Page 1 of 15

INTRODUCTION
I.

Constitutional Law

II. The Constitution

A. Definition
B. Doctrine of constitutional supremacy
C. Parts
D. Characteristics of a good written Constitution
E. Self-executing vs. non-self-executing provisions
CASE: Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997
III. The Constitutions of the Philippines
A. Pre-1987 Constitution
CASES:
Planas v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-35925, January 22, 1973 (aka the Plebiscite cases)
Javellana vs. Exec. Sec., 50 SCRA 33 (aka the Ratification cases)
Aquino v. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183
Sanidad v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-44640 October 12, 1976 (affirming the validity of
Javellana)
Occea v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-56350 April 2, 1981 (affirming the validity of Javellana)
Phil. Bar Association v. Comelec, G.R. No. 72915, December 20, 1985
B. 1987 Constitution
CASES:
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003
In Re: Letter of Associate Justice Renato S. Puno, A.M. No. 90-11-2697-CA, June 29, 1992

THE CONCEPT OF THE STATE

I.

Elements of a state
A. People
B. Territory
C. Government
1.functions: constituent vs. ministrant
CASES:
ACCFA vs. FLU, 30 SCRA 649
PVTA vs. CIR, 65 SCRA 416
2.types of government: de jure vs. de facto
CASES:
Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh, G.R. No. L-5, September 17, 1945
Lawyers League v. Aquino, G.R. No. 73748, 5/22/86
Estrada v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146710, 3/2/01
3.The Government of the Republic of the Phils.
4.government vs. administration
D. Sovereignty
1.Definition
2.types: legal vs. political sovereignty
3.doctrine of jus postliminium
4.effect of suspension or change in sovereignty
CASES:
Co Kim Chan v. Valdez, supra
Peralta v. Director, 75 Phil 285
Alcantara v. Director, 75 Phil 749
Laurel v. Misa, 77 Phil 856
People v. Perfecto, 43 Phil 887
Macariola v. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77
Vilas v. City of Manila, 42 Phil 953

II. Doctrine of the state as parens patriae

CASES:
Govt v. Monte de Piedad, 35 Phil 728
Cabanas v. Pilapil, 58 SCRA 94
III. State immunity from suits

Page 2 of 15
A. Basis
CASE: Kawanakoa v. Polybank, 205 US 349
B. Concept of Restrictive State Immunity
C. Typologies of suits against the state
1.Suits Against Public Officials
a. Test: will require an affirmative act from the state
CASES:
Garcia v. Chief of Staff, 16 SCRA 120
Ruiz v. Cabahug, 102 Phil 110 (1957)
b. Effect when public officer acts without, or in excess of, jurisdiction
CASE: Festejo v. Fernando, GR No. L-5156, March 11, 1954 (NOTE: opinion is in
Spanish; read dissent of J. Concepcion and the discussion of Cruz to get an idea what
the case is all about)
2.Suits Against Government Agencies
a. Tests
i.
If incorporated: consult charter
CASES:
Bermoy v. PNC, GR No. L-8670, May 18, 1956
Arcega v. CA, 66 SCRA 229
Rago v. CFI, 110 SCRA 460
PNR v. IAC, 217 SCRA 401
ii.
If unincorporated: determine nature of primary function
CASES:
Bureau of Printing v. Bureau of Printing Employees Assn, 1 SCRA 340
Mobil Phils. v. Customs Arrastre Service, 18 SCRA 1120
3.Suits Against Foreign States
CASES:
Syquia v. Almeda Lopez, 84 Phil 312 (read also the dissent of Justice Perfecto)
Sanders v. Veridiano, 162 SCRA 88
Holy See v. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524
USA v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644
D. Waiver of Immunity: Consent to be Sued
1.Forms of Consent
a. Express
i.
Thru a general law (Read Act No. 3083 and C.A. 327, as amended by P.D. 1445)
CASE: Amigable v. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360
ii.
Thru a special law
CASE: Merrit v. Government of the Phil. Islands, 34 Phil 311
b. Implied
i.
When state commences litigation
CASES:
Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping Co., GR No. L-6060, Sept. 30, 1950
Lim v. Brownell, 107 SCRA 345
ii.
When state enters into a contract
CASES:
US v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487
USA v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644
E. Suit allowed even without consent to be sued
CASE: Santiago v. Republic, 87 SCRA 294
F. Consent to be Sued not Consent to Execution of Judgment
CASE: Rep. v. Villasor, 54 SCRA 84
1.Exception
CASE: PNB v. Pabalan, 83 SCRA 595
G. Suability vs. liability
1.Read also The Local Government Code of 1991
CASES:
Merrit v. Government of the Phil. Islands, supra
Palafox v. Ilocos Norte, GR No. L-10659, Jan. 31, 1958

Page 3 of 15
THE PREAMBLE; NATIONAL TERRITORY; FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES & STATE POLICIES
I.

The Preamble

II.

Art. I. The National Territory

III.

