SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES

Gov. of the Phil. Islands vs. Monte de Piedad

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

De Leon v. ESGUERRA
The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on
February 2, 1987. By that date, therefore, the
Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been
superseded. (Effectivity is immediately upon ratification)
Gonzales v. COMELEC
Nature of power to amend the Constitution or to propose
amendments thereto: not inherent power of Congress
but of the people; constituent power of Congress
Tolentino v. COMELEC

Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh

The condition and limitation that all the amendments to

be proposed by the same convention must be submitted
in a single election or plebiscite.
Imbong v. COMELEC
Competence of Congress acting as Constituent
Assembly: Authority to call constitutional convention as
Constituent Assembly in enacting implementing details.
Sanidad v. COMELEC
-Presidential exercise of legislative powers (and
proposing amendments) is valid in martial law.
-Amending process is a sovereign act, although the
authority to institute the same and the procedure to be
followed reside somehow in a particular body (Pres.
Marcos).
Santiago v. COMELEC
The right of the people to directly propose amendments
to the Constitution through the system of initiative would
remain entombed in a cold niche until Congress
provides for its implementation. Section 2 of Article XVII
is not self-executing.

Continuity of Law: Law, once established, continues

until changed by some competent legislative power (not
changed by mere change of sovereignty)
All acts and proceedings of the 3 gov. depts. of a de
facto government are good and valid.
Kinds of De facto government:
(1) de facto proper government obtained by force or
voice of the majority
(2) paramount force by military forces who invade the
territory
(3) independent government established by
inhabitants through insurrection
Republic of the Philippines (during Japanese
occupation) was a de facto government.

People vs Gozo

Principle of Auto-limitation: Extent of Philippine

sovereignty over American bases Philippine
Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the
bases as part of the Philippine territory.

Laurel vs Misa

Nature of Allegiance to sovereign: Absolute and

permanent
Effect of enemy occupation: sovereignty of the
government not transferred to occupier

Ruffy v Chief of Staff

Lambino v. COMELEC
Essence of people's initiative: (1) people must author;
(2) they must sign the proposal; (3) proposal is
embodied in petition

Doctrine of Parens Patriae (state as guardian of the

people)
Transfer of sovereignty; effect on laws:
- abrogation of laws in conflict with the political character
of the substituted sovereign (political law).
- great body of municipal law regarding private and
domestic rights continue in force until abrogated or
changed by new ruler.

The rule that laws of political nature or affecting political

relations are considered superseded or held in
abeyance during the military occupation, is intended for
the governing of the civil inhabitants of the occupied
territory and not for the enemies in arms.

STATE IMMUNITY
Sanders v Veridiano

CONCEPT OF STATE

Bacani vs NACOCO

The mere fact that the Government happens to be a

major stockholder of a corporation does not make it a
public corporation.
Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions.

PVTA vs CIR

Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions

obsolete.
Government has to provide for general welfare.

Mere allegation that a government functionary is being

sued in his personal capacity will not automatically
remove him from the protection of the laws of public
officers and doctrine of state immunity
Doctrine of state immunity applicable also to other
states.

Republic v Sandoval

State cannot be held liable for the deaths that followed

the incident; liability should fall on the public officers
who committed acts beyond their authority
3 instances when suit is proper:
1. when sued by its name

2. when unincorporated government agency is sued

3. when the suit is against a government employee but
liability belongs to the government
Festejo v Fernando

The Holy See v Rosario, Jr.

Officer or employee committing the tort is personally

liable and maybe sued as any other citizen and held
answerable for whatever injury

Pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic

Relations, a diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from
the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving
state over any real action relating to private immovable
property situated in the territory of the receiving state
which the envoy holds on behalf of the sending state for
the purposes of the mission

USA vs Guinto
-

A state may be said to have descended to the level of

an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly
given its consent to be sued only when it enters into
business contracts.

Republic vs. Villasor

- Judgment against the State cannot be enforced by
execution. It may limit claimants action only up to the
completion of proceedings anterior to the state of
execution. Power of courts end when judgment is
rendered. [suability vs. liability]
- Functions and public services cannot be allowed to be
paralyzed or disrupted by the disruption of public funds.

