
Republic vs. Judge of CFI Rizal
The rice and Corn Administration is a government agency without a distinct and
separate legal personality from that of the Republic of the Philippines.
VFP vs. Reyes
Public Office – the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which,
for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating
power, an individual is vested with some portion of sovereign functions of the
government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public.
Office (distinguished from employment or contract) – the creation and conferring of
an office involves a delegation to the individual of some of the sovereign functions of
the government, for the benefit of the public; that some portion of the sovereign
function of the country, either legislative, executive or judicial, attaches, for the time
being, to be exercised for the public benefit.
MIAA vs. CA
GOCC – a stock or non-stock corporation, vested with functions relating to the public
needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the government
directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or where applicable (for stock
corps.), to the extent of at least 51% of its capital stock.
(MIAA as a government instrumentality) Instrumentality – defined as any agency of
the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested
with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate
powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually
through a charter.
Ramiscal vs. Sandiganbayan
AFP-RSBS – a GOCC and its funds are in the nature of public funds. Sandiganbayan
has jurisdiction over offenses committed by presidents, directors, trustees or managers
of GOCCs. What charges to file, and who are to be charged are matters addressed to
the discretion of the Ombudsman.
Alzaga vs. Sandiganbayan
The character and operations of the AFP-RSBS are imbued with public interest thus
the same is a government entity and its funds are in the nature of public funds.
(similar to the GSIS)
PSPCA vs. COA
GOCCs are subject to the control or supervision of the State (unlike PSPCA). A
juridical entity impressed with public interest does not make the entity a public
corporation. The true criterion to determine whether a corporation is public or private
is found in the totality of the relation of the corporation to the State. If it is created by
the State as its own agency or instrumentality to help in carrying out its governmental
functions, then that corporation is considered public; otherwise, it is private.
Serana vs. Sandiganbayan
A UP Student Regent is a public officer. It is not a natural right. It exists, when it
exists at all only because and by virtue of some law expressly or impliedly creating or
conferring it. Compensation is not an essential element of public office. It is merely
incidental to the public office. Delegation of sovereign functions is essential in public
office. An investment on an individual of some portion of the sovereign functions of
the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public makes one a
public officer. The administration of UP is a sovereign function of the State. (Art.
XIV)
De Jure and De Facto Government
Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh
Kinds of de facto government: 1) government that gets possession and control of, or
usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal government and
maintains itself against the will of the latter (like England under the Commonwealth);
2) established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of
the enemy in the course of war, and which is denominated a government of paramount
force (like Castine in Maine and Tampico, Mexico); 3) established as an independent
government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent
State (like the Southern Confederacy).
Distinguishing characteristics of the 2nd kind of de facto government: 1) its existence
is maintained by active military power within the territories and against the rightful
authority of an established and lawful government; 2) while it exists it must
necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience
rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrongdoers, for
those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government.
Letter of Associate justice Puno
Revolution – the complete overthrow of the established government in any country or
state by those who were previously subject to it.; sudden, radical and fundamental
change in the government or political system, usually effected with violence or at
least some acts of violence; occurs whenever the legal order of a community is
nullified and replaced by a new order… away not prescribed by the first order itself.
The Aquino government was revolutionary government due to the fact that it was
established in defiance of the existing legal processes. It was a revamp of the
Judiciary and the Military signaled the point when the legal system then in effect, had
ceased to be obeyed by the Filipino. (De Facto Government).
People vs. Gozo
The Philippines has authority over its entire domain. There is no portion of it that is
beyond its power. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands paramount.
Its laws govern therein and apply to all. The extent of its jurisdiction is both territorial
and personal. A State may allow another to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional
right over certain portions of its territory (auto-limitation) but these areas do not retain
an alien character, but remain as native soil.
Section 2: International Law and Philippine Municipal Law
Tanada vs. Angara
The principles in Art. 2 are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for the
enforcement of the courts. They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the
exercise of its power of judicial review. They do not embody judicially enforceable
rights but guidelines for legislation. A law should be passed by Congress to clearly
define and effectuate such principles. GATT as international law needs to be ratified
to be transformed into municipal law.
Bayan vs. Zamora
As long as the VFA possesses the elements of an agreement under international law,
the said agreement is to be taken equally as a treaty, which is an international
instrument concluded between States in written form and governed by international
law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in 2 or more related instruments, and
whatever it particular designation. In international law, there is no difference between
treaties and executive agreements in their binding effect upon states concerned, as
long as the negotiating functionaries have remained within their powers. In this,
jurisdiction, we have recognized the binding effect of executive agreements even
without the concurrence of the Senate or Congress.
Lim vs. Exec. Sec.
A party to a treaty is not allowed to invoke its internal law as justification for its
failure to perform a treaty. A treaty is favored over municipal law pursuant to the
principle of pacta sunt servanda. Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it
and must be performed by them in good faith. The VFA gives legitimacy to the
Balikatan Exercises.
Mijares vs. Ranada
There is no obligatory rule derived from treaties or conventions that requires the
Philippines to recognize foreign judgments, or allow a procedure for the enforcement
thereof.
Shagri-La vs. Developers
Pharmaceutical vs. Duque III
Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the law of the land
either by transformation or incorporation. Transformation requires that the
international law be transformed into domestic law through a constitutional
mechanism such as local legislation. Incorporation applies, when by mere
constitutional declaration , international law is deemed to have force and effect of
domestic law. Treaties become part of the law of the land through transformation, by
concurrence of 2/3 majority vote of the members of Senate.
Section 3: Civilian Supremacy
IBP vs. Zamora
Orders which resemble the functions of aid by the AFP already present and existent
within the functions of society such as elections, national exams, relief and rescue
operations and projects of the Red Cross, are not violative of civilian supremacy.
Section 5: Maintenance of Peace and Order
Kilosbayan vs. Morato
The principles in Article 2 do not embody self-executing constitutional rights, but
mere guidelines for legislation and aid for the judiciary.
Section 12: Family life, mother, unborn
Roe vs. Wade
On the basis of the right to privacy, abortion was legalized up to the 6th month of
pregnancy. The constitutional provision bars any application of the Roe vs. wade
decision in this jurisdiction.
Meyer vs. Nebraska
Education should always be diligently promoted as it has always been regarded as a
matter of supreme importance. It is the natural duty of the parent to give his children
education suitable to his station in life. Rights of parents are superior to the State.
Pierce vs. Society of Sister
The fundamental theory of liberty exclude any general power to standardize its
children by forcing them to accept instruction from public school teachers only.
Wisconsin vs. Yoder
Only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can over- especially in such strategic industries as in the development of natural resources and
balance the primary interest of parents in the religious upbringing of their children. public utilities. It does not prohibit competition, so long as it is fair and reasonable.
Some amount of competition would be beneficial for the consumers, as well as
Inherent duty of the state to act as parens patriae (parent of the STATE). producers.

Schools may take disciplinary action when: Section 26: Equal access to political opportunities and political dynasties

1. violations of school policies in connection with school sponsored activities Pamatong vs. Comelec

2. misconduct affecting student’s status or good name or reputation of the There is no constitutional right to run for or hold public office and, particularly, to
school. seek the presidency. What is recognized is merely a privilege subject to limitations
imposed by the law. Equality is not sacrificed so long as the burdens engendered by
Ginsburg vs. New York the limitations are meant to be borne be any one who is minded to file a certificate of
candidacy.
The knowledge that parental control cannot always be provided and society’s
transcendent interest in protecting the welfare of the children justify reasonable Article VI
regulation of the sale of material to them.
Powers of Congress: plenary: article XVI authorizes Congress to pass law to change
Section 16: Right to a balanced and healthful ecology name of country, national anthem or national flag; subject to ratification by the
people.
Opposa vs. Factoran
VALID DELEGATION
Intergenerational justice and responsibility: Section 16 one of the few self-executing
principles in Article 2. Legislative/ Law making
LLDA vs. CA Legislative <-> Executive
It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary requirements of due process yield Law <-> Implementing Rules and Regulations
to the necessities of protecting vital public interests like the protection of the safety,
health and general welfare and comfort of the public, as well as the protection of plant Law-making <-> Rule-making
and animal life: through the exercise of police power.
Principle of non-delegability of Legislative Power
Section 19: Self-reliant and independent national economy
People v. Rosenthal – Blue Sky Law
Garcia vs. BOI
The executive has the power of subordinate legislation, insofar as it interprets the laws
The State shall develop self-reliant and independent national economy effectively were it is based, and not going beyond and enacting laws. Moreover, this enhances
controlled by Filipinos. The government must run its affairs the way it deems best for convenience and promotes specialization through the administrative bodies.
the national interest, without any external influence or control.
Substantive shares- under insular treasurer
Tanada vs. Angara
 Not undue delegation: standard of “public interest”
Independence refers to freedom from undue foreign control of the national economy
Delegation to be made: sufficient standard to define rules and regulations
Law’s constitutional basis:
1. Public purpose
2. Reasonableness of means
Araneta vs. Gatmaitan – EO 22, 66 and 88
The legislature has the discretion to what the law should be while the executive has
the authority or discretion to the execution of such laws, provided that the execution
be exercised under and in pursuance of the law.
Any fishing net or fishing device – Protect fish fry and fish eggs (under fisheries law)
Fish trawl – destroys fish fry and fish eggs and comes under “Any fishing net or
fishing device”
People vs. Maceren
The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an executive official the power to declare
what acts should constitute a criminal offense. It can only authorize the issuance of
regulations and the imposition of the penalty provided for in the law itself. An
administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress.
“obnoxious and poisonous substance” – under fisheries law prohibited
Fisheries Administrative 84 – Prohibits electro fishing (created by sec. of Agriculture
and Natural resources, and Commissioner of Fisheries)
- Penalizes something that is not included in the law that created it (fisheries
law)
- Test of completeness and Sufficient standard test
- Ad. 84 goes beyond the fisheries law: added the criminalization of electro
fishing
Agustin vs. Edu
To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, which implies at
the very least that the legislative itself determines matters of principle and lays down
fundamental policy. Otherwise, the charge of complete abdication may be heard to
repel. A standard thus defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its
boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances
under which the legislative command is to be effected. It is the criterion by which
legislative purpose may be carried out. Thereafter, the executive or administrative
office designated may in pursuance of the above guidelines promulgate supplemental
rules and regulations. The standard may be either express or implied. If the former,
the non-delegation objection is easily met. The standard though does not have to be
spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act
considered as a whole. In the Reflector Law, clearly the legislative objective is public
safety.
EWD – LOI 229 and 479
Memorandum Circular No. 32
Standard – “Public Safety”
Vienna Convention for Road Signs and Signals
Free Telephone Workers vs. Min. of labor
What cannot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make laws and to
alter and repeal them; the test is the completeness of the statute in all its term and
provisions when it leaves the hands of the legislature.” SC furthered that there lies a
distinction between the (1) delegation of power to make the laws that necessarily
involves a discretion as to what it shall be (law-making powers of the Congress) and
(2) delegation of authority as to its execution to be exercised under and in pursuance
of the law (law-execution powers of administrative bodies). This principle of non-
delegation is in response to “the complexities of modern governments giving rise to
the adoption, within certain limits, of the principle of ‘subordinate legislation.
Min of Labor – resolve labor disputes -> compulsory arbitration of NLRC
Eastern Shipping vs. POEA
With the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant of peculiar
problems, the national legislature has found it more necessary to entrust to
administrative agencies the authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions
of the statute. This is called the power of subordinate legislation.
Memorandum Circular No. 2 – implementation
Standard: fair and equitable employment practice
No contract bet employer and employee – POEA to protect the employee
Tablarin vs. Gutierrez
With the growing complexities of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of
governmental regulation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there
is a constantly growing tendency toward the delegation of greater power by the
legislature, and toward the approval of the practice by the courts. As regards the issue
of failing to establish the necessary standards, the court believes that standards have
indeed been set, as can be found in Section 1 of the 1959 Medical Act: “the
standardization and regulation of medical education.
RA 2382 created the Board of Medical Education
Standard: standardization and regulation of the Medical education: power to
determine and prescribe requirements for the admission into Med schools
Order 52: creation of NMAT for standardization
Guingona v. Carague
Delegation of Legislative Powers: The legislature does not abdicate its function when
it describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his
authority. The power to make laws and to alter and repeal them CANNOT be
delegated.
Completeness of Law: The law must be complete in all its essential terms and
conditions when it leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for the
delegate to do when it reaches him except to execute and enforce it.
Budget Appropriation – books of treasury determine the appropriation for debt
Total amount of debt along with interests and other fees – standard to be used
Conference vs. POEA
POEA Resolution to increase seamen compensation and benefits
Osmena vs. Orbos
For a valid delegation of power, it is essential that the law delegating the power
must be
(1) Complete in itself, that it must set forth the policy to be executed by the
delegate and
(2) It must fix a standard—limits of which are sufficiently determinate or
determinable—to which the delegate must conform.
The standard of legislative delegation must be express or implied. If the former, the
non-delegation objection is easily met. The standard though does not have to be
spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act
considered as a whole. What the law intended was to permit the additional imposts for
as long as there exists a need to protect the general public and the petroleum industry
from the adverse consequences of pump rate fluctuations.
OPSF – Created by Marcos – reimburse oil companies of the changes in the price to
stabilize prices for consumers
Oil Producers -> Market forces change prices -> imported to Philippines
Viola vs. Alunan
Local Government Code – provides National Liga authority to create positions, as it
may deem necessary.
Fernandez v. Sto Tomas
Authority to reorganize civil service commission
Standard: decentralization for efficiency and responsiveness in the management of the
agencies
Not create and abolish but to reorganize: revised administrative code
Chiongbian v. Orbos
RA 6734 ARMM plebiscite: 4 provinces for creation of autonomous region
President given power to merge the remaining regions: sufficient standard: efficient
administration implied in another law
Rodrigo vs. Sandiganbayan
DBM given authority to fill in the details of the salary grade, classification
Not undue delegation: standards given
Abakada v. Ermita Complete: amount of universal charge is based on guidelines provided in EPIRA