Art. II. Fundamental Principles and State Policies

A. Sec. 1 and 3: Republicanism; Supremacy of Civilian Authority
B. Sec. 2 (part): The Incorporation clause
CASES:
Kuroda v. Jalandoni, 42 O.G. 4282 (83 Phil 171)
Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tah Keh, 75 Phil 113
Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil 1155
Gonzales v. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230
In re Garcia, 2 SCRA 984
C. Sec. 2 (part), 7, and 8: Renunciation of War; Independent Foreign Policy; Nuclear-Free Policy
1.See also Sec. 25, Art. XIII (re former US Military Bases)
2.Significance of the phrase consistent with national interest in Sec. 8
D. Sec. 4: Defense of the State
CASES:
Pp. v. Lagman, GR No. 45892, July 13, 1938
Pp. v Soza, GR No. 45893, July 13, 1938
E. Sec. 6: Separation of Church and State
1.See also Sec. 5, Art. III (The non-establishment clause and free-exercise clause)
CASE: Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201
F. Sec. 9, 10, 11, 18, and 21: Social Justice; Human Rights
1. See also Art. XIII (Social Justice and Human Rights)
2. Definition of Social Justice
CASES:
Calalang v. Williams, 70 SCRA 726
Assn of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian, 175 SCRA 343
G. Sec. 12, 13, 14: The Family; Youth; Women
1.See Sec. 14, Art. XIII (re working women)
CASE: PT&T v. NLRC, GR No. 118978, May 23, 1997
2.See also Art. XIV (The Family)
H. Sec. 15 and 16: Right to Health; Right to Healthful and Balanced Ecology
CASES:
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993
LLDA v. CA, G.R. No. 110120, March 16, 1994

SEPARATION OF POWERS
I. In the Constitution
A. The major departments (Art. VI, VII, and VIII)
B. The constitutional commissions (Art. IX)
C. The other independent bodies {e.g. the Electoral Tribunals [Sec. 17, Art. VI and Sec. 4 (last par),
Art. VII]; the Commission on Appointments (Sec. 18, Art. VI); the Judicial and Bar Council (Sec. 8,
Art. VIII)}
II.

Manner of Conferment of Power

A. Express
1. Legislative power to Congress (Sec. 1, Art. VI)
2. Executive power to the President (Sec. Art. VII)
3. Judicial power to the SC and the lower courts (Sec. 1, Art. VIII)
4. Others (e.g. powers of the independent constitutional bodies)
B. Implied
1. Doctrine of Necessary Implication: the grant of express power carries with it the grant of other
powers that can be reasonably inferred therefrom
2. Examples

Page 4 of 15
i. Power to promulgate rules of procedure by the Electoral Tribunals (incident to the power to
decide election contests)
CASE: Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil 139
ii. Power to punish for contempt by the legislature (incident to the power to conduct
investigations in aid of legislation)
CASE: Arnault vs. Nazareno, 87 Phil 29
C. Inherent or incidental
CASES:
In re Dick, 38 Phil 41
In re Sotto, 82 Phil 595
III.

Corollary Concepts
A. Blending (Overlap) of Powers
CASE: Springer vs. Philippine Islands, 277 US 189
B. Checks and Balances
a.Lawmaking by Congress, veto by the President, override of the veto by the Congress (Sec.
27, Art. VI)
b.Grant of amnesty by the president, concurrence by the Congress (Sec. 19, Art. VI)
c. Entry into treaty by the president, concurrence by the Senate (Sec. 20, Art. VII)
d.Conviction by the judiciary, pardon by the President (Sec. 19, Art. VIII)
e.Jurisdiction of the SC and the lower courts may be reduced by the Congress (Sec. 2, Art. VIII)
f. Congress may abolish lower courts (Sec. 1 and 2, Art. VIII)
CASES:
Ocampo vs. Secretary, L-7918, Jan 18, 1955
De la Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294
C. Delegation of Powers
1. General Rule: potestas delegata non delegari potest
2. Exception: instances of permissible delegation
a.Tariff powers to the president [Sec. 28 (2), Art. VI]
b.Emergency powers to the president [Sec 23 (2), Art. VI]
CASES:
Araneta vs. Dinglasan, 84 Phil 368
Rodriguez vs. Gella, 92 Phil 603
c.Legislative power to the people at large: System on initiative and referendum (Sec. 32,
Art. VI)
d.Legislative power to the local government units (LGUs) (See Sec. 16 and 19 of RA 7160)
e.Legislative power to administrative bodies (power of subordinate legislation)
3. Tests of valid delegation: Completeness test and sufficient standard test
CASES:
US vs. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil 1
Pp. vs. Rosenthal, 68 Phil 328 (public interest)
Cervantes vs. Auditor General, 91 Phil 359 (simplicity, economy, efficiency)
Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil 726 (public welfare)
Hirabayashi vs. US, 320 SCRA 99
Pp vs. Vera, 65 Phil 56
Ynot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659
Pelaez vs. Auditor General, 15 SCRA 569
D. Role of the Judiciary in the scheme of separation of powers (Sec. 1, Art. VIII)
CASE: Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil 139
1. Supremacy of the Constitution, not its own: upheld by the judiciary
2. Justiciable and Political Questions
CASES:
Tanada vs. Cuenco, 100 Phil 1101
Sanidad vs. COMELEC, 73 SCRA 333
Daza vs. Singson, 180 SCRA 496
Tanada vs. Angara, GR No. 118295, May 2, 1997
Aytona vs. Castillo, 4 SCRA 1
Javellana vs. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 33
Alejandrino vs. Quezon, 46 Phil 83
Osmena vs. Pendatun, 109 Phil 863
Vera vs. Avelino, 77 SCRA 192
Phil. Bar Association vs. COMELEC, GR No. 72915, Dec. 20, 1985
De Castro vs. Committee on Justice, GR No. 71688, Sept 10, 1985
Romulo vs. Iniguez, 141 SCRA 263