Veterans Manpower vs CA
-

The state is deemed to have given tacitly its consent to

be sued when it enters into a contract. However, it does
not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of
its sovereign functions.

Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC

The Merritt vs Govt of the Phil
-

By consenting to be sued, a state simply waives its

immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its
liability to the plaintiff, or create any cause of action in
his favor, or extend its liability to any cause not
previously recognized. It merely gives remedy to
enforce a pre-existing liability and submit itself to the
jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interpose
any lawful defense.

Not all contracts entered into by the government operate

as a waiver of its non-suability. Distinction must still be
made between one which is executed in the exercise of
its sovereign function and another which is done in the
proprietary capacity.
State gives consent upon moneyed claim arising from
contract.

PNB vs. Pabalan

Amigable vs. Cuenca
The government, when it takes away a property from a
private land owner for public use without going through
the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the
aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the
government without thereby violating the doctrine of
governmental immunity from suit. This doctrine cannot
be used in perpetrating injustice to a citizen.

State immunity from suit cannot be validly invoked with

regard to funds of public corporations.
[suable corporations] Public funds of corporations which
can sue and be sued are not exempt from
gaarnishment.

Rayo vs. CFI of Bulacan

-

The character of an incorporated agency allows it to sue

and be sued without qualification

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

-

When the state files an action, it divests itself of the

sovereign character and shed its immunity form suit,
descending to the level of an ordinary litigant.

Republic vs. Feliciano

- failure to allege in the complaint the existence of consent
by the State is a fatal defect (construction must be strict
against conferment of waiver
- Immunity may be invoked by the courts at any point/stage
of the proceedings.
USA vs. Ruiz
Restrictive Application of State Immunity to foreign states:
States may be sued when the proceedings arise out of
commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign.

Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Assoc.

-

Acceptance of outside work and payment of overtime

compensation does not make work of Bureau of Printing
proprietary.
Non-suability of the State is available to the agency
even if it is shown that it is engaged not only in
governmental functions but also, incidentally, in
proprietary enterprises (unincorporated agency).

Mobil Phils. Exploration, Inc. vs. CA

If an agencys function is deemed proprietary, if such is a
necessary incident of the primary and gov. function of
such agency, such agency is not suable (for an
unincorporated agency only).
Civil Aeronautics Administration v. Court of Appeals

- Not all government entities whether corporate or not

are immune from suits. Immunity from suits is
determined by the character of the objects for which the
entity was organized.
- Suits against State agencies with relation to matters in
which they have assumed to act in private or nongovernmental capacity, and various suits against certain
corporations created by the State to engage In matters
partaking more of the nature of ordinary business are
not regarded as suits against the State.

Conventions notwithstanding that it is not a signatory

thereto. It embodied generally accepted principles of
international law binding upon all states.
Agustin v. Edu:
think triangular reflectorized early warning devices.
Held: Legislative enactment is not necessary in order
authorize the issuance of LOI prescribing the use
triangular reflectorized early warning devices. This
also an illustration of generally accepted principles
international law (Pacta sunt servanda).

to
of
is
of

Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Judge Firme

The test of liability of the municipality depends on
whether or not the driver acting in behalf of the
municipality is performing governmental or proprietary
functions. It has already been remarked that municipal
corporations are suable because their charters grant
them the competence to sue and be sued.
Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for torts
committed by them in the discharge of governmental
functions and can be held answerable only if it can be
shown that they were acting in a proprietary capacity. In
permitting such entities to be sued, the state merely
gives the claimants the right to show the defendant was
not acting in its governmental capacity when the injury
was inflicted or that the case comes under the
exceptions recognized by law. Failing this, the claimants
cannot recover.

Ichong v. Hernandez:
think Retail Trade Nationalization Law which is against
the principle of Pacta sunt servanda.Held: the Retail
Trade Nationalization Law is not unconstitutional
because it was passed in the exercise of the police
power which cannot be bargained away through the
medium of a treaty.
Gonzales v. Hechanova:
Prevalence of National or Municipal law over
International law: Constitution authorizes the nullification
of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the
fundamental law, but also when it runs counter to an act
of Congress.

Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez

Municipal funds in possession of municipal and
provincial treasurers are public funds exempt from
execution. Municipal funds are held in trust for the
people intended and used for the accomplishments of
the purposes for which municipal corporations are
created and that to subject said properties and public
funds to execution would materially impede, even defeat
and in some instance destroy said purposes.

In re Garcia
A treaty cannot modify regulations governing admission
to Philippine bar (that would be an encroachment upon
Supreme Court by the Executive)

Section 3

Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals

When a municipality fails or refuses without justifiable
reason to effect payment of a final money judgment
rendered against it, the claimant may avail of the remedy
of mandamus in order to compel the enactment and
approval of the necessary appropriation ordinance and the
corresponding disbursement of municipal funds.

Fundamental Principles and State Policies

Section 1
Villavicencio v. Lukban:
Mayors act is unconstitutional. It was not authorized by
any law or ordinance. Our government is a government
of laws and not of men.
Section 2
Kuroda v. Jalandoni:
think Japanese Lieutenant-General charged before the
military commission.
Held: The Philippines can adopt the rules and
regulations laid down on the Hague and Geneva

IBP vs. Zamora

the deployment of the Marines does not constitute a
breach of the civilian supremacy clause. The calling of
the marines in this case constitutes permissible use of
military asset for civilian law enforcement. x x x The
limited participation of the Marines is evident in the
provisions of the Letter of Instruction (LOI) itself, which
sufficiently provides the metes and bounds of the
Marines authority. It is noteworthy that the local police
forces are the ones charge of the visibility patrols at all
times, the real authority belonging to the PNP. In fact,
the Metro Manila Police Chief is the overall leader of the
PNP-Marines joint visibility patrols.
Under the LOI, the police forces are tasked to brief or
orient the soldiers on police patrol
procedures. It is their responsibility to direct and
manage the deployment of the
marines. It is, likewise, their duty to provide the
necessary equipment to the Marines
and render logistic support to these soldiers. In view of
the foregoing, it cannot be
properly argued that military authority is supreme over
civilian authority.
It is worth mentioning that military assistance to civilian
authorities in various
forms persists in Philippine jurisdiction. The Philippine
experience reveals that it is not

averse to requesting the assistance of the military in the

implementation and execution
of certain traditionally civil functions. x x x Some of the
multifarious activities wherein
military aid has been rendered, exemplifying the
activities that bring both the civilian and
the military together in a relationship of cooperation are:
1. Elections;
2. Administration of the Philippine National Red Cross;
3. Relief and rescue operations during calamities and
disasters;
4. Amateur sports promotion and development;
5. Development of the culture and the arts;
6. Conservation of the natural resources;
7. Implementation of the agrarian reform program;
8. Enforcement of customs laws;
9. Composite civilian-military law enforcement activities;
10. Conduct of licensure examinations;
11. Conduct of nationwide test for elementary and high
school students;
12. Anti-drug enforcement activities;
13. Sanitary inspections;
14. Conduct of census work;
15. Administration of the Civil Aeronautic Board;
16. Assistance in installation of weather forecasting
devices;
17. Peace and order policy formulation in local
government units.
This unquestionably constitutes a gloss on executive
power resulting from a
systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued
to the knowledge of Congress
and, yet, never before questioned. What we have here
is a mutual support and
cooperation between the military and civilian authorities,
not derogation of civilian
supremacy.
Section 4
People vs. Lagman
- Case at bar: accused is prosecuted for failure to
register for military service under the National Defense
Act
- SC upheld the National Defense Act. To leave an
organization of an army to the will of the citizens would
be to make this duty of the Government excusable
should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist
therein.
Section 5
Chavez vs. Romulo
Right to bear arms: It is statutory and not a
constitutional right. The license to carry a firearm is
neither a property nor a property right. Neither does it
create a vested right. Even if it were a property right, it
cannot be considered absolute as to be placed beyond
the reach of police power. The maintenance of peace
and order, and the protection of the people against
violence are constitutional duties of the State, and the
right to bear firearm is to be construed in connection
and in harmony with these constitutional duties.