Vat 10% to 12%, following certain criteria Sufficient Standard: total electrification, viability of power industry, electricity made
affordable
President, through the Secretary of Finance, given criteria to ascertain facts of the
situation in relation to the implementation of the increase. The case is not a delegation ABAKADA vs. Purisima
of legislative power but a “delegation of ascertainment of facts” upon which the
enforcement and administration of the increase rate under the law is contingent. The BIR and BOC: system of rewards and sanctions
legislature has made the 12% rate contingent upon a specified fact or condition, which
is outside of the control of the executive. Thus, there is no discretion that is exercised Revenue targets given by DBCC; employees covered by the civil service commission
by the President. The court cited Wayman vs. Southward: “The power to ascertain and contracts of the employees
facts is such a power which may be delegated. There is nothing essentially legislative
in ascertaining the existence of facts or conditions as the basis of the taking into effect UNDUE DELEGATION
of law” The ground for this that legislature has determined that under given
People vs. Vera
circumstances, certain executive or administrative action is to be taken and that under
other circumstances, different or no action at all is to be taken. What is left to the Probation Act – will only be applied to provinces which provide salaries for probation
administration is not legislative determination of what public policy demands but officers
simply an ascertainment of what the facts of the case require to be done according to
the terms of the law by which he is governed. Not complete in itself – w/n having probation officers under discretion of the
provincial board
Beltran v. Sec. of Health
Not sufficient standard – arbitrary standard given
RA 7719 Voluntary Blood Donation and regulate blood banks
People vs. Barrias
Public Health sufficient guideline. There is a valid exercise of police power if (a)
public interest requires state interference, and (b) the means employed are necessary The penalty must not be left to the administrative agency, but must be provided by
to the attainment of such objectives. in this regard the interests of the statute.
owners/operators of the CBBs must give way to the higher interest of the people.
People vs. Panlilio
Bayan v. Ermita
Act No. 1760 – not criminalizing act
BP No. 880 permits for rallies: issued by the Mayor, clear and present danger standard
for issuance May be charged under other law: Penal Code

The delegation to the mayors of the power to issue rally permits is valid because it is People vs. Dacuycuy
subject to the constitutionally-sound “clear and present danger” standard.
Law imposes fine, but no terms of imprisonment – Minimum, medium and maximum
Gerochi vs. DOE sentence depending on the circumstances of the crime (mitigating, etc.)

Constitutionality of EPIRA and Universal Charge Judge given legal discretion - circumstances in the crime = penalty to be imposed

Undue Delegation – Power of tax: UC not a tax but exercise of Police power Act 296 – less than 3000.00 php
Cebu Oxygen vs. Drilon
RA 6470 – increasing minimum wage = implementing rules
Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
EO 626 – A: prohibition on inter-province transport of carabao and cara-beef.
“as may deem necessary” – gives legislative power to officers: arbitrary
Implementing rules cannot add or detract from the provisions of law it designed to
implement.
Pharmaceutical and Health Care Assoc. vs. Duque III
EO No. 51 (Milk Code) – legislative power under freedom consti: Pres. Aquino
WHO – promote the use of breastmilk; Milk Code – promote the use of breastmilk;
DOH –
International law – Soft Law and hard Law: WHO – soft law, regulation: has to be
enacted into local regulation before it becomes binding
There was a defect – RIRR invalidated: provided a ban on advertisement on milk
substitutes, but the law, does not provide for a total ban, only the international law
was followed
International soft law must first be enacted into a local regulation before it can be
followed by any agency
Milk Code provides the local enactment of the soft law and it is what should have
been followed
ABAKADA vs. Purisima
BIR and BOC System of rewards – RA 9335, section 12: creation of the Joint
Congressional Oversight Committee for approval of IRR of the RA.
Encroahment of the legislative into the realm of judiciary: decision is judiciary in
nature as it involves the interpretation and application of the RA unto the IRR.
Tatad vs. Sec of DOE
RA 8180 “Deregulating the Downstream Oil Industry
2 phases: trasition
Full deregulation: implementation should be based on two criteria:
1. global oil prices decline
2. US-Peso exchange rate stable
EO 372 – implemented full deregulation adding additional criteria: depletion of
OPSF: void: executive misapplication. Congress has to rely more on the practice of
delegating the execution of laws to the executive and other administrative agencies, as
society becomes more complex. According to jurisprudence, there are two tests to
determine, whether it is a valid delegation – 1) the completeness test, and, 2) the
sufficient standard test.
Congress: Senate and House of Representatives
HoR: 2 ways to run: (3 year term, 3 consecutive terms) = 250 members unless
otherwise provided by law
1. District representative – natural-born, at least 25 years old, read and
write, registered voter of the district, resident of same district at least one
year preceding the day of the election
2. Party-list representative
Senate: term of 6 years, re-election for 2 consecutive terms only
Election: 6 years for first 12, 3 years for latter 12 = 24 members
Section 5: Composition of the HoR = 80% district representatives + 20% party-list
representatives
Barangay vs. COMELEC
Standards for apportioning seats for Party-list Representatives
20% composition : merely a ceiling, not mandatory to fill in all seats: merely reserved
for PLR
Ang Bagong Bayani vs. COMELEC
Characteristics of a party-list: (guideline for COMELEC)
1. must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups
2. must comply with declared statutory policy of enabling Filipinos
belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors be elected in the
HoR.
3. Must not represent a religious sect
4. Must not be disqualified under section 6 of RA 7941
5. Party or org must not be an adjunct of or a project organized by the
government
6. Party must comply with requirements, as well as its nominees under
section 9 RA 7941
7. Nominee must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector
8. Nominee must be able to contribute to the formulation of legislation
AKLAT vs. COMELEC
AKLAT re-disqualified: did not meet qualifications mentioned in the bagong bayani
case
Tobias vs. Abalos
RA 7675: Mandaluyong into an urbanized city: create own legislative district and a
new legislative district of San Juan: reapportionment
Gerrymandering – creation of a new legislative district to increase possible number of
voters for elections, contrary to the guideline of “contiguous, compact and adjacent
territory.
Consti – one province at least on representative
Not gerrymandering – rep who issued RA will actually be made to lose part of his
district: contiguous, compact and adjacent territory
Mariano vs. COMELEC
RA 7854: Municipality of Makati into a highly urbanized city
Valid: reapportionment thru special law: duty of congress to reapportion
Criteria: population (250,000) and, income or area
Samson vs. Aguirre
RA 8583: Novaliches as a city: certification as to income, population and area not
fatal: statements of NSO, Bureau of Local Government Finance, and Land
Montejo vs. COMELEC
COMELC res. No 2736: change legislative district of Capoocan and Palompon:
COMELEC only to make minor adjustments
Legislative district can only be apportioned by “legislative” i.e. congress
Herrera vs. COMELEC
Province of Guimaras – made into 4th class province
Districting based on number of inhabitants: not reapportionment: can be undertaken
by COMELEC (districting)
Sema vs. COMELEC
RLA – RA 9054: power to create province, cities, etc.
Creation of the province of Shariff Kabunsan: the power to create provinces
inherently involves the power to create legislative districts. However, under the
present Constitution, the power to increase the allowable membership in the House of
Representatives, as well as the power to reapportion legislative districts, is vested
exclusively in Congress (by virtue of Sections 5, (1), (3) and (4) of Article 6). This
textual commitment to Congress of the exclusive power to create or reapportion
legislative districts is logical. Congress is a national legislature and any increase in its
allowable membership or in its incumbent membership through the creation of
legislative districts must be embodied in a national law. It would be anomalous for
regional or local legislative bodies to create or reapportion legislative districts for a
national legislature like Congress. An inferior legislative body, created by a superior
legislative body, cannot change the membership of the superior legislative body.
Bagabuyo vs. COMELEC
Legislative apportionment – representation in the HoR Perez vs. COMELEC

Reapportionment is brought about by changes in population and mandated by the Domicile- the place where a party actually of constructively has his permanent home,
constitutional requirement of equal representation. Hence, emphasis is given to the where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to
number of people represented; the uniform and progressive ratio to be observed return and remain
among the representative districts; and accessibility and commonality of interests in
terms of each district being, as far as practicable, continuous, compact and adjacent The fact that a person registered as a voter in one district is not proof of his domicile
territory. In terms of the people represented, every city with at least 250,000 people in the said district.
and every province (irrespective of population) is entitled to one representative.
Petitioner – ran for governor of the province previously
Section 6
SJS vs. COMELEC
Bengson vs. COMELEC
COMELEC resolution – additional qualification of a candidate for senate:
Repatriation – oath of allegiance, which reinstates previous status as a Filipino: unconstitutional as it violates the explicit qualifications in the consti
natural-born in Tarlac
Section 7: term of representatives
Aquino vs. COMELEC
Dimaporo vs. Mitra, Jr.
Domicile – physical residence, and intention to return there permanently.
BP Blg. 881 – forfeiture or voluntary giving up of one’s tenure, due to the act of filing
Less than one year residency prior to date of elections; lease of a house not of certificate of candidacy.
permanent: disqualified. The place where a party actually or constructively has his
permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, Term – legally mandated
eventually intends to return and remain, i.e., his domicile is that to which the
Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the purposes of election law. Tenure – actual time

Marcos vs. COMELEC Forfeiture, expulsion, voluntary renunciation

Criteria for the abandonment of domicile: Section 9: Filling-in Vacancies

actual removal or change in domicile Lucero vs. COMELEC

bona fide intention of abandoning and establishing new one Failure of elections = special elections

acts which correspond to the purpose Tolentino vs. COMELEC

absence of which would continue the domicile of origin Vacancy in senate: RA 7166: “permanent vacancy at least one year before expiration
of the term, shall call and hold a special elections, but in case of vacancy in senate,
Domino vs. COMELEC special election will be held simultaneously with the next regular elections.”

Lease of house – not indicative of intent of permanence Special elections can coincide with regular elections