Page 5 of 15
Avelino vs. Cuenco, 83 Phil 17
MERALCO vs. Pasay Trans., Co., 57 Phil 825
Endencia vs. David, GR No. L-6455, Aug 31, 1953
3. Expanded jurisdiction of the judiciary under the 1987 Constitution [sec. 1 (2 nd par.), Art. VIII]
a. Now includes determination of WON there had been GAD amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government
b. Other specific instances
i. Determination of the sufficiency of the factual basis of Martial Law (Sec. 18, Art. VII)
ii. Formerly a political question
CASE: Aquino vs. Enrile, L-35546, September 17, 1974

ART. VI: THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

I.

Powers in general
A. Express
1. Plenary legislative power (Sec. 1, Art. VI)
2. Non-Legislative Power
a. Canvass of presidential elections (Sec. 5, Art. VII)
b. Declaration of the existence of State of War [Sec. 23 (2), Art. VII]
c. Confirmation of presidential grant of amnesty (Sec. 19, Art. VII)
d. Confirmation of presidential appointees (Sec. 6, Art. VII)
e. Amendments to and revision of the constitution (Art. XVII)
f. Impeachment (Sec. 3, Art. XI)
B. Implied (e.g. power to punish for contempt during legislative investigations)
C. Inherent (e.g. determination of rules of proceedings; discipline of members; exercise of the
inherent powers of police power, taxation, and eminent domain)

II. Composition
A. Senate (Sec. 2, Art. VI)
B. House of Representatives (Sec. 5, Art. VI)
1. District representatives
2. Party-list representatives
III. Qualifications of Members (Sec. 3 and 6, Art. VI)
A. Natural-born citizen (See definition in Sec. Sec. 2, Art. IV)
B. Age
C. Residence
CASES:
Marcos vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300
Aquino vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 400
D. Additional qualifications not allowed
CASE: Pimentel vs. COMELEC, etc., GR No. 161658, November 3, 2008
IV. Term of Office of the Members (Sec. 4, Art. VI, in relation to Sec. 2, Art. XVIII; Sec. 7, Art. VI)
V. Elections of members of Congress under the 1987 Constitution
A. 1st Elections: 2nd Monday, May 87 (Sec. 1, Art. XVIII)
B. 2nd Elections: 2nd Monday, May 92 (Sec. 2, Art. XVIII)
C. Succeeding regular elections: 3-year interval, every 2nd Monday of May, unless otherwise
provided by law (Sec. 8, Art. VI)
D. Special elections (Sec. 9, Art. VI)
VI. Salaries/Accounts of Members (Sec. 10 and 20, Art. VI)
VII. Parliamentary Immunities of the Members (Sec. 11 Art. VI)
A. Privilege from arrest
B. Privilege of speech and debate
1. Requisites
a.Remarks made while Legislature or committee thereof is functioning
b.Remarks made in connection with the discharge of official functions
CASE: Jimenez vs. Cabangbang, 17 SCRA 876
c. Significance of the phrase in any other place
CASE: Osmena vs. Pendatun, supra
VIII.Conflict of Interest (Sec. 12, Art. VI)

Page 6 of 15
IX. Incompatible and Forbidden Offices (Sec. 13, Art. VI)
CASE: Adaza vs. Pacana, 135 SCRA 431
X. Inhibitions and Disqualifications (sec. 14, Art. VI)
CASE: Puyat vs. De Guzman, 113 SCRA 33
XI. Sessions (Sec. 15, Art. VI; See also Sec. 4 and 10, Art. VII)
XII. Officers [Sec. 16 (1), Art. VI]
XIII.

Quorum [Sec. 16 (2), Art. VI]

CASE: Avelino vs. Cuenco, supra

XIV.

Discipline of Members [Sec. 16 (3), Art. VI]

CASE: Alejandrino vs. Quezon, supra

XV.

Journals [Sec. 16 (4), Art. VI]

CASES:
US vs. Pons, 34 Phil 729
Arroyo vs. de Venecia, 277 SCRA 268
Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil 1
A. Enrolled Bill doctrine
CASES:
Casco vs. Jimenez, 7 SCRA 374
Tolentino vs. Secretary, 235 SCRA 630
Phil Judges Association vs. Prado, 227 SCRA 703
B. Exception
CASE: Astorga vs. Villegas, G.R. No. L-23475, April 30, 1974

XVI.

Adjournment (Sec. 15, Art. VI)

XVII.