Section 6
Aglipay vs. Ruiz

-There is no violation of the principle of the separation of

church and state. The issuance and sale of the stamps
in question may be said to be linked with an event of a
religious character, but the resulting propaganda, if any,
received by the Catholic Church, was not the aim and
purpose of the government. The idea behind the
issuance of the postage stamps was to attract tourists to
our country and not primarily the religious event.
- What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious
liberty , not mere religious toleration. However, religious
freedom is not inhibition of profound reverence for
religion and is not a denial of its influence in human
affairs.
Austria vs. NLRC
an ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship between
the church and its members and relates to matter of
faith, religious doctrines, worship and governance of the
congregation. Examples of these affairs in which the
State
cannot
meddle
are
proceedings
for
excommunication, ordination of religious ministers,
administration of sacraments, and other activities to
which is attached religious significance. In this case,
what is involved is the relationship of the church as an
employer and the minister as an employee. It is purely
secular and has no relation whatsoever with the practice
of faith, worship or doctrine of the church.
Section 10
Calalang vs. Williams
-Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism,
nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws
and the equalization of social and economic forces by
the State so that justice in its rational and objectively
secular conception may at least be approximated.
Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all
the people, the adoption by the Government of
measures calculated to insure economic stability of all
the competent elements of society, through the
maintenance of a proper economic and social
equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the
community, constitutionally, through the adoption of
measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally,
through the exercise of powers underlying the existence
of all governments on the time-honored principle of
salus populi est suprema lex. Social justice, therefore,
must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of
interdependence among divers and diverse units of a
society and of the protection that should be equally and
evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in
our social and economic life, consistent with the
fundamental and paramount objective of the state of
promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons,
and of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest
number.
Almeda vs. CA
-There exists a tenants right of redemption in sugar and
coconut lands. Pursuant to Agricultural Land Reform
Code of 1963, it recognizes share tenancy in sugar
lands which is in consonance with the States promotion
of social justice wherein it may regulate the acquisition,
ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition of private
property, and equitably diffuse propertyownership and
profits.

Section 16
Ondoy .vs. Ignacio
Oposa vs. Factoran
-The principle of social justice applied in this case is a
matter of protection, not equality. The Court recognized
the right of the petitioner to the claim of compensation
because her son was shown to have died while in the
actual performance of his work. To strengthen the
constitutional scheme of social justice and protection to
labor, The Court made mention that as between a
laborer, usually poor and unlettered, and the employer,
who has resources to secure able legal advice, the law
has reason to demand from the latter the stricter
compliance.
Salonga vs. Farrales
-The plea of social justice of the plaintiff cannot be
considered because it was shown that no contract,
either to sell or of sale, was ever perfected between him
and the defendant. It must be remembered that social
justice cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of
property owners who under our Constitution and laws
are also entitled to protection. The social justice
consecrated in our Constitution was not intended to take
away rights from a person and give them to another who
is not entitled thereto.
Section 12

[Intergenerational Responsibility / Intergenerational

Justice] the 34 minors duly joined by their respective
parents pleading the cause of inter-generational
responsibility and inter-generational justice, had a
valid cause of action in questioning the grant of Timber
Licensing Agreements (TLAs) for commercial logging
purposes. The minors filed the action for themselves as
representing their generation as well as generations yet
unborn. The SC, on the basis of Section 16, Article II
linked with the right to health, recognized a right to a
balanced and healthful ecology and the correlative
duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
LLDA v. CA
The immediate response to the demands of necessities
of protecting vital public interests gives vitality to the
statement on ecology embodied in the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies of the 1987 Constitution.
Article II, Section 16. As a constitutionally guaranteed
right of every person, it carries the correlative duty of
non-impairment. This is but the consonance with the
declared policy of the state to protect and promote the
right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them.

Meyer vs. Nebraska

C&M Timber Corporation vs. Alcala
It is incompetent for the government to prohibit the
teaching of a foreign language to students. There is
nothing harmful in the language that will impair the
upbringing of the child.
Pierce vs. Society of Sisters

On the issue that the total log ban is a new policy

which should be applied prospectively and not affect the
rights of petitioner vested under the Timber Licensing
Agreement (TLA), the Sc held that this is not a new
policy but a mere reiteration of the policy of
conservation and protection the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology.

State may not require children to attend only public

schools. The child is not a creature of the State.
Section 17
Virtuouso vs. Municipal