Ocampo vs. HRET

2nd placer cannot take the place of a disqualified first placer
Salaries
The salaries of members of the Senate is governed by Article VI of the Constitution as
follows:
Sec. 10. The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall
be determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after
the expiration of the full term of all the members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives approving such increase.
Sec. 20. The records and books of accounts of Congress shall be preserved and be
open to the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the
Commission on Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to
and expenses incurred for each Member.
It must be noted that in accordance with the above provisions, there is no prohibition
against the receipt of allowances by the members of Congress. The second section, on
the other hand, seeks to avoid the recurrence of the abuses committed by the members
of the Old Congress in allotting themselves fabulous allowances the amount of which
they refused to divulge to the people. It is now provided under the Constitution that
the books of accounts of Congress shall be open to public inspection and must be
audited by the Commission on Audit. Moreover, every member of Congress’ itemized
expenditures, including allowances, shall be published annually for the information of
the people.
It is interesting to note that the Constitution in Section 17, Article XVIII, provides the
corresponding salaries of Senators, to wit:
Until the Congress provides otherwise, the President shall receive an annual salary of
three hundred thousand pesos; the Vice-President, the President of the Senate, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
two hundred forty thousand pesos each; the Senators, the members of the House of
Representatives, the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and the Chairmen of the
Constitutional Commissions, two hundred four thousand pesos each; and the
Members of the Constitutional Commissions, one hundred eighty thousand pesos
each.
However, under Joint Resolution No. 1, the salaries of the members of the Senate is
increased to salary grade 33 with monthly equivalent rate of P35,000.00. The Senate
President, on the other hand, is raised to salary grade 34 with a monthly basic salary
of P40,000.00.
Section 11: Immunity of arrest
“punishable by more than six years imprisonment”; while congress is in session – 4th
Monday of july (SONA) and ends 30 days before the next session (compulsory
recess), with small recesses in between.
People vs. Jalosjos
Conviction of more than 6 years imprisonment – immunity not applicable
Elected by constituents even though he was already convicted.
Trillanes vs. Pimentel
No person charged by capital offense or offense punishable by reclusion perpetua
shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong.
Capacity to carry out his duties while in prison.
Jimenez vs. Cabangbang
Libelous letter: not in the exercise of his duties
Though, it was not libelous against the petitioners, only alleges that they were
unwitting tools, not that they were the planners themselves.
Part of communicative and deliverative process
Puyat vs. De Guzman
IPI elections = puyat group vs. acero group = SEC case
Fernandez intervention – circumstances show that there is indirect appearance as
counsel before administrative body
Santiago vs. Guingona
Minority vs. majority = must be understood in ordinary terms
Avelino vs Cuenco
Adjournment -> proclamation of new senate president and session continued with
only 12 members present
Quorum – majority of “the house” instead of majority of “all the members of the
house”
12 members out of 23 is majority of “the house” = based on the number of those
present
People vs. jalosjos
Compulsion to attend: jalosjos saying that he could be persuaded for being unable to
attend session: not reason for release
Absence is for a valid reason: being detained
Arroyo vs. De Venecia
RA 8240 passed in congress not in accordance with house rules: arroyo still had
questions regarding the bill but it was still passed: no calling of the yeas and nays.
Internal rules violated – not in court jurisdiction – only the house can determine its
rules and punish its members
Osmena vs. Pendatun
Privilege speech accusing Pres. Garcia of bribery -> house comitte to investigate ->
House resolution # 175 declaring him guilty of disorderly behavior and suspension for
15 months
Although exempt from prosecution or civil action for words uttered in congress,
members may be questioned in CONGRESS ITSELF.
Disorderly behavior – the house has exclusive power and the court has none.
Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan
Santiago charged with graft and corruption for allowing aliens to stay in Phils.
Suspended by sandiganbayan – pending criminal case: not punishment for disorderly
behavior, but preliminary preventive measure for graft and corrupt act.
US vs. Pons
Pons charged under Act 2381 – anti-opium importation
Act 2381 – said to have been passed after last day of session: according to the
journals, clock was stopped at 12 midnight: law passed valid
= journal prevails over extraneous evidence
Casco vs Gimenez
Urea and formaldehyde vs urea formaldehyde (as written in the law passed)
Wording of the law – urea formaldehyde: error in the printing
Between the journals and the enrolled bill: enrolled bill prevails
Morrales vs. Subido
Enrolled bill over journal
Astorga vs. Villegas
Due to the circumstances in the case, the court looked into the Senate journals.
= amendments made but not included in the bill signed by the president
Senate president and Chief Executive: had already withdrawn their signatures:
invalidates the law
Phil. Judges vs. Prado
Franking privileges of judiciary
Enrolled bill clear, no need to look into journals
But law must be struck down as it violates the equal protection of the law, in regards
to the removal of franking privileges of the judiciary
ABAKADA vs. Ermita
Enrolled bill to be followed as it was the one approved by both houses and by the
president.
SECTION 17: Senate and House Representatives Electoral Tribunal
Election Contest - statutory contests in which the contestant seeks not only to oust the Villarosa vs. HRET
intruder, but also to have himself inducted into the office.
Initials not to be used, only one nickname per candidate: not known as Girlie: JTV
Pre-proclamation contests - any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of initials of her husband
the board of canvassers in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody
and appreciation of the election returns. Aggabao vs COMELEC

Angara vs. Electoral Commission Barbers vs. COMELEC

Prescription given by Electoral commission – has sole jurisdiction over election Roces vs. HRET
returns and qualifications of its members
Electoral tribunals: 3 justices appointed by Chief Justice, 6 from members of Senate
Vera vs. Avelino or the HoR

Deferment of oath-taking – not election contest Abbas vs SET

Oath-taking- makes one a members of the legislature: under jurisdiction of the Electoral tribunal must always be composed of legislative members: for every 2
Electoral tribunal legislators only one justice.

Chavez vs. COMELEC Pimentel vs. HRET

Pre-proclamation cases not allowed for president, vp, senators and members of HoR Party-list reps in HoR did not elect a member to the HRET

Aquino vs COMELEC Bondoc vs. Pineda

Electoral tribunal does not assume jurisdiction until the winning candidate has been HRET must be non-partisan: must not alter composition of the HRET.
proclaimed and has taken his oath of office
Robles vs. HRET
nd
2 placer – cannot take the place of the winning candidate
Motion to withdraw does not end tribunal’s jurisdiction
Perez vs. COMELEC
Arroyo vs. HRET
COMELEC no longer has jurisdiction as perez was already proclaimed.
NON-TRADITIONAL PROCESS OF PRECINCT-LEVEL DOCUMENT-BASED
Garcia vs HRET EVIDENCE – the process of procuring election documents used not only during the
actual balloting stage of the election but much earlier, as early as the time of the
HRET acted according to its own rules, no grave abuse of discretion resulting in registration of voters. (not the best form of evidence)
lack/excess of jurisdiction.
Lerias vs. HRET
Rasul vs. COMELEC
Original copy of the certificates of canvass should be the best evidence
HRET – exclusivity in jurisdiction over election contests relating to its own members.
Sandoval vs. HRET
Guerrero vs. COMELEC
Substitute service – exhaust all means of locating recipient, Neri vs. Senate

Section 18: Commission on Appointment Executive privilege: 2 kinds: presidential communications (between president and
executive official) and deliberative process (between executive officials only)
Daza vs. Singson
Garci vs House
Shift in representation of LDP party = reapportionment of the Commission on
Appointment Senate inquiry must be deferred until publication of the Senate rules has been
complied with.
Must be based on proportional representation, political party must be permanent
Section 22: “Question Hour”
Coseteng vs. Mitra
- Voluntary with consent of the President, or upon the request of the house
2 seats – per appointment into commission
- For oversight functions
Guingona vs. Gonzales
Arnault vs Nazareno
Cannot reduce the number of seats of a party in favor of another.
The materiality of the question must be determined by its direct relation to the subject
12 member Commission – not mandatory, what is mandatory is the proportional of the inquiry and not by its inherent relation to any possible or proposed legislation.
representation (Answer might be the basis if the subject is to be made the subject of legislation.)
Section 21 legislative investigations Senate continuing – power of investigation terminates at the end of session; may be
taken up again at the next session.
Negros vs. sanguniang Panlungsod
Sabio vs. Gordon
Power of inquiry – for the legislative only, not delegated
Senate vs Ermita
Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
Question hour vs. “in aid of legislation”: can only be limited by PRESIDENTIAL
Power of inquiry to be exercised only for legislative purposes communication privilege
Senate vs. Ermita Executive: with presidential consent vs. anyone
Question hour vs. power of inquiry Remedy: Sec 21: habeas corpus petition vs. sec 22: questions to be submitted
beforehand and executive session
Gudani vs. Senga
Section 23: congress sole power to declare the existence of a state of war, but may by
Commander-in-chief powers – may limit power of inquiry of congress law authorize president for a limited time, to exercise powers necessary and to carry
out a declared national policy.
Standard vs. Senate
Lawless violence, invasion or rebellion – either suspend writ of habeas corpus or
Compel to attend – in aid of legislation
declare martial law.
In line with David vs. Arroyo – gr. no. 171396 (re BP 1070)
Section 24: origin of money bills, private bills and local application
Appropriations – specific sum of money appropriated for departments for the
performance of their functions
Revenue bills – raising taxes
Tariff bills – raises revenue from importation and exportation of goods
Bills authorizing increase of public debt
Bills of local application – in relation to provinces, cities and municipalities, ex.
Change municipality into a city
Private bills – ex. Reacquisition of citizenship
Tolentino vs. Sec of Finance
It is the bill that has to originate from the HoR, not the law itself.
HoR and Senate equal = has power to propose amendment, even through substitution.
“…originate exclusively from the HoR, but Senate may propose and concur with
amendments.”
Alvarez vs Guingona
The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the Bill of
the House, does not contravene the constitutional requirement that a bill of local
application should originate from the House of Representatives, for as long as the
Senate does not act thereupon until it receives the House Bill.
Presentations on (3 area- 3 groups)
Constitutional commissions on COMELEC: Civil Service and COA
Southern Cross vs Philcemcor
Bill is a tariff bill for a particular purpose
Pascual vs Sec. of Public Works
Incidental advantage to the public or to the state, which results from the promotion of
private interest and the prosperity of private enterprises or business, does not justify
their aid by the use public money.
Section 25 Rules on Appropriation
Brillantes vs COMELEC
Electronic quick count (Phase III) not included in the GAA
Appropriation in the GAA – for modernization of Election system; not for quick count
Guingona vs Carague
Appropriation – there must be a fixed amount: valid if it only needs to be computed
Garcia vs. Mata
3rd law should have applied, but applicable provision was invalidated due to its
insertion in the Appropirations Act.
Atitiw vs Zamora
In order that a provision or clause in a general appropriations bill may comply with
the test of germaneness, it must be particular, unambiguous, and appropriate.
Particular – if it relates specifically to a distinct item or appropriation in
the bill and does not refer generally to the entire appropriations bill
Unambiguous – when its application or operation is apparent on the face of
the bill and it does not necessitate reference to details or sources outside the
appropriations bill
Appropriate – when its subject matter does not necessarily have to be treated
in a separate legislation.
Farinas vs Executive Secretary
Difference between elective and appointed officials.
Demetria vs Allba
The president cannot indiscriminately transfer funds without regard as to whether or
not the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item from which the same
are to be taken, or whether or not the transfer is for the purpose of augmenting the
item to which said transfer is to be made.
Liga vs. COMELEC
Philconsa vs Enriquez
Chief of Staff cannot be delegated power to augment: only for those enumerated in
the constitution.
Sanchez vs COA
2 requisites for augmentation: 1) Actual savings; and, 2) there is an existing item to be
augmented.
Deputy Executive Secretary of DILG – no power to augment: only president, senate
president, speaker of the House, Chief Justice, and heads of Constitutional
Commissions
Section 26: Subject and title of bills – General prohibition on “riders”
Cordero vs. Cabatuando
The constitutional requirement (one title – one bill rule) is satisfied if all parts of the
law related to, and are germane to the subject matter expressed in the title of the Bill.
It is sufficient of the title is comprehensive enough reasonably to include the general
object which the statute seeks to effect, without expressing each and every end and
means necessary or convenient for the accomplishment of the object.
Philconsa vs Gimenez
It has been the general disposition of the court that the constitutional provision
involving the one title – one subject rule should be construed liberally, in favor of the
validity of the statute.
The purpose of this rule is to:
1. prevent fraud or surprise in the legislature
2. fairly appraise the people, through such publication of legislation that are
being considered, in order that they may have the opportunity of being heard
thereon by petition or otherwise, if they shall so desire.
The requirement that the subject of the act shall be expressed in its title is not a mere
rule of legislative procedure; it is MANDATORY. It is the duty of the court to declare
void any statute not conforming to the constitutional provision.
Alalayan vs NPC
If the object of the law is to amend a previous legislation, it will suffice if the title
gives reference to the amended law.
Insular lumber vs CTA
The primary purpose of the one subject-one title rule is to prohibit duplicity of
legislation, the title of which might completely fail to appraise the legislators or the
public of the nature, scope and consequences of the law or its operation. -> every
presumption fails its validity
Where there is doubt as to the insufficiency of either the title or the Act, the
legislation should be sustained.
Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board
Art. VI, Sec. 26 is sufficiently complied with if the title is comprehensive enough to
include the general purpose to which a statute seeks to achieve.
It is satisfied if all the parts of the statue are related to, and are germane to the subject
expressed in the title, or as long as they are not inconsistent with and foreign to the
general subject and title. PRACTICAL rather than TECHNICAL construction.
Phil. Judges vs Prado
The title need not be an index of the body of the act, or be comprehensive as to cover
every single detail of the measure. It need only that all provisions in said act should be
germane to the subject thereof.
Tobias vs Abalos
A liberal construction of the one title-one subject rule has been invariably adopted by
the court so as not to impede or cripple legislation.
Tatad vs DOE
The title of a law need not mirror or fully index or catalogue all the contents or
provisions of the said law.
De Guzman vs COMELEC
Purpose of section 26: 1) prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation; 2) to prevent
surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of provisions in bills of which titles
gave no info, and which might therefore be overlooked and carelessly and
unintentionally adopted; and, 3) to fairly appraise the people through such publication
of legislative proceedings as is usually made, of the subjects of legislation that are
being considered, in order that they may have opportunity of being heard thereon by
petition or otherwise if they so desire.
Section 26 is said to have been complied with if the title is comprehensive enough to
embrace the general to embrace the general objective it seeks to achieve: presumption
is in favor of validity.
Cawaling vs COMELEC
Every statutes has in its favor the presumption of validity: grounds for nullity must be
beyond reasonable doubt. (This also goes for one title-one subject rule).
Section 27: Procedure in Law-making
Arroyo vs De Venecia
No rule of the House of Representatives has been cited which specifically requires
that in case involving the approval of a conference committee report, the Chair must
restate the motion and conduct a viva voce or nominal voting.
The constitution does not require that the yeas and nays of the Members be taken
every time a House has to vote, except only in the ff circumstances: 1) upon the last
and third readings of the bills; 2) at the request of 1/5 of the members present; and, 3)
in repassing a bill over the veto of the president.
Abakada vs Ermita
It is within the power of a conference committee to include in its report an entirely
new provision that is not found either in the House bill or in the Senate bill. If the
committee can propose an amendment consisting of one or two provisions, there is no
reason why it cannot propose several provisions, collectively considered as “an
amendment in the nature of a substitute”, so long as such amendment is germane to
the subject of the bills before the committee.
Bicameral conference committees – have power to introduce amendments.
No amendment rule pertains only to the procedure to be followed by each house of the
Congress with regard to bills initiated in each of said respective Houses, before said
bill is transmitted to the other house for its concurrence or amendment.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs CTA
An “item” in a revenue bill doesn’t refer to an entire section imposing a particular
kind of tax, but rather to the subject of the tax and the tax rate. To construe “item” as
referring to the whole section, would tie the president’s hand in choosing either to
approve the whole section at the expense of also approving a provision therein which
he deems unacceptable or veto the entire section at the expense of foregoing the
collection of the kind of tax altogether.
In Appropriation bills, the president may exercise “item-veto”.
Gonzalez vs Macaraig
The terms item and provision in budgetary legislation and practice are concededly
different. An item in a bill refers to the particulars, the details, and the distinct and
several parts of a bill. It furthered that “an ‘item’ of an appropriation bill obviously
means an item which in itself is a specific appropriation of money, not some general
provision of law, which happens to be put into an appropriation bill.”
Inappropriate provisions – should be treated as items subject to the veto power of the
president.
To determine if a provision is an inappropriate provision: test of appropriateness
It is not enough that a provision be related to the institution or agency to which funds
are appropriated. Conditions and limitations properly included in an appropriation bill
must exhibit such a connection with money items of appropriation that they logically
belong in a schedule of expenditures. For the rule to apply, restrictions should be such
in the real sense of the term, not some matter which are more appropriately dealt with
in a separate legislation.
Bengzon vs Drilon
The act of the Executive in vetoing particular provisions is an exercise of a
constitutionally vested power. But the veto power is not absolute. Only particular
items may be vetoed.
The president cannot set aside or reverse a final and executory judgment of the court
through the exercise of the veto power, nor can she enact or amend statutes
promulgated by her predecessors, much less to repeal existing laws.
Philconsa vs Enriquez
Where the veto is claimed to have been made without or in excess of the authority
vested in the President, the issue of an impermissible intrusion of the Executive into
the Legislative domain arises.
Section 28: Taxation
Planters vs Fertiphil
Public purpose is at the heart of a tax law. It is an elastic concept. The inherent
requirement that taxes can only be exacted for a public purpose still stands. When a
tax law is only a mask to exact funds from the public when its true intent is to give
undue benefit and advantage to a private enterprise, the law will not satisfy the
requirement of “public purpose”. The purpose of the law is evident from its text or
inferable from other secondary sources.
CIR vs Lingayen
A tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where
the subject of it is found. Uniformity means that all property belonging to the same
class shall be taxed alike. (Follows requisites for a valid classification).
Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance
Tax exemption based on valid classification (?)
Tan vs. Del Rosario
Uniformity of taxation follows valid classification between individuals and
corporations:
1) the standards that are used therefore are substantial and not arbitrary
2) the categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose
3) the law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future
conditions
4) the classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same
class.
Under the tax system, the trend is to treat different things differently.
CIRvsCA
All subjects or objects similar must be equally taxed, or put on equal footing both in
privileges and liabilities; no exemptions.
All taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class must be taxed at the same
rate and the tax must operate with the same force and effect in every place where the
subject may be found.
Abra Valley College vs Aquino
The exemption in favor of property used exclusively for charitable or educational
purposes is not limited to property actually indispensable therefore, but extends to
facilities that are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of
said purpose, such as in the case of hospitals, a school for training nurses, a nurse’s
home, property used to provide housing facilities for interns, doctors, superintendents,
and other members of the hospital staff, etc.
The exemption extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary
for the accomplishment of the main purpose of the charitable or educational (or
religious) institution.
The test of exemption is the use of the property for purposes mentioned in the
constitution.
Bayan vs Zamora
John Hay vs Lim
Since only Congress can pass tax laws, it follows that only Congress can provide tax
exemptions, through the passage of legislation.
Southern Cement vs Philcemcor
The power of taxation by nature and by command of the fundamental law is a
preserve of the legislature.
The delegation of taxation power by the legislative to the executive is authorized by
the constitution itself. The constitution also grants Congress the right to impose
restrictions and limitations on the taxation power of the president. The restrictions and
limitations imposed by Congress take on the mantle of a constitutional command,
which the executive branch is obliged to observe.
Lung Center vs QC
To determine whether an enterprise is a charitable institution/entity or not, the
elements which should be considered include the statutes creating the enterprise, its
corporate purpose, its constitution and by-laws, the methods of administration, the
nature of the actual work performed, the character of the services rendered, the
indefiniteness of the beneficiaries, and the use and occupation of the properties. A
charity may be fully defined as a gift, to be applied consistently with existing laws, for
the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their minds and
hearts under the influence of education or religion, by assisting them to establish
themselves in life or otherwise lessening the burden or government. The test whether
an enterprise is charitable or not is whether it exists to carry out a purpose recognized
in law as charitable or whether it is maintained for gain, profit or private advantage.
A charitable institution does not lose its character as such and its exemptions from
taxes simply because it derives income from paying patients, or receivables from the
government (or donations), so long as the money received is devoted or used
altogether to the charitable object which it is intended to achieve, and no money
inures to the private benefit of the persons managing or operating the institution.
Abakada vs Ermita
The power of tax cannot be delegated, but the details as to the enforcement and
administration of an exercise of such power may be left to the executive, including the
power to determine the existence of facts which its operation depends, the rationale
being that the preliminary ascertainment of facts as basis for the enactment of
legislation is not itself a legislative function but is simply ancillary to legislation. The
constitution does not require that Congress find for itself every fact upon which it
desires to base legislative action or that it make for itself detailed determinations
which it has declared to be prerequisite to application of legislative policy to
particular facts and circumstances impossible for Congress itself to properly
investigate.
Congress may delegate to the President the power to increase a tax, dependent on a
certain set of facts, upon the completion of which the president may carry out the
delegated power.
Spouses Constantino vs Cuisia
The Congress can delegate to the cabinet Secretary (i.e. Secretary of Finance), in his
capacity as the alter ego of the president, to carry out the authority vested on the Chief
Executive under Section 28.
Republic vs City of Kidapawan
Tax exemption cannot be granted without the concurrence of the majority of the
members of congress, and may only be done through the passage of legislation. Only
congress can provide for tax exemptions, as it is the only branch that has power to tax.
Section 29: Restrictions on the Use of Public Funds
Pascual vs Secretary of Public Works
MIAA vs Mabunay
Legislative may delegate to the agency the power to provide for the means of
obtaining object of an appropriation but such act cannot go beyond statutes.
Public bidding has been a practice, which is the accepted method of arriving at a fair
price and prevents favoritism and overpricing.
Guingona vs Carague
Constitution does not require exact, specific appropriation made by law.
COMELEC vs. Quijano
No money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation
made by law.
Appropriation must first be made prior to the bidding and creation of contracts, so as
to provide for a guideline regarding the amount that can be used for the specific
enterprise.
Gaston vs Republic Planters Bank
Taxes levied for a specific purpose are considered to be special funds, which is an
exercise of the police power of the state. Once the specific purpose is accomplished or
abandoned, the funds become and are transferred to the general funds of the state.
Revenues collected are to be treated as a special fund, to be ‘administered in trust’ for
the purpose intended.
Osmena vs. Orbos Philconsa vs Enriquez