The Electoral Tribunals (Sec. 17, Art. VI)

A. When constituted: See also Sec. 19, Art. VI
B. BOTH legislative (political) and judicial component: required
CASE: Abbas vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal, 166 SCRA 51
C. Exclusive right to promulgate its own rules of procedure
CASE: Lazatin vs. HRET, 168 SCRA 391
D. Generally: No appeal of decisions of Electoral Tribunals
E. Expulsion of its members
CASE: Bondoc vs. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792

XVIII. Commission on Appointments (Sec. 19, Art. VI; See also Sec. 16, Art. VII)
A. When constituted
B. Meetings: only while Congress is in session
1. Effect of by-passing ad interim presidential appointments
C. Effect of political realignments in the House
CASE: Daza vs. Singson, supra
XIX. Specific powers of Congress
A. Power to enact statutes
1. Origin of laws (Sec. 24, Art. VI)
2. Prohibited measures
a.Law granting title of royalty or nobility (Sec. 31, Art. VI)
b.Law increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the SC without its consent, Sec. 30, Art. VI)
c. Law impairing the obligation of contracts (Sec. 10, Art. III)
d.Ex post facto law or bill of attainder (Sec. 22, Art. III)
3. Title of bills [Sec. 26 (1), Art. VI]
a.One title, one subject rule
CASES:
Lidasan vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 496
Philconsa vs. Jimenez, 15 SCRA 479
Tobias vs. Abalos, GR 114783, Dec. 8, 1994
4. Formalities of the enactment process [Sec. 26 (2), Art. VI]
a.Rule: 3 readings on separate days; distribution of printed copies in its final form 3 days
before passage
b.Exception: presidential certification of the necessity of its immediate enactment
CASE: Tolentino vs, Secretary, supra

Page 7 of 15
5. Approval of bills [Sec. 27 (1)]
a.Methods by which a bill becomes a law
i.
President signs it
ii.
President vetoes the bill, but Congress overrides the veto
1. Rule: no partial veto
2. Exception: partial veto of an item/s in an appropriations, revenue or tariff bill
3. Exception to the exception: no partial veto on a condition attached to an
approved item
CASE: Bolinao Electronics vs. Valencia, 11 SCRA 486
iii.
President allows the bill to lapse into a law by not acting on it within 30 days
B. Power of Legislative Inquiry; Question Hour in pursuit of congressional oversight function (Sec.
21 and 22, Art. VI)
CASES:
Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA 767
Senate vs. Ermita, GR 169777, April 20, 2006
Neri vs. Senate Committee, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008
C. Power of Appropriation (Sec. 25 and 29, Art. VI)
1. Appropriation defined
2. Limitations of Congressional power of appropriation
a.Implied: public purpose; sum must be determinate or at least determinable
b.Express
i.
Originates in House of Representatives (Sec. 24, Art. VI)
CASES: Tolentino vs. Secretary, supra
Abakada Guro vs. Ermita, GR No. 168056, Sept 1, 2005 (decision); Oct 18,
2005 (resolution of MR)
ii.
Recommendations of the president in the General Appropriations Act: mat not be
increased by Congress [Sec. 25 (1)], but may be decreased, EXCEPT the budget
for judiciary (Sec. 3, Art. VIII)
iii.
Prohibition on riders [Sec. 25(2)]
CASE: Garcia vs. Mata, 65 SCRA 520
iv.
Approval of appropriations for Congress: follow procedure for other departments
[Sec. 25 (3), Art. VI]
v.
Specify purpose of special appropriations [Sec 25 (4), ART. VI]
vi.
No transfer of appropriations; Exception [Sec. 25 (5), Art. VI]
vii.
Public purpose of discretionary funds [Sec. 25 (6), Art. VI]
3. Appropriations for sectarian purposes [Sec. 29 (2), Art. VI]
a.Read also Sec. 5, Art. III (on freedom of religion); and Sec. 6, Art. II (on separation of
church and state)
CASES:
Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil 20
Garces vs. Estenzo, 105 SCRA 510
4. Automatic re-appropriation [Sec. 25 (7), ART. VI]
5. Special funds [Sec. 29 (3), Art. VI]
D. Power of Taxation [Sec. 28 (1), (3), and (4), Art. VI]
1. General rule in taxation [Sec. 28 (1)]
2. Exemptions granted to religious, charitable, and educational institutions [Sec. 28 (3)]
CASES:
Lladoc vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 14 SCRA 292
Lung Center vs. Quezon City, GR No. 144104, June 29, 2004
3. Legislative grant of tax exemptions: needs concurrence of (absolute) majority of Congress
[Sec. 28 (4)]
E. Power of Concurrence
1.To a grant of amnesty by the President (Sec. 19, Art. VII)
2.To a treaty or international agreement entered into by the President (Sec. 21, Art. VII)
F. The War Powers [Sec. 23 (1), Art. VI]
Art. VII. The Executive Department
I.

Executive Power
A. Definition
B. Vested on the President (Sec. 1)

Page 8 of 15

C. Extent
1.liberal interpretation: all-encompassing grant-in-bulk of all executive powers
CASES:
Villena vs. Secretary of Interior, 67 Phil 451
Planas vs. Gil, 67 Phil 62
Marcos vs. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668
2.stricter interpretation: limited grant
CASES:
Lacson vs. Roque, 92 Phil 456
Mondano vs. Silvosa, 97 Phil 143
Laurel vs. Garcia, 187 SCRA 797
II.