Money named as tax but actually collected in the exercise of the police power of the Webb vs De Leon
state may be placed in a special trust account.
The prosecution of crimes pertains to the executive department, whose principal
Section 30: Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court power and reasonability is to see that our laws are faithfully executed.

First Lepanto Ceramics vs CA Determining probable cause – executive in character

The provision is intended to give the SC a measure of control over cases placed under Marcos vs Manglapus
its appellate jurisdiction.
The powers of the president are not limited to those enumerated in the constitution:
Diaz vs CA residual powers

Fabian vs Disierto Right to return – found in the UN declaration of Human Rights, International
covenant on human rights, but not absolute: subject to national interests, public policy
A law is invalid when it increases the appellate jurisdiction of the court without its and welfare, health, etc.
advice.
- general power to faithfully execute the laws
Villavert vs Desierto
express powers of the president – those enumerated in the constitution
Tirol vs COA
residual powers – anything not expressly provided in the Constitution, article VI
Cabrera vs Lapid
Laurel vs. Garcia
Section 31: Titles of Royalty and Nobility
Power to enter into contracts – except for property under public dominion
Section 32: Initiative and Referendum
Djumantan vs. Domingo
SBMA vs COMELEC
Right of every state to regulate the entry of persons into their country: deportation part
Defensor-Santiago vs COMELEC of executive power
Lambino vs COMELEC Chavez vs. PCGG
Article VII Pontejos vs. OMB
Section 1 Executive Power State witness – will not be charged with criminal prosecution.
- Constitutional power granted to the President to enforce laws US vs. Nixon

- Includes rule-making power: implementation and enforcement of laws General claim of executive privilege is not absolute nor unqualified; in a situation
passed when a person’s right is made subject of a criminal proceeding, then production of
evidence is essential to uphold the constitutional rights of the accused.
Neri vs. Senate Committee much as some public officials including the President, may be granted immunity, it
does not apply to unofficial conduct. Immunities are grounded in the nature of the
Presidential communication privilege function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed.

Elements: Gloria vs. CA

Protected communication must relate to a quintessential and non-delegable Immunity from suit for the president, not for cabinet members.
presidential power
Estrada vs. Disierto
Must be authored or solicited and received by a close advisor of the President
of the President himself Though incumbent presidents are immune from suit DURING their tenure, this
immunity does not extend BEYOND their tenure. Additionally, the charges filed
Remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of against Erap are criminal in nature, and the SC cannot “wrap him in post-tenure
adequate need. immunity from liability”. It would then circumvent the general application of laws to
him.
AKBAYAN vs. Aquino
David vs. Arroyo
Soliven vs. Makasiar
The President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in
President may waive immunity from suit. The only person who can invoke immunity any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constituion or
is the president himself. law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if
he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it is
Harlow vs. Fitzgerald important that he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to
enable him to fully attend to the performance of his official duties and functions.
Qualified Immunity or “good faith” immunity may be use by an official. A official
Unlike the legislative and judicial branch, only one constitutes the executive branch
would be qualifiedly immune if he (1) does not know that the action taken in his
and anything which impairs his usefulness in the discharge of the many great and
sphere of responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the victim. (2) did
important duties imposed upon him by the Constitution necessarily impairs the
not act with malicious intent. Gov’t officials performing discretionary functions
operation of the Government. However, this does not mean that the President is not
generally are shieled from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate
accountable to anyone. Like any other official, he remains accountable to the people
clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable person would have
but he may be removed from office only in the mode provided by law and that is by
known.
IMPEACHMENT.
Clinton vs. Jones
Constantino vs. Cuisia
The President of the United States is entitled to absolute immunity from damages
The President of the Philippines is the Executive of the Government of the
liability predicated on official acts. Some public servants are granted immunity from
Philippines, and no other. The heads of the executive departments occupy political
suits for money damages arising out of their official acts so as to enable them to
positions and hold office in an advisory capacity, and, in the language of Thomas
perform their designated functions effectively without fear that a particular decision
Jefferson, "should be of the President's bosom confidence", and, in the language of
may give rise to personal liability. The societal interest in providing such public
Attorney-General Cushing, "are subject to the direction of the President." Without
officials with the maximum ability to deal fearlessly and impartially with the public at
minimizing the importance of the heads of the various departments, their personality
large as an acceptable justification for official immunity. The point of immunity for
is in reality but the projection of that of the President. Stated otherwise, and as
such officials is to forestall an atmosphere of intimidation that would conflict with
forcibly characterized by Chief Justice Taft of the Supreme Court of the United
their resolve to perform their designated function in a principled fashion. However, as
States, "each head of a department is, and must be, the President's alter ego in the Tecson vs. Lim
matters of that department where the President is required by law to exercise
authority". The election contest can only contemplate a post-election scenario. It is fair to
conclude that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, defined by Section 4, paragraph
Section 4: Election of President and VP 7, of the 1987 Constitution, would not include cases directly brought before it,
questioning the qualifications of a candidate for the presidency or vice-presidency
Anson-Roa vs. Arroyo before the elections are held.

GMA was not elected: she assumed presidency after resignation of Estrada. Thus, Section 7-8: Filling in vacancy in the presidency
there is no bar from running for presidency as she is not covered by the phrase: “run
for any reelection.” Estrada vs. Disierto

Brillantes vs. Comelec
Canvassing of votes for President and VP is the tack of Congress. It cannot be
undertaken by the Comelec, even in the disguise of being “unofficial.”
Pimentel vs. Joint Committee
The canvassing of votes of the President and VP by the Congress is not one of its
legislative functions. Thus, it is not covered by the end of the session of Congress,
unlike its legislative funcstions, which end along with the adjournment of its sessions.
Resignation is not a high level legal abstraction. It is a factual question and its
elements are beyond quibble: there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be
coupled by acts of relinquishment. The validity of a resignation is not government by
any formal requirement as to form. It can be oral. It can be written. It can be express.
It can be implied. As long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect.
Section 8: Midterm past June 30
Death, Disability; Removal, Resignation Death, Disability;
Resignation

Lopez vs. Senate Pres. VP Both Acting Pres.

(SP/SH)

The constitution provides that Congress has the power to promulgate its rules VP is Pres. Pres. Will nominate Senate By Law (Congress)
concerning the canvassing of votes for the presidency and VP. VPP from Congress Pres./Speaker of
(sec. 9) HoR as Pres.
Defensor-santiago vs. Ramos

Section 7: Start of Term as of noon June 30

Section 11: Incapacity of the President

President fails to Estrada vs. Disierto

Not Chosen Death/Disability
Qualify
To be determined by Congress: can be ascertained form their acts of recognition of
Pres
VP Both Pres. VP Both Pres. VP Both
GMA.
.
Section 13: Prohibitions
Pres.
Senate Nominates
Pres,/Spe VP from Rafael vs. Embroidery
Senate
aker of members of
VP VP as Pres. Senate Ex-officio capacity – not entirely different from current duties and functions;
No HoR No Congress
acts actin Or VP as Pres./S
succe success upon
as g Speake Pres. peaker
ssion (until one ion confirmation
Pres. Pres. r of of HoR
qualifies) by majority
HoR
“acting vote of all
pres.” members of
both houses
incidental to their office
CLU vs. Exec. Sec.
The executive is treated as a class in itself and as such, are given stricter prohibitions.
Dela Cruz vs. COA
Ex-officio capacity – no compensation for the executive who acts as such, nor do their
representatives.
Bitonio vs. COA and Amnesty int’l vs. COA
Representatives designated by ex-officio members are not exempted from the law: the
designation is an imposition only of additional duties, and does not confer any legally
demandable rights.
Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan
Participation in a contract with the government, though indirect, is still prohibited: but
accused is entitled to investigation and rights conferred by the law.
Section 14-15: Appointments by Acting President
In Re appointment of Valenzuela
There are two kinds of appointments directed against by the appointment ban in Sec.
15, Art. 7: (1) those made for vote-buying and (2) those made for partisan politics.
Midnight appointments such as the appointments in question are made in
consideration of partisan politics to influence the outcome of the elections. The only
appointments that are exempted from the ban are vacant executive positions that will
prejudice public interest.
Section 16: Nature of Appointing Power
Govenrment vs. Springer
The legislative branch has no power to appoint. It is only for the executive.
Bermudez vs. Exec. Sec.
The president need not wait for his/her subordinate’s recommendation to carry out a
duty or function vested in his/her office.
Pimentel vs. Ermita
The law expressly allows the President to make such acting appointment. Section 17,
Chapter 5, Title I, Book III of EO 292 states that “[t]he President may temporarily
designate an officer already in the government service or any other competent person
to perform the functions of an office in the executive branch.” Thus, the President
may even appoint in an acting capacity a person not yet in the government service, as
long as the President deems that person competent.
Sarmiento vs. Mison
Except as to those officers whose appointments require the consent of the COA by
express mandate of the first sentence in Sec 16 Art VII, appointments of other officers
are left to the President without need of confirmation by the COA. It is only in the
first sentence where it is clearly stated that positions enumerated therein require the
consent of the COA. The word “alone” is a mere lapsus.
Bautista vs. Salonga
Appointing power solely vests in the President, but once she makes the appointment,
the President loses the power over the position. It’s up to the appointed person if she
would accept or not.
Quinto-Deles vs. CA
Appointment of sectoral representatives need CA confirmation.
Pobre vs. Mendienta
This provision empowers the President to appoint "those whom he may be authorized
by law to appoint." The law that authorizes him to appoint the PRC Commissioner
and Associate Commissioners, is P.D. 223, Section 2, which provides that the
Commissioner and Associate Commissioners of the PRC are "all to be appointed by
the President for a term of nine (9) years, without reappointment, to start from the
time they assume office .
Flores vs. Drilon
The power of choice is the heart of the power to appoint. Appointment involves an
exercise of discretion of whom to appoint; it is not a ministerial act of issuing
appointment papers to the appointee. In other words, the choice of the appointee is a
fundamental component of the appointing power.
Rufino vs. Endriga
The power to appoint is the prerogative of the President, except in those instances
when the Constitution provides otherwise. Under Section 16, there is a fourth group of
lower-ranked officers whose appointments Congress may by law vest in the heads of
departments, agencies, commissions, or boards. These inferior or lower in rank
officers are the subordinates of the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or
boards who are vested by law with the power to appoint. Congress has the discretion
to grant to, or withhold from, the heads the power to appoint lower-ranked officers.
The 1987 Constitution only allows heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or
boards to appoint only “officers lower in rank” than such “heads of departments,
agencies, commissions, or boards.”
Calderon vs. Carale
The second sentence of Sec 16, Art VII refers to all other officers of the government
whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law and those whom the
President may be authorized by law. The NLRC Chairman and Commissioners fall
within the second sentence of Sec 16. The Chairman and Members of the NLRC are
NOT among the officers mentioned in the first sentence of Sec 16, whose
appointments requires the confirmation by the Commission on App.
U-Sing vs. NLRC
Same as Calderon
Tarrosa vs. Singson
Congress cannot by law expand the confirmation powers of the Commission on
Appointments and require confirmation of appointments of other government
officials not expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16 of Article 7 of the
Constitution.
Manolo vs. Siztoza
The police force is different from and independent of the armed forces and the ranks
in the military are not similar to those in the PNP. Thus, directors and chief
superintendents of the PNP, such as respondent police officers in this case, do not fall
under the first category of presidential appointees requiring the confirmation by the
CA (see first sentence of the first paragraph of Section 16). PNP is not part of the
AFP.
Soriano vs. Lista
It is clear from Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution that only appointed
officers from the rank of colonel or naval captain in the armed forces require
confirmation by the CA. The rule is that the plain, clear and unambiguous language of
the Constitution should be construed as such and should not be given a construction
that changes its meaning. The enumeration of appointments subject to confirmation
by the CA under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution is exclusive. The
clause "officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain" refers
to military officers alone.
Section 17: Power of Control
Lacson-magallanes vs. Pano
The president is vested with the executive power in the 3 branches of government.
With this power, comes the power to control all of the executive departments. He can
appoint these heads, and dismiss them as he pleases. Having the power to control and
direct them, he as well can confirm, modify or reverse the decisions of these
department secretaries.
Ang-Angco vs. Castillo
The power of control of the President extends to the power to “alter or modify or
nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his
duties and to substitute the judgment of the [President] for that of the [subordinate
officer].” This may be extended to the power to “investigate, suspend or remove
officers and employees who belong to the executive department if they are
presidential appointees or do not belong to the classified service for such can be
justified that the power to remove is inherent to the power to appoint.” The same
cannot be done to officers or employees who belong to the classified service. The
procedure laid down in the Civil Service Act of 1959 must be followed for their
removal.
Villaluz vs. Zaldivar
Inherent in the power to appoint is the power to remove.
NAMARCO vs. Arca
President’s power of control includes GOCCs as part of the Executive department.
Drilon vs. Lim
Supervision – merely to determine if rules are being followed; control – change the
rules and creates new ones, and provide penalties for non-compliance with the rules.
PASEI vs. Torres
The Ministry of Labor is under the executive department and the president has the
power of control of its department head (Secretary). It is implicit in the power of
control is the power to review, confirm, modify or reverse acts of Dept’ heads. In this
case, if the Secretary grants a new license, Marcos can deny or approve of it. Hence,
this LOI takes the nature of a presidential issuance which can be repealed by a later
presidential issuance.
De Leon vs. Carpio
• All executive departments, bureaus, and offices are under control of
President
• President’s power of control over cabinet, who in turn controls bureaus and
other offices under their jurisdiction
o As head of executive department, he may delegate some of his
powers to the Cabinet except when he is required by the
Constitution to act in person or in the exegencies of the situations
demand that he act personally
• The NBI is under the Department of Justice and since the Secretary of Justice
acts as alter ego of the President, his orders must be followed by the Director
of the NBI.
Acts of the alter egos of the President are acts of the President himself unless
disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive.
Joson vs. Torres
Jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary actions against elective local officials is
lodged in two authorities: The disciplining authority and the Investigating Authority.
The Disciplining Authority is the President whether acting by himself or through the
Executive Secretary. The Secretary of the Interior and Local Government is the
Investigating Authority who may act by himself or by and Investigating committee.
The secretary of the DILG, however is not the exclusive investigating authority. In
lieu of the DILG Secretary, the disciplining authority may designate a special
Investigating committee.
Hutchinson vs. SBMA
Chartered instirutions are always under the power of control of the President.
Cruz vs. Sec. of DENR
Chavez vs. Romulo
Under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution, he/she is given powers as the Chief
Executive: “The president shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus
and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.” As the Chief
Executive, GMA holds the steering wheel that controls the course of her government.
She lays down the policies in the execution of her plans and programs. Whatever
policy she chooses, she has her subordinate to implement them. In short, she has the
power of control. Whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to her
subordinate, she may act directly or merely direct the performance of a duty. Thus,
when GMA directed Ebdane to suspend the issuance of the PTCFOR, she was just
directing a subordinate to perform an assigned duty. Such act was well within the
prerogative of her office.

Section 18 Commander in Chief

PRA vs. Bunag

The task of the Department of Budget and Management is simply to review the
compensation and benefits plan of the government agency or entity concerned and Suspend
Declare
Call in Privilege of
determine if the same complies with the prescribed policies and guidelines issued in AFP Writ of Habeas
Martial
this regard. The role of the Department of Budget and Management is supervisorial in Law
Corpus
nature, its main duty being to ascertain that the proposed compensation, benefits and Prevent /
other incentives to be given to PRA officials and employees adhere to the policies and Suppress lawless Yes ? ?
Groun violence
guidelines issued in accordance with applicable laws. ds Invasion Yes yes yes
Rebellion Yes yes yes
Prevent /
Suppress lawless ?
Domingo vs. Zamora
violence
Period Gen. Rule: 60 days (except if extended or
Power of the President to reorganize over: 1) office of the President proper; 2) offices Invasion
revoked by Congress)
within the office of the President Rebellion
Notice ? Congress w/in 48 hours
Revocation ? Congress
Yes. The test is w/n the Pres.
Romuldez vs. Sndiganbayan Acted arbitrarily 7 sufficiently
?
Judicial Review & based on the facts; decide in 60
The felonious act of public officials and their close relatives are not acts of the state, Period days
and the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such, but stands on the same footing Who can
? Any Citizen
as any other offender. question
Courts & legis. Open Open Open
Assembly
 The President has full discretionary power to call out the armed forces and to
determine the necessity of the exercise of such power. None of the petitioners have
supported their assertion that the President acted without factual basis.

Lansang vs. Garcia

President has 3 courses of action (in times of national emergency): David vs. Arroyo

To call out Armed Forces The president may call out the AFP without confirmation from Congress, but may not
exercise emergency powers without congressional enactment.
To suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus

To place the Philippines (entirely or partly) under martial law

Aberca vs. Ver

IBP vs. Zamora

The calling out power is placed in a different category from the power to declare
martial law and the power to suspend martial law and the power to suspend the habeas
corpus otherwise, the framers of the Constitution would have simply lumped together
the 3 powers and provided for their revocation and review without any qualification
(see Section 18, Article 7 codal)
Section 19: Executive Clemency
The power to call is fully discretionary to the president.

Commutat
Reprieves Pardon Fines Amnesty
Lacson vs. Perez ion

Pres. +
The court may review the factual basis for the proclamation declaring the existence of Who
President President President President maj. Of all
a state of rebellion. exercises
of Congress

Effect Postpones to Remission Exempts -abolishes

a day certain of part of from offense
Lim vs. Exec. Sec. the punishment
punishment (looks (looks
forward) backward)

-relieved
Sanlakas vs. Exec. Sec. from
 consequenc only the crime committed but removes all disabilities resulting from conviction.
es Often, imprisonment is not the only punishment when one goes against the law but
-civil
punishment also comes in the form of accessory and resultant disabilities. When
liability pardon is granted after the term of imprisonment has expired, absolute pardon
removes all that is left of the consequences of conviction.
-before
conviction
Llamas vs. Orbos
Requisite Final Final Final Final
-treason,
s Judgment Judgment Judgment judgment
political The president may grant clemency for administrative cases in the executive branch:
offense/law
of nations the constitution does not distinguish between criminal and administrative cases.