Specific Executive Powers

A. The Appointing Power (Sec. 16)
1. Group of Appointees
a. nominated by the president with the consent of the Commission on Appointments (CA)
b. nominated by the president without need of CA confirmation
Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549 (read also the concurring and dissenting opinions)
2. President has the power to make appointments during recess of Congress, whether voluntary
or compulsory
3. Limitations on the appointing power
a. appointments by Acting President: remains effective unless revoked by the elected
President within 90 days from assumption of office (Sec. 14)
b. prohibition on midnight appointments (Sec. 15)
CASES:
Aytona vs. Castillo, GR No. L-19313, Jan 19, 1962
In Re Appointments of Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon. Placido B. Vallarta, A.M.
No. 98-5-01-SC, Nov 9, 1998 (appointment of RTC judges covered by the prohibition)
i. EXCEPTION
CASE: De Castro vs. JBC, GR No. 191002 (and companion cases jointly
decided), March 17, 2010 (decision), April 20, 2010 (resolution)
4. Removal Power
a. GR: only for cause and in accordance with the prescribed administrative procedure (Sec.
2(3), Art. IX-B)
i. EXCEPTION: members of the Cabinet and other executive officials whose term of office
is determined at the pleasure of the president (technically, not removal but expiration
of term)
CASES:
Alajar vs. Alba, 100 Phil 683
Appari vs. CA, 127 SCRA 231
b. officials appointed by president, but not covered by his removal power
i. those removable only by impeachment (Sec. 2, Art. XI)
1. members of SC
2. members of the Constitutional Commissions
3. the Ombudsman
ii. judges of the lower court (Sec. 11, Art. VIII)
B. The Control Power (Sec. 17)
1. Control defined
CASES:
Drilon vs. Lim, 235 SCRA 135 (elaboration on distinction of control and supervision)
Villena vs. Secretary of Interior, 67 Phil 451 (heads of executive departments as alter ego of
the president)
Araneta vs. Gatmaitan, 101 Phil 328 (president may directly exercise the authority conferred
not on him but on the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources)
Gascon vs. Arroyo, 178 SCRA 582 (authority of the Executive Secretary to enter into an
Agreement to Arbitrate with ABS-CBN on behalf of the president is binding on the Republic of
the Phils.)
Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. vs Pano, 21 SCRA 895 (administrative decision of Director of
Lands: may still be appealed to the Office of the President and may be reversed by the
Executive Secretary notwithstanding the law providing that such decision of the DOL shall be
conclusive when affirmed by the Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources)
Noblejas vs. Salas, 67 SCRA 47 (provincial fiscal cannot add one more accused to the ones
named by the Secretary of Justice in his order as said fiscal is under the control of the
President exercised in this case by the Secretary of Justice)

Page 9 of 15
Jacob vs. Puno, 131 SCRA 144 (Secretary of Justice has authority to order fiscal to withdraw
certain informations)
De Leon vs. Carpio, 178 SCRA 457 (refusal by the NBI Director to obey the order of Secretary
of Justice to reinstate NBI agents found to have been illegally dismissed: invalidated by SC coz
he is bound to obey the Secretarys directives, which are presumably the acts of the president)
2. The Take-Care clause (Sec. 17, 2nd sentence)
CASE: David vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006 (re PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5)
C. The Military Powers, a.k.a. Power of the Sword (Sec. 18)
1. The Commander-in-chief clause
Yamashita vs. Styer, 75 Phil 563
Kuroda vs. Janjalani, 42 O.G. 4282
2. The calling-out power
CASES:
IBP vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000, 338 SCRA 81 (IBP not a proper party to
raise the challenge but issue is of transcendental importance; no grave abuse of discretion in
the presidents calling out the Marines to join the PNP in visibility patrols)
Lacson v. Perez, G.R. No. 147780, May 10, 2001
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004
David vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006 (re PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5)
3. power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (Sec. 18, sentence 2, Art. VII; also
Sec. 15, Art. III)
CASES:
Barcelon vs. Baker, 5 Phil 87 (determination by the president of the existence of any ground
for the suspension: conclusive on the courts)
Montenegro vs. Castaneda, 91 Phil 882 (affirmation of the Barcelon vs. Baker doctrine)
Lansang vs. Garcia, 42 SCRA 488 (reversal of Barcelon and Montenegro rulings: SC declared
it had the power to inquire into the factual basis of the suspension of the privilege of the writ by
Pres. Marcos)
Garcia-Padilla vs. Enrile, 121 SCRA 472 (SC reverted to Barcelon and Montenegro rulings)
4. power to declare martial law (Sec. 18, sentence 2, Art. VII; also Sec. 15, Art. III)
CASES:
Aquino vs. Military Commission No. 2, 63 SCRA 546 (rejection of the open court theory)
Olaguer vs. Military Commission No. 34, 150 SCRA 144 (reversal of Aquino decision)
D. The Pardoning Power/Power of Executive Clemency (Sec. 19)
CASES:
Culanag vs. Director of Prison, 20 SCRA 1123 (administrative and admin remedies: not mutually
exclusive; may be availed of successively)
Espuelas vs. Provincial Warden, 108 SCRA 353
Sumulong vs. Gonzales, 152 SCRA 272 (affirmed Espuelas ruling, but see dissents of JJ. Paras
and Cruz)
In re Petition for Habeas Corpus of Wilfredo Sumulong Torres, GR No. 122338, Dec. 29, 1996
Pelobello vs. Palatino, 72 Phil 441(absolute pardon removes all former disabilities)
Monsanto vs. Factoran, 170 SCRA 190 (modified Pelobello, absolute pardon does not ipso facto
restore a convicted felon to public office necessarily relinquished or forfeited by reason of the
conviction; merely restores ELIGIBILITY FOR APPOINTMENT to that office)
Pp. vs. Salle, 250 SCRA 581
Echegaray vs. Sec. of Justice, GR No. 132601, Jan. 19, 1999
E. The Borrowing Power (Sec. 20)
F. The Diplomatic Power (Sec. 21)
G. The Budgetary Power (Sec. 22)
H. The Informing Power (Sec. 23)
I.