Beneficiar Class of People vs. Salle

individual Individual Individual Individual
y individuals

“after final judgment of conviction” – no appeals: if pardon is applied for, it shall not
be processed pending an appeal. The judgment must fist be final.
Except:
impeachment;
election Same (if People vs. Bacang
Limitation offense -> Same Same Same tax
(Comelec amnesty,
recommendati
Pardon cannot be extended pending an appeal.
needs
on) legislative
concurrenc Drilon vs. CA
e)

Gen. Rule: Once a person has been pardoned, or has served his sentence, his case can no longer
Acceptan needed be reopened and reinvestigated.
ce except if
absolute
Torres vs. Gonzales

Cristobal vs. Labrador
There are only two limitations on the pardoning power of the executive: that the
power be exercised after conviction (final judgement) and that such power does not
extend to cases of impeachment. Pardon was granted to Santos after he has served his
sentence and his case was not that of impeachment. Thus, the pardoning power of the
executive cannot be restricted by legislative action. An absolute pardon blots out not
The acceptance of a conditional pardon, carried with it the authority or power given to
the President to determine whether the condition of the pardon has been violated. To
no other department of the Government has such power been entrusted or delegated.
Such act of the President is not subject to judicial scrutiny.
People vs Cassido
Amnesty – granted to classes of persons guilty of political offenses, instituted before
or after criminal prosecution or even after conviction.
Monsanto vs. factoran
Pardon does not restore a convicted felon to public office. He must first acguire a
reappointment, not a reinstatement, and does not exempt him from paying civil
liabilities.
Garcia vs. COA
Since the pardon was based on innocence, the accused should be accorded his rights
previously held. He should be automatically reinstated and given back wages, as if he
never left his office, as his dismissal is rendered null and void, due to lack of the cause
of action to which his innocence was found.
Section 21 International agreements, treaties, etc.
Gonzales vs. hechanova
Although the president may enter into agreements without previous legislative
authority, he may not by executive agreement, enter into transactions which is
prohibited by statutes enacted prior thereto. Under the constitution, the main function
of the executive is to enforce the laws enacted by congress. He may not defeat
legislative enactments by indirectly repealing the same through an executive
agreement providing for the performance of the very act prohibited by said laws.
USAFFE vs. Treasurer
Executive agreements are two classes:
1) PRESIDENTIAL AGREEMENTS- Agreement made purely by executive
acts affecting external relations and independent of or needs no legislative
authorization.
2) CONGRESSIONAL- EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS- Agreement entered
into in pursuance of acts of congress.
The agreement may fall under any of these 2 classes. Why?
1) Because congress granted authority to the president to obtain loans and incur
indebtedness with the Government of US.
2) Even assuming that there was no legislative authorization, the agreement
may still be entered into purely as executive acts (which usually relates to
money agreements for settlement of pecuniary claims of the citizens.
3) Senate resolution 15 admitted the validity and the binding force of the
agreement.
4) The act of congress appropriating funds for the yearly installments (under the
agreement) constitute a ratification thereof. Because international agreements
are for the executive, the courts may not encroach upon their validity.
Tanada vs. Angara
Bayan vs. Zamora
Treaty – signed and approved by 2/3 majority vote of all members of the Senate.
Abaya vs. Ebdane
An "exchange of notes" is a record of a routine agreement that has many similarities
with the private law contract. The agreement consists of the exchange of two
documents, each of the parties being in the possession of the one signed by the
representative of the other. Under the usual procedure, the accepting State repeats the
text of the offering State to record its assent. The signatories of the letters may be
government Ministers, diplomats or departmental heads. The technique of exchange
of notes is frequently resorted to, either because of its speedy procedure, or,
sometimes, to avoid the process of legislative approval. It is stated that "treaties,
agreements, conventions, charters, protocols, declarations, memoranda of
understanding, modus vivendi and exchange of notes" all refer to "international
instruments binding at international law."Significantly, an exchange of notes is
considered a form of an executive agreement, which becomes binding through
executive action without the need of a vote by the Senate or Congress. Agreements
concluded by the President which fall short of treaties are commonly referred to as
executive agreements and are no less common in our scheme of government than are
the more formal instruments – treaties and conventions. They sometimes take the
form of exchange of notes and at other times that of more formal documents
denominated "agreements" or "protocols". The point where ordinary correspondence
between this and other governments ends and agreements – whether denominated
executive agreements or exchange of notes or otherwise – begin, may sometimes be
difficult of ready ascertainment.
Pharmaceutical vs. DOH
Non-customary laws need to be transformed into local legislation before it can be
binding: ratification and concurrence of Senate.
Article VIII
Section 1: Judicial Power
Marbury vs. Madison
Judicial review: authority of the court to inquire into the acts of the branches of
government or instrumentalities thereof.
Santiago vs. Bautista
Judicial function is an act performed by virtue of judicial powers; the exercise of
which is the doing of something in the nature of the action of the court. In order that a
special action of certiorari may be invoked in this jurisdiction, the following must
exist:
a. That there must be a specific controversy involving the rights of persons or
property;
b. Such controversy is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer for hearing and
determination of rights and obligations.
Manila Electric vs. Pasay Transit
The Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot be required to exercise
any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or
connected with the administering of judicial functions.
The power conferred on this court is exclusively judicial, and it cannot be required or
authorized to exercise any other. . . . Its jurisdiction and powers and duties being
defined in the organic law of the government, and being all strictly judicial, Congress
cannot require or authorize the court to exercise any other jurisdiction or power, or
perform any other duty… And while it executes firmly all the judicial powers
entrusted to it, the court will carefully abstain from exercising any power that is not
strictly judicial in its character, and which is not clearly confided to it by the
Constitution.
Noblejas vs. Teehankee
Judicial power does not include the power to discipline officers in others branches of
government with equal rank as that of a judge. This is beyond the judicial sphere.
Radiowealth vs. Agregado
The “preservation of Judiciary’s integrity and effectiveness is necessary”. Corollary to
this is the power of judiciary to maintain its existence. The quality of the government
depends upon the independence of judiciary and the officials of the government
cannot deprive the courts of anything which is vital to their functions.
Furthermore, the prerogatives of this court which the Constitution secures against
interference include not only the powers to adjudicate cases but all things that are
REASONABLY necessary for the administration of justice. The purchase of the
necessary equipment would contribute to a more effective judiciary. Lastly, these are
implied and incidental powers that are as essential to the existence of the court as the
powers specifically granted to it.
In re Laureta
The Court's authority and duty under the premises is unmistakable. It must act to
preserve its honor and dignity from the scurrilous attacks of an irate lawyer, mouthed
by his client, and to safeguard the morals and ethics of the legal profession.
In re Borromeo
Judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or
factors. They should not be subject to intimidation, the fear of civil, criminal or
administrative sanctions for acts they may do and dispositions they may make in the
performance of their duties and functions. Hence it is sound rule, which must be
recognized independently of statute that judges are not generally liable for acts done
within the scope of their jurisdiction and in good faith. The Court has repeatedly and
uniformly ruled that a judge may not be held administratively accountable for every
erroneous order or decision he renders. The exercise of the power of contempt of the
court is valid.
Director of Prisons vs. Ang Cho Kio
The power to revoke a conditional pardon is within the realm of the executive, and
does not fall within the jurisdiction of the judiciary. Neither does the judiciary have
the power to give advisory opinions. Its main duty is to settle disputes and uphold
rights, in the absence of which it cannot render opinions, as this is not one of its
functions.
Echegaray vs. Sec. of Justice
The finality of a judgment does not mean the Court has lost all its powers over the
case. By the finality of the judgment, what the court loses is its jurisdiction to amend,
modify, or alter the same. The court still has jurisdiction to execute and enforce it.
The power to control the execution of its decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction.
Supervening events may change the circumstance of the parties and compel courts to
intervene and adjust the rights of the litigants to prevent unfairness.
Postponement of the date: The particulars of the execution itself are absolutely under
the control of the judicial authority, while the executive has no power over the person
of the convict except to provide for carrying out of the penalty and to pardon. The
date can be postponed, even in sentences of death. Under the common law this
postponement can be ordered in 3 ways: (1) by command of the King (2) by discretion
of the court (3) by mandate of the law.
PCGG vs. Disierto
The Constitution has tasked this Court “to determine whether or not there has been
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government,” including the Office of the
Ombudsman. Specifically, this Court is mandated to review and reverse the
ombudsman’s evaluation of the existence of probable cause, if it has been made with
grave abuse of discretion.
Domingo vs. Scheer
Although the courts are without power to directly decide matters over which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
government and are not empowered to execute absolutely their own judgment from
that of Congress or of the President, the Court may look into and resolve questions of
whether or not such judgment has been made with grave abuse of discretion, when the
act of the legislative or executive department violates the law or the Constitution.
Angara vs. Electoral Tribunal
Judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review in actual and appropriate cases
and controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no one branch or agency of
the government transcends the Constitution, which is the source of all authority.
The Electoral Commission is an independent constitutional creation with specific
powers and functions to execute and perform, closer for purposes of classification to
the legislative than to any of the other two departments of the government; is the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of
the National Assembly.
US vs. Nixon
The mere assertion of an “intra-executive” dispute does not defeat federal jurisdiction.
Furhtermore the attorney general had conferred upon the special prosecutor the unique
tenure and authority to represent the US and with this explicit power to contest the
invocation of executive privilege in seeking evidence deemed relevant to the
performance of his duties. Actions of the prosecutor are well within the scope of this
express authority seeking specified evidence, which are admissible and relevant ot the
criminal case at hand. Thus the issue is of a type considered “traditionally justiciable,”
the fact that both officers are of the exec branch does not bar this.
Marcos vs. Manglapus
Given the expanded jurisdiction of the SC, it no longer cowers behind the political
question doctrine save for certain undeniable situations such as recognition of states
or the grant of pardons. The SC, in the face of the present controversy, has the duty of
ascertaining whether or not the Executive goes beyond the power vested by the
Constitution. There exists a conflict between the rights asserted by the Marcoses as
opposed to the exercise of executive power by the President for the preservation of
national interest and security.
Daza vs. Singson
The issue presented is justiciable rather political, involving as it does the legality and
not the wisdom of the act complained of, or the manner of filling the Commission on
Appointments as prescribed by the Constitution. Even if the question were political in
nature, it would still come within the powers of review under the expanded
jurisdiction conferred upon the SC by Article VIII, Section 1, of the Constitution,
which includes the authority to determine whether grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction has been committed by any branch or
instrumentality of the government.
Garcia vs. BOI
There is an actual controversy whether the petro-chemical plant should remain in
Bataan or be transferred to Batangas.

Djumantan vs. Domingo
Being final arbiter, it has power to review the order of the Commission of
Immigration and Deportation, as a branch or instrumentality of the Government.
GADELJ
Mariano vs. Comelec
A hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen into an actual case is not a justiciable
controversy which the court can take cognizance of. A hypothetical issue which rests
on many contingent events does not pose an issue ripe for adjudication.
PPI vs. Comelec
Issue not ripe for judicial review due to lack of actual case or controversy.
SBMA vs. Comelec
Courts may decide only actual controversies, not hypothetical questions or cases.
Judicial power has been defined in jurisprudence as "the right to determine actual
controversies arising between adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper
jurisdiction". It is "the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes
involving rights that are enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or
the redress of wrongs for violation of such rights". Thus, there can be no occasion for
the exercise of judicial power unless real parties come to court for the settlement of an
actual controversy and unless the controversy is such that it can be settled in a manner
that binds the parties by the application of existing laws.
Tanada vs. Angara
The court cannot look into the wisdom of the acts of the legislature.
Arroyo vs. De Venecia
The courts may only look into the constitutionality of the acts of officials, and not if
these acts conform to the internal rules of each branch of government (HoR rules).
CIR vs. Santos
The Constitution contemplates that the inferior courts should have jurisdiction in
cases involving constitutionality of any treaty or law, for it speaks of appellate review
of final judgments of inferior courts in cases where such constitutionality happens to
be in issue. But this authority does not extend to deciding questions, which pertain to
legislative policy.
Garcia-Rueda vs. Pascasio
While the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal
case should be filed, this Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's
action when there is an abuse of discretion, in which case Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court may exceptionally be invoked pursuant to Section I, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution. In this regard, "grave abuse of discretion" has been defined as "where a
power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal
to perform a duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law.
Defensor-Santiago vs. Guingona
The present constitution now fortifies the authority of the courts to determine in an
appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments. It speaks of
judicial prerogative in terms of duty: Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a GADALEJ on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
Tatad vs. DOE
Judicial power includes not only the duty of the courts to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, but also the duty to
determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government. The courts, as guardians of the Constitution, have the inherent authority
to determine whether a statue enacted by the legislature transcends the limit imposed
by the fundamental law. Where a statute violates the Constitution, it is not only the
right, but the duty of the judiciary to declare such null and void. The petitioner is not
assailing the wisdom of the law, but its constitutionality. Therefore, there is a
justiciable controversy.
Telebap vs. Comelec
A justiciable controversy has arisen as GMA allaged that said law violates its rights
against deprivation of property without just compensation and that it has sustained
millions of pesos in damages resulting therefrom.
Miranda vs. Aguirre
“The term ‘political question’ connotes what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a
question of policy. It refers ‘to those questions which under the Constitution are to be
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
government.’ It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of
a particular measure.”
“A purely justiciable issue implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable,
an act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by
law, for said breach of right.”
Cutaran vs. DENR
There is no justiciable controversy because the applications are still pending. Hence,
there is not government act to speak of and rule upon.
Estrada vs. Disierto
Review of the inability of the president to perform his duties and the decision of
Congress is no longer a political question. Courts cannot expand executive immunity
from suit. The 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question
doctrine when it expanded the power of judicial review of this court not only to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable
but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of government. The judiciary has focused on the “thou shall not’s” of
the Constitution.
Cawaling vs. Comelec
A political question is one in which the wisdom, expediency or justice of the
legislative enactment is being questioned. The courts cannot rule on the wisdom of the
laws.
Montesclaros vs. Comelec
A proposed bill cannot be the subject of judicial review because it is not a law.
Judicial review may only be exercised after a laws has been passed, not before it.
John Hay vs. Lim
The courts retain full discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition filed
directly to it if compelling reasons or the nature and importance of the uses raised,
warrant. Remanding the case to the lower courts would unduly prolong the case.
Velarde vs. SJS
Requirements for declaratory relief sought by respondents are: 1) justiciable
controversy, 2)controversy is between people whose interests are adverse, 3) party
seeking relief has a legal interest in the controversy and 4) the issue is ripe for judicial
determination.
A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is appropriate
or ripe for judicial determination, not one which is merely one of conjecture or merely
anticipatory. This petition failed to allege an exsitng controversy or dispute between
the petitioner and the named respondents.
Panganiban vs. Shell
The court cannot rule of “feared hypothetical abuse”: not an actual case or
controversy. There is not cause of action. No injury or encroachment of right legally
enforceable or demandable.
SMART vs. NTC
The court has jurisdiction over administrative issuances of agencies, which were
issued in the exercise of their quasi-legislative, and not quasi-judicial function.
Buac vs. Comelec
Recount of plebiscite ballots is exclusively within the realm of the Comelec: not to be
interfered with by the courts.
Information Technology vs. Comelec
The court does not give advisory opinions. It can nly rule on actual cases or
controversies, involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.
Macasiano vs. NHA
Requisites for declaratory relief:
1) There must be a justiciable controversy;
2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; and
3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy.
Tano vs. Socrates
Court will not entertain direct resort unless redress desired cannot be obtained in
appropriate court and when there is exceptional circumstance to justify availment of
remedy.
Section 2: Power of Legislature to Apportion Jurisdiction
Mantruste vs. CA
The court is prohibited by law to interfere with, or block, a decision of an executive
agency.
Malaga Vs. Penachos
Courts are not barred from issuing restraining orders against government entities, if
the requirements and procedures set by law are followed.
Section 3: Fiscal Autonomy
In Re Clarifying and Strengthening….
The authority of the DBM to “review” the plantilla and compensation of court
personnel extends only to “calling the attention of the Court” on what it may perceive
as erroneous application of budgetary laws and rules on position classification.
Section 4: Compositions and Sessions
Fortrich vs. Corona
it is clear that only cases are referred to the Court en banc for decision whenever the
required number of votes is not obtained. Conversely, the rule does not apply where,
as in this case, the required three votes is not obtained in the resolution of a motion for
reconsideration. Hence, the second sentence of the aforequoted provision speaks only
of “case” and not “matter”. The reason is simple. The above-quoted Article VIII,
Section 4(3) pertains to the disposition of cases by a division. If there is a tie in the
voting, there is no decision. The only way to dispose of the case then is to refer it to
the Court en banc. On the other hand, if a case has already been decided by the
division and the losing party files a motion for reconsideration, the failure of the
division to resolve the motion because of a tie in the voting does not leave the case
undecided. There is still the decision which must stand in view of the failure of the
members of the division to muster the necessary vote for its reconsideration. Quite
plainly, if the voting results in a tie, the motion for reconsideration is lost. The
assailed decision is not reconsidered and must therefore be deemed affirmed.
People vs. Dy
The divisions of the Supreme Court are not different and distinct from the actual
tribunal. It can be said that the decisions promulgated by each division are actually
decisions of the Supreme Court en banc.
Section 5: Powers of the Supreme Court
PACU vs. Sec. of Education
Before a case can be filed with the Supreme Court, the petitioners must first exhaust
all available administrative remedies, and it is encumbent upon them to prove that
their rights have been violated.
Tan vs. Macapagal
Solicitor General vs. MMDA
The court may suspend procedural rules to give way for substantive justice. The
requisite of having an actual case or controversy ripe for adjudication (in invoking the
court’s power of judicial review) may be waived by the court in cases of
transcendental importance.
Militante vs. CA
Pimentel vs. HRET
All remedies must first be exhaust before seeking recourse to the courts: if the issue
involves the rules of the HoR regarding the composition of HRET and the CA, then
the proper recourse is through the HoR, and not the courts.
Gonzales vs. Macaraig
Members of congress have the requisite standing to raise constitutional issues.
Jaworski vs. PAGCOR
Members of Congress have standing to file suits assailing the legality of acts of other
branches of government, or instrumentalities thereof.
Province of Batangas vs. Romulo
The crucial legal issue submitted for resolution of this Court entails the proper legal
interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions. Moreover, the
“transcendental importance” of the case, as it necessarily involves the application of
the constitutional principle on local autonomy, cannot be gainsaid. The nature of the
present controversy, therefore, warrants the relaxation by this Court of procedural
rules in order to resolve the case forthwith.
Disomangcop vs. Datumanong
CHR-employees vs. CHR
Pimentel vs. Exec. Sec.
Info. Tech. Foundation vs. Comelec
Velarde vs. SJS
Domingo vs. Carague
Republic vs. Nolasco
Legaspi vs. CSC
PASEI vs. Torres
Joya vs. PCGG
Tatad vs. Garcia
Board of Optometry vs. Colet
Only natural and juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties in a
civil action, and every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
party in interest. Under Article 44 of the Civil Code, an association is considered a
juridical person if the law grants it a personality separate and distinct from that of its
members. A real party in interest under Section 2 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court is a
party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment on the suit, or the party
entity led to the avails of the suit. Since OPAP, COA, ACMO, and SMOAP were not
shown to be juridical entities, they cannot be deemed real parties in interest.
Anti-Graft League of the Philippines
Telecom vs. Comelec
Cruz vs. Sec. of DENR
Petitioners, as citizens, possess the “public right” to ensure that the national patrimony
is not alienated and diminished in violation of the Constitution. Since the
government, as the guardian of the national patrimony, holds it for the benefit of all
Filipinos without distinction as to ethnicity, it follows that a citizen has sufficient
interest to maintain a suit to ensure that any grant of concessions covering the
national economy and patrimony strictly complies with constitutional requirements.
Thus, the preservation of the integrity and inviolability of the national patrimony is a
proper subject of a citizen’s suit.
In addition, petitioners, as taxpayers, possess the right to restrain officials from
wasting public funds through the enforcement of an unconstitutional statute. It is
well-settled that a taxpayer has the right to enjoin public officials from wasting public
funds through the implementation of an unconstitutional statute, and by necessity, he
may assail the validity of a statute appropriating public funds. The taxpayer has paid
his taxes and contributed to the public coffers and, thus, may inquire into the manner
by which the proceeds of his taxes are spent. The expenditure by an official of the
State for the purpose of administering an invalid law constitutes a misapplication of
such funds.
Lozano vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
Lim vs. Exec. Sec.
Though being lawyers does not grant these petitioners standing because of lack of
sufficient interest (IBP v ZAMORA) and there was no exercise of Congress’ spending
powers to warrant a taxpayer’s suit, this issue is one of transcendental importance (to
the public), where the SC can relax the standing requirements and allow the suit to
prosper.
Chavez vs. PEA
The petitioner has locus standi because of his invocation of his right to information
and to the equitable diffusion of natural resources is a matter of transcendental public
importance. Furthermore, since PEA did not conduct public bidding, there was no
information released to the public regarding the details of its disposition of property.
Hence, any citizen can demand from PEA this information at any time during the
bidding process, but only upon the committee’s official recommendation (because the
right to info only attaches upon that moment).
Tolentino vs. Comelec
Ordinarily, the petition will be dismissed because first, the petitioners only assert a
harm which is a generalized and not a particular interest. Second, there was no
allegation that taxpayer’s money was misused by the COMELEC in violation of
specific constitutional protections. However, because of the nature of the issues as
being imbued with public interest (right of suffrage) and one which will most likely
arise again, the petitioners are granted standing to file.
Agan vs. PIATCO
The petitioners are employees of service providers currently operating at the MIAA
and service providers who have contracts with MIAA. They will surely sustain direct
injury upon the implementation of the PIATCO contracts because they will be
displaced by new employees/service providers thus losing their means of livelihood.
Furthermore, the issues posed in the cases required a discussion of the BOT Law and
its constitutionality.
Tichangco vs. Enriquez
Interest means a material interest in issue that is affected by the questioned act or
instrument, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest. It cannot be vague,
speculative or uncertain.
AIWA vs. Romulo
Petitioners must show that they have sustained or will sustain a direct injury as a
result of the executive or legislative act being questioned. In the absence of such
showing the case will not prosper.
Pimentel vs. Exec. Sec
The Rome Statute is merely intended to complement national criminal laws and
courts. Sufficient remedies are available under our national laws to protect our
citizens against human rights violations.
Senate vs. Ermita
The interest of the petitioner in assailing the constitutionality of laws must be direct
and personal. When the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the mere
fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest.
Purok vs. Yuipico
The general rule is that all actions must be prosecuted and defended by the real parties
in interest and in the name of the real party in interest. An association has the legal
personality to represent its members and the outcome case will affect their vital
interest. Additionally, an association has standing to file suit for its members despite
its lack of direct interest if its members are affected by the action.
David vs. Arroyo
Holy Spirit vs. Defensor
The petitioner association has legal standing to file the petition WON it is the duly
recognized association of homeowners in the NGC. There is no dispute that the
individual members of the HSPSAI are residents of the NGC. They are covered and
stand to be benefited or injured by the enforcement of the IRR (particularly as regards
the selection process of beneficiaries and lot allocation to qualified beneficiaries).
Thus, the petitioner may assail the IRR if it believes it to be unfavorable to the rights
of its members. Furthermore, the petitioners have sustained injury because of the
enforcement of the IRR because they were disqualified and eliminated from the
selection process (of being considered as bona fide residents),
Henares vs. LTFRB
The petitioners have standing to bring this issue to court. This petition focuses on their
fundamental legal right to clean air. This right is an issue of paramount importance for
it concerns the air they breathe and it is imbued with public interest. The
consequences of the counterproductive effects of a neglected environment due to
motor vehicle emissions affect the well-being of everyone.
Francisco vs. Fernando
Francisco has no standing because he did not show that he has personally suffered
some injury from the alleged illegal conduct of the government. He also did not show
that he had a sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of tax money.
There is also no transcendental importance because he did not show a clear disregard
of a consti/statutory prohibition. On the lack of legal basis, all other cities have each
enacted anti-jaywalking ordinances. Such fact serves as sufficient basis for MMDA’s
scheme. After all, the MMDA is an admin agency tasked with the implementation of
rules and regulations. Furthermore, the absence of an anti-jaywalking ordinance in
Valenzuela does not detract from this conclusion because there was no proof that the
MMDA implemented the scheme in that city.
People vs. Vera
It has been held that since the decree pronounced by a court without jurisdiction is
void, where the jurisdiction of the court depends on the validity of the statue in
question, the issue of the constitutionality will be considered on its being brought to
the attention of the court by persons interested in the effect to be given the statute.
Also, it is true that as a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised at
the earliest opportunity. There are exceptions. Courts, in the exercise of sound
discretion, may determine the time when a question affecting the constitutionality of a
statute should be presented. In civil cases, it has been held that it is the duty of the
court to pass on the constitutional questions, even if it was raised for the first time on
appeal IF it appears that a determination of the question is necessary to a decision of
the case. As to the power of the court to consider the constitutional question raised for
the first time in these proceedings, the SC is of the opinion is that the People of the
Philippines and the Fiscal of the City of Manila is a proper party in these proceedings.
The rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a
substantial interest in the case. The enforcement of an invalid statute is detrimental to
public interest. Thus, the state has standing to sue.
Mirasol vs. CA
The present case was instituted primarily for accounting and specific performance.
The CA correctly ruled that PNB’s obligation to render an accounting is an issue
which can be determined without having to rule on the validity of PD 579. It is not the
lis mota of the case.
Matibag vs. Benipayo
The earliest opportunity is to raise it in the pleadings before a competent court that
can resolve the same.
La Bugal vs. Ramos
The “earliest opportunity” requirement should not be taken to mean that the question
of constitutionality must be immediately raised after the execution of the act
complained of. That the question of constitutionality has not been raised before is not
a valid reason for refusing to allow it to be raised later.
Arceta vs. Mangrobang
The constitutional question is not the lis mota in the case. To justify a law’s
nullification, there must be a clear breach of the Consti and not one which is
speculative.
Estarja vs. Ranada
The law requires that the question of constitutionality be raised at the earliest
opportunity. In this case, Estarija raised the issue of constitutionality in his MR to the
OMB. Verily, the OMB has no jurisdiction to entertain questions on the
constitutionality of a law. Thus, when petitioner raised the issue of constitutionality
before the CA, the constitutional question was raised at the earliest opportunity.
Furthermore, this court may determine when a constitutional issue may be passed
upon.
Baker vs. Carr
Political questions are those questions under the Constitution, are to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority
has been delegated to the legislative/executive branch of the government. Cases which
are political in nature as follows:
a. Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a
coordinate political department (issues of foreign affairs and executive war
powers, parliamentary rules and regulations)
b. A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the
issue
c. Impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind
clearly for nonjudicial discretion (WISDOM)
d. Possible infringement of separation of powers
e. An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already
made*
f. Potentiality of embarrassment from many pronouncements by various
departments on one question *
Significantly in the Philippines, since the Constitution empowers the SC to check for
GADLEJ of other branches, the question is not political even if there is the presence
of e and f.
Omena vs. Pendatun
The resolution was unanimously approved by the Congress and such approval
amounted to the suspension of Congress rules, which can be done by unanimous
consent (therefore they can take up matters already dealt with). In conclusion, the
courts may not interfere with internal rules and regulations of the Congress unless
Constitutional rights are violated.
Arroyo vs. De Venecia
The wisdom of house rules (procedure) cannot be judicially determined out of respect
for the separation of powers.
Defensor-Santiago vs. Guingona
The Senate may determine its rules when it comes to voting for the minority leader as
it is not constitutionally provided for. Only the manner of electing the Senate
President and House Speaker is provided for in the Constitution. “Each House shall
choose such officers as it may deem necessary”.
ICMC vs. Calleja
The determination of immunities accorded to international organizations has been
held to be a political question conclusive upon the courts in order not to embarrass a
political department of the Government. If a plea of diplomatic immunity is
recognized by the executive, it is the duty of the courts to accept the same. These
organizations are granted immunities to prevent control or interference from the local
host government (unimpeded performance).
Tanada vs. Angara
Where an action of the legislative branch is alleged to have infringed the
Constitution, it becomes the judiciary’s duty to settle the dispute. The Constitution
must be upheld. The SC stresses, though, that the Court will not review the wisdom
(reasons why) the Senate concurred in the WTO agreement or pass upon the merits of
trade liberalization as a policy espoused by the WTO. It will also not rule on the
propriety of the government’s policy of removing taxes, subsidies and other import
barriers. It will only check if Senate committed GADLEJ/violated the Constitution in
ratifying the WTO agreement.
Garcia vs. Corona
The court is bound to respect the legislative finding that deregulation is the policy
answer to the problem of high oil prices.
Liang vs. People
Slandering a person could not be covered by the immunity agreement because our
laws do not allow the commission of a crime (defamation) in the name of an official
duty. The imputation of theft cannot be part of official functions. Under the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent, enjoys immunity from crim
jurisdiction of the receiving state except in the case of an action relating to any
commercial/professional activity exercised by the agent in the receiving state outside
his official functions.
De Agbayani vs. PNB
This is merely to reflect awareness that precisely because the judiciary is the
governmental organ which has the final say on whether or not a legislative or
executive measure is valid, a period of time may have elapsed before it can exercise
the power of judicial review that may lead to a declaration of nullity. It would be to
deprive the law of its quality of fairness and justice then, if there be no recognition of
what had transpired prior to such adjudication. The actual existence of a statute, prior
to such a determination [of unconstitutionality], is an operative fact and may have
consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a
new judicial declaration.
Chavez vs. People
It is only in cases where the penalty is death that the RTC must forward the records of
the case to the SC for automatic review. Since the petitioners did not file an appeal,
the decision of their conviction and sentence to RP is final and unappealable.
Pearson vs. IAC
The SC has CONCURRENT jurisdiction with the IAC (now CA) and CFI (now RTC)
to issue extraordinary writs. Parties should seek proper relief from lower courts before
going to the SC. If the CA or RTC can competently issue extraordinary writs, the
principle of hierarchy of courts must be preserved.
People vs. Mateo
To ensure utmost inspection before the penalty of death, RP or LI is imposed, the
Court now deems it wise to provide in these cases a review by the CA before the case
is elevated to the SC. The need for an intermediate review by the CA is merely a
procedural matter that is Constitutionally vested in the SC.
Cebu Women’s Club vs. De La Victoria
A party may directly appeal to the SC from a decision of the trial court only on pure
questions of law. The petition does not involve pure questions of law because a
question of law arises when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a
certain set of facts as distinguished from a question of fact which occurs when the
doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the facts.
People vs. Gutierrez
It is within the power of the courts to determine the most suitable place of the trial.
The Judicial Power vested in the SC and it connotes certain inherent attributes
necessary for an effective administration of justice. One of these inherent powers is
that of the transfer of trial of cases from one court to another.
First Lepanto vs. CA
Review of BOI decisions – first to CA.
Lina vs. Purisima
If in any case elevated to this Court for the correction of any supposed procedural
error of any lower court, it should be found that indeed there has been a mistake, and
it further appears that all the facts needed for a complete determination of the whole
controversy are already before the Court, the SC may at its option dispense with the
usual procedure of remanding and instead resolve the pertinent issues and render final
judgments on the merits.
In Re: Cunanan
Congress may repeal, alter and supplement the rules promulgated by the SC but the
authority and responsibility over the admission of attorneys remain vested in the SC.
In Re: Agrosino
The practice of law is a personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral character,
with special educational qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.
Javellana vs. DILG
These merely prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of
interest between the discharge of public duties and the private practice of law, and do
not infringe on the SC’s power and authority to promulgate rules regarding the
practice of law.
Bustos vs. Lucero
Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights as
opposed to remedial law, which prescribes the method of enforcing rights/obtain
redress for invasion. As applied to criminal law, substantive law is that which declares
what acts are crimes and prescribes the punishment for committing them, as
distinguished from procedural law which provides or regulates the steps by which one
who commits a crime is to be punished. Preliminary investigation is eminently
remedial (being the first step taken in a criminal prosecution). The curtailment of the
right of an accused in a prelim investigation to cross examine the witnesses who had
given evidence for his arrest does not offend the Constitution. Prelim investigation is
not an essential part of due process (it may suppressed entirely). Finally,nit is
inevitable that the SC in making rules should step on substantive rights, and the
Constitution must be presumed to tolerate if not expect such incursion as does not
affect the accused in a harsh and arbitrary manner but operates only in a limited and
substantial manner to his disadvantage. It has the power to adopt a general and
complete system of procedure.
People vs. Lacson
If a criminal case is provisionally dismissed without express consent, the new rule
would not apply. In this case, the 11 informations in criminal cases were filed with the
RTC which was well within the two year period therefore the MR is granted and the
RTC is directed to proceed with the criminal cases.
Planters vs. Fertiphil
Retroactive application is only allowed if no vested rights are impaired. In the case, at
the time PPI filed its appeal in 1992, all that the rules require for the perfection of its
appeal was the filing of a notice of appeal. PPI complied with this requirement when
it filed a notice of appeal. Thus, the 1997 Rules of CivPro which took effect on 1997
and required docket fees cannot affect PPI’s appeal which was already perfected in
1992.