Other Powers
1. power to call Congress to a special session anytime (Sec. 15, Art. VI)
2. power to approve or veto bills (Sec. 27, Art. VI)
3. power to concur to the deputization of govt personnel by the COMELEC for election purposes
[Sec. 2 (4), Art. IX(C)]
4. power to impose disciplinary measures against an officer or employee that the COMELEC has
deputized [Sec. 2(8), Art. IX(C)]
5. power to exercise emergency powers by delegation of the Congress [Sec. 28(2), Art. VI; also
see Sec. 17 and 18, Art. XII]
6. power to exercise tariff powers [Sec. 28(2), Art. VI]

Page 10 of 15

III.

The President
A. qualifications: exclusive enumeration (Sec. 2)
B. election
1.manner: by direct vote of the people (Sec. 4)
2.when held
3.canvass of votes for presidential election
4.proclamation of winner
5.contests (re election, returns, and qualifications of the Pres. or VP)
C. term (Sec. 4)
D. time of assumption of office: at the beginning of term (Sec. 7, par. 1)
E. oath of office (Sec. 5)
F. vacancies
1.vacancy at the start of term (Sec. 7)
2.vacancy after the Pres. shall have assumed office (Sec. 8)
G. salary (Sec. 6)
H. other emoluments from government or any other source (i.e., private source): prohibited during his
tenure (Sec. 6, last sentence)

IV.

I.

removal: thru impeachment only (Sec. 2 Art. XI)

J.

post-tenure presidential immunity: not available

CASE: Estrada vs. Desierto, GR No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001

The Vice President

A. qualifications: same as presidents (Sec. 3)
B. election: same as presidents (Sec. 3)
C. term
D. time of assumption of office: at the beginning of term (Sec. 7, par. 1)
E. oath of office (Sec. 5)
F. may be appointed as Cabinet Member
G. vacancy
1.BEFORE the start of the term (Sec. 7, par. 5)
2.after the VP shall have assumed office (Sec. 9)
H. salary (same as presidents) (Sec. 6)
I.

V.

removal: also thru impeachment only (Sec. 2 Art. XI)

inability of Pres. to discharge powers and functions of office (Sec. 11)

VI.

Serious Illness of Pres. (Sec. 12)

VII.

Inhibitions (Sec. 13)

A. officers covered: (1) Pres.; (2) VP; (3) Cabinet Members; (4) deputies/assistants of Cabinet
Members
CASES:
Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (Feb. 22, 1991)
Resolution of MR (clarifying the Feb 22, decision): Aug 1, 1991
Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Magdangal Elma, G.R. No. 138965 June 30 2006

Page 11 of 15
B. other persons covered: (1) spouse of Pres.; and (2) relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the
4th civil degree of the Pres. (Sec. 12, par. 2)

Art. VIII. The Judicial Department

I. Independence
II. Judicial Power (Sec. 1)
III. Jurisdiction (Sec. 2, 4 & 5)
IV. Appointments (Sec. 9)
A. Qualifications (Sec. 7)
B. The Judicial and Bar Council (Sec. 8)
V. Fiscal Autonomy (Sec. 3)
CASE: Bengzon vs. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133
VI. Composition of the SC (Sec. 4)
A. En Banc
B. Division
CASES:
Ad Hoc Supreme Court membership
Vargas vs. Rilloraza, 80 Phil 297
Voting in the SC divisions/en banc
1.Fortich vs. Corona, 312 SCR 751
2.LCP vs. Comelec, Nov. 18, 2008 (Decision);
Feb. 15, 2011 and April 12, 2011 (Resolutions of separate MRs)
Original Jurisdiction of SC en banc sitting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal
Tecson v. Comelec, G.R. 161434, March 3, 2004
VII. Requisites of judicial review
A. Actual Case
CASES:
1.
Lacson vs. Perez, GR 147780, 5/10/01
2.
Enrile vs. SET, GR 132986, 5/19/04
3.
Sanlakas vs. Ex. Sec., GR 159085,2/3/04 (otherwise moot but capable of repetition)
impt: also read the separate opinion of Panganiban, J.
4.
Salonga vs. Pano, 134 SCRA 138
B. Legal Standing
CASES:
1.
Ople vs. Torres, 293 SCR 141
2.
IBP vs. Zamora, GR 141284, 8/15/00
3.
Sanlakas vs. Executive Sec., supra (no standing)
4.
Kilosbayan vs. Morato (no LS)
C. Earliest Opportunity
CASES:
1. Macalintal vs. PET, G.R. No. 191618, November 23, 2010
3. Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009
D. Necessity of Deciding the Constitutional Question
CASES:
1.
Zandueta vs. Dela Cuesta, 66 Phil 185
2.
Tarrosa vs. Singson, 232 SCRA 553
3.
Sanlakas vs. Executive Secretary, (separate opinion of J. Panganiban)
VIII. Declaration of Unconstitutionality
A. Effect
CASE: MMC vs. Flores, 99 Phil 738
B. Partial Unconstitutionality
CASES:

Page 12 of 15
1. In re Cunanan, 94 Phil 534
2. Salazar vs. Achacoso, 183 SCRA 145
C. The Operative Fact Doctrine (re declarations of unconstitutionality)
CASES:
1. De Agbayani v. PNB, G.R. L-23127, Apr 29, 1971
2. Fernandez v. P. Cuerva, G.R. L-21114, Nov 28, 1967 (Read also concurrence of J. Fernando)
D. Relative Unconstitutionality
CASE: Central Bank Employees Association vs. BSP, GR 148208, 12/15/04
IX. Powers of the SC
A. Original Jurisdiction [Sec. 5 (1)]
B. Appellate Jurisdiction [Sec. 5 (2)]
C. Temporary Assignment of Judges [Sec. 5 (3)]
D. Change of Venue of Trial [Sec. 5 (4)]
E. Rule-Making Power [Sec. 5 (5)]
CASES:
1.In re Edillon, 84 SCRA 554
2.Primicias vs. Ocampo, 93 Phil 451
3.Republic vs. De La Cruz, 118 SCRA 18
4.Lim vs. Soza, 146 SCRA 366
5.De Guzman vs. Pp., 119 SCRA 337
F. Appointment of Court Personnel [Sec. 5 (6)
G. Administrative Supervision of Courts (Sec. 6)
X. Tenure of Judges (Sec. 2 & 11)
CASE: De La Llana vs. Alba, 82 SCRA 30
XI. Non-designation of members of the judiciary to quasi-judicial & administrative bodies
CASE: Macalintal vs. PET, G.R. No. 191618, Nov 23, 2010
XII. Consultations and Decisions of the Court Sec. 13 & 14)
CASES:
1. Bernabe vs. Geraldez, 51 SCRA 369
2. Borromeo vs. CA, 186 SCRA 1
3. Mendoza vs. CFI, 65 SCRA 96
4. Prudential vs. Castro, 158 SCRA 646
XIII. Salaries of Judges (Sec. 10)
A. Read also RA 9227 (granting special allowances to members of the judiciary)
CASE: Nitafan vs. CIR, 152 SCRA 284
XIV. Periods of Decision (Sec. 15)
XV. Annual Report

Art. IX. The Constitutional Commissions

I. Independence (Sec. 1)
CASES:
Designation of Acting Comelec Chairman affects independence
Brillantes vs. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358
Sol Gen as Acting Comelec Commissioner also affects independence
NP vs. Bautista, 85 Phil 101
II. Salaries (Sec. 3)
III. Disqualifications (Sec. 2)
IV. Staggering of Terms of Office
CASES:
NP vs. De Vera, 35 Phil 126
Republic vs. Imperial, 96 Phil 770