Santero vs. CFI of Cavite In Re: 2003 Bar Examinations

A substantive law, gives the surviving spouse and to the children the right to receive Disbarment due to violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 as well as Canon 7 of the Code
support during liquidation, such right cannot be impaired by the Rules of Court, which of Professional Responsibility (a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and
is a procedural rule. immoral conduct/uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession).

PNB vs. Asuncion Tan vs. Bausch

A procedural rule cannot amend a substantive law. SC has authority to transfer jurisdiction through Administrative Order.

Damasco vs. Laqui Tan vs. Comelec

Philippine jurisprudence considers prescription of a crime or offense a loss or waiver Review of rules of quasi-judicial bodies.
by the State of its right to prosecute an act prohibited/punished by law. While it is the
rule that an accused who fails to move to quash before pleading, is deemed to waive
all objections, yet this rule cannot apply to the defense of prescription, which under Article IX: Constitutional Commissions
Art 69 of the RPC extinguishes criminal liability.
Civil Service Comelec Commission on
Carpio vs. Sulu Resources Audit
Composition 1 chairman and 2 1 chairman and 6 1 chairman and 2
When the SC, in its exercise of its rule-making power, transfers to the CA pending commissioners commissioners commisisioners
cases involving a review of a quasi-judicial body’s decisions [MAB’s], such transfer Qualifications Natural-born, 35 + Natural-born, 35+ Natural-born, 35 +
only relates to procedure and it does not impair substantive rights because the yrs old, capacity yrs old, college yrs old, CPA (10 yrs
aggrieved party’s right to appeal is preserved and what is changed is only the for public ad.; not grad.; not auditing
candidate for candidate for experience), or
procedure by which the appeal is to be made or decided. elctive position in elctive position in members of the
elctions elctions bar(10 yrs law
Land Bank vs. De Leon immediately immediately practice); not
A petition for review, not an ordinary appeal, is the proper procedure in effecting preceding appt preceding appt; candidate for
maj. Including elctive position in
appeal from decisions of Special Agrarian Courts in cases involving the determination chairman should elctions
of just compensation to the landowners concerned. be member of bar, immediately
+ 10 yr practice preceding appt.
Term 7 yrs w/out 7 yrs w/out 7 yrs w/out
reappointment reappointment reappointment Article XII: National Economy and Patrimony
(staggered) (staggered) (staggered)
Filipino Filipino Foreign
Appointment President w/ CA President w/ CA President w/ CA
Citizens Corporations Corporation
approval approval approval
Agricultural Own/lease Own/lease Lease
Jurisdiction Branches, Electoral process Government, any
Lands # of years if 25 years
subdivisions, subdivision,
leased
instrumentalities agency or
# of hectares 500 hectares 1000 hectares
and agencies of instrumentality,
by lease; 12
the gov’t including including GOCCs w/
hectares if
GOCCs with original charters
owned
original charters post-audit: consti
bodies, Other Nat. Form of Co-production, Co-production, Technical/finan
autonomous state resources Exploitation joint venture joint venture cial assistance
univ. and colleges, or production or production (large-scale)
other GOCCs, sharing sharing Minerals,
NGOs w/ gov’t agreement agreement petroleum, and
subsidy or equity (license, (license, other mineral
concession/lea concession/lea oils
Powers Central personnel Insure free, orderly Examine, audit and
se) se)
agency of the gov’t and honest settle all accounts
elections pertaining to the # of years 25 years 25 years
revenue and (renewable for (renewable for
receipts of, and addt’l 25) addt’l 25)
expenditures or Transfer of Yes Yes No (if foreign
uses of funds and Private land individual: only
property owned in cases of
and held in trust hereditary
by, or pertaining to succession)
the gov’t Franchise Yes Yes (60% No
Filipino; 40%
foreign)

Article X: Local Government Article XVII: Amendments or Revisions

Territorial and Political subdivisions: Congress Constitutional The People How?
1) provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays Convention
2) Autonomous regions (only ARMM so far) Amendmen Yes yes No Congress:
Power of president over LGU: general supervision t vote of ¾ of
all members;
Article XI: Accountability of Public Officers consti.conven
tion
Public office: public trust Revision yes yes yes Initiative:
Impeachment: President, VP, members of SC, members of Constitutional petition of at
Commissions, and Ombudsman least 12% of
Reasons: culpable violation of the Consti, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other all registered
voters, every
high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. legis. district
HoR: exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment represented
Who may file: any member of HoR, or any citizen upon resolution of endorsement by by at least 3%
any member of HoR of registered
voters therein
Vote: at least 1/3 of all the members of HoR.
Amendment- alteration of one or a few specific and separable provisions.; improve
specific parts or to add new provisions deemed necessary to meet new conditions or to
suppress specific portions that may have become obsolete or that are judged to be
dangerous.
Revision – re-examination of the whole document, or of provisions of the document
Starr Weigand
which have over-all implications for the entire document, to determine ho and to what
extent they should be altered; may involve a re-writing of the whole Constitution.
Ex. Presidential system to parliamentary – revision; change of term of president –
amendment

 No amendment shall be authorized oftener than once every 5 years.

 Congress to provide for the implementation of right to initiative
 Congress by a vote of 2/3 of all its members, may call a constitutional
convention
 By a vote of a majority of all its members, it may submit to the
electorate the question of calling a convention.
 Proposed amendments or revision: submitted all at once for one election
by the people.

Valid amendment or revision: ratified by majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite to

be held not earlier than 60 days not later than 90 days after the approval of such
amendment or revision.

Article XVIII: Transitory Provisions

1987 Constitution – took effect on Feb. 2, 1987 (upon ratification by the people)
PCGG – continued to operate.
Military Bases: only allowed based on following requisites:
1) a treaty is entered into
2) duly concurred in by the Senate, and when Congress requires, ratified by a
majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum for that
purpose
3) the treaty is recognized as such by the other contracting State.