Page 13 of 15

V. Other Perquisites
VI. Proceedings: formalities & procedure
VII. The Constitutional Commissions
A. Civil Service Commission (Art. IX-B)
1.Composition and Qualification (Sec. 1)
2.Scope of Civil Service [Sec. 2 (1)]
CASES:
NHA vs. Juco, 134 SCRA 172
NSC vs. NLRC, 168 SCRA 122
3.Appointment & removal [Sec. 2 (2)]
CASES:
De los Santos vs. Mallare, 87 Phil 289
Salazar vs. Mathay, 73 SCRA 275
Besa vs. PNB, 33 SCRA 330
4.Security of Tenure [Sec. 2 (3)]
CASES:
Dario vs. Mison, 176 SCRA 84
Mendoza vs. Quisumbing, 186SCRA108
5.Prohibition Against Partisan Political Activity [Sec. 2 (3)]
CASES:
Santos vs. Yatco, 106 Phil 745
Cailles vs. Bonifacio, 65 Phil 328
6.Right to Self-Organization [Sec. 2 (5)]
CASES:
SSSEA vs. CA, 175 SCRA 686
MPSTA vs. Laguio, 200 SCRA 323
7.Temporary Employees [Sec. 2 (6)]
CASE: Delector vs. Ogayan, 123 SCRA 774
8.Disqualifications (Sec. 7)
a. N/A to officials covered by Sec. 13, Art. VII
CASE: CLU vs. Executive Sec, supra
9.Standardization of Compensation (Sec. 5)
a. Read the salient features of RA 6758 (Salary Standardization Law )
10.
Double Compensation (Sec. 8)
CASE: Quimzon vs. Ozaeta, 98 Phil 705
B. The Commission on Elections (Art. IX-C)
1.Composition and Qualifications (Sec. 1)
2.Powers and Functions
a. Enforce Election Laws [Sec. 2 (1) and 2 (6)]
CASES:
Aguam vs. Comelec, 23 SCRA 883
Abcede vs. Imperial, GR L-13001, 3/18/59
PPI vs. Comelec, 244 SCRA 272
De Jesus vs. Pp., 120 SCRA 760
b. Decide Election Contests [Sec. 2 (2); Sec. 3]
CASES:
Javier vs. Comelec, 144 SCR 194
Flores vs. Comelec, 184 SCRA 484
c. Decide Administrative Qs [Sec. 2 (3)]
CASE: Guevara vs. Comelec, 104 Phil 269
d. Deputize Law-Enforcement Agencies [Sec. 2 (4)]
e. Register Political Parties [Sec. 2 (5)]
f. Improve Elections [Sec. 2 (7) and 2 (9)]
g. Regulate public utilities and media during election period [Sec. 4]
3.Election Period (Sec. 9)
a. Election period vs. campaign period
CASE: Peralta vs. Comelec, 82 SCRA 30
4.Party System (Sec. 6-8)
5.Funds (Sec. 11)
6.Judicial Review of Comelec decisions
CASES:
Luison vs. Garcia, 101 Phil 1218
Aratuc vs. Comelec, 88 SCRA 251

Page 14 of 15
FEMS vs. Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25
Pp vs. Delgado, 189 SCRA 715
C. The Commission on Audit (Art. IX-D)
1.Composition and Qualifications (Sec. 1)
2.Powers & Functions (Sec. 2)
CASES:
Ynchausti vs. Wright, 47 Phil 866
Gonzales vs. Provincial Auditor, 12 SCRA 711
Lamb vs. Philipps, 22 Phil 473
Riel vs. Wright, 49 Phil 195
Matute vs. Hernandez, 68 Phil 68
Guevara vs. Jimenez, 7 SCRA 813
Pacete vs. Acting Chairman of COA, 185 SCRA 1
3.Prohibited Exemptions from COA jurisdiction (Sec. 3)
4.Report (Sec. 4)
Art. XI. Accountability of Public Officers
I. Impeachment
A. Impeachable Officers (Sec. 2)
B. Grounds for Impeachment (Sec. 2)
C. Procedure (Sec. 3)
CASES:
Romulo v. Iiguez, G.R. No. 71908, February 4, 1986
Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003
Gutierrez vs. House of Representatives Committee on Justice, G.R. No. 193459, February 15,
2011
D. Judgment (Sec. 3(7))
II. The Sandiganbayan (Sec. 4)
III. The Ombudsman
A. Composition (Sec. 5)
B. Qualifications and Appointment (Sec. 8 & 9)
C. Term (Sec. 11)
CASE: Gonzales v. Office of the President, G.R. Nos. 196231, September 4, 2012
D. Powers and Functions (Sec. 12-14)
E. Salary (Sec. 10)
F. The Special Prosecutor
CASES:
De Jesus v. Pp., 120 SCRA 760
Jardiel v. Comelec, 124 SCRA 650
Orap v. Sandiganbayan, 139 SCRA 252
Inting v. Tanodbayan, 97 SCRA 494
Zaldivar v. Gonzales, 160 SCRA 843
IV. Ill-Gotten Wealth (Sec. 15)
V. Loans (Sec. 16)
Art. XVII. Amendments and Revision
I. Kinds of Constitution
II. Permanence of Constitution
III. Amendment and Revision
IV. Procedure
A. Proposal (Sec. 1)
1.Amendment: Con-Ass; ConCon; peoples initiative
2.Revision: Con-Ass or ConCon
CASES:
Congress as constituent body, calling ConCon in general terms
Imbong v. Comelec, 35 SCRA 28

Page 15 of 15
Peoples initiative on the Constitution (Read the concurrences and dissents)
Santiago v. Comelec, GR 127325, 4/19/97
Pirma v. Comelec, GR 129754, 9/23/97
Lambino v. Comelec, GR 174153, Decision: 10/25/06; Resolution: 11/21/06
B. Ratification (Sec. 4)
CASES:
Ratification
Tolentino v. Comelec, 41 SCRA 702
Javellana v. Executive Sec., supra
Almario v. Alba, 127 SCRA 69
Validity of submission of proposed amendments during a regular election
Gonzales v. Comelec, 21 SCRA 774
Occena v. Comelec, G.R. No. 52265, January 28, 1980, 95 SCRA 755
V. Judicial Review of Amendments
CASES:
Taada v. Cuenco, 100 Phil 1101
Sanidad v. Comelec, 73 SCRA 333
Art. XVIII. Transitory Provisions
1. Elections
2. Existing Laws and Treaties (Sec. 3, 4, & 25)
3. Reserved Executive Powers (Sec. 7, 8 & 16)
4. Priority Measures (Sec. 18, 20, 22 & 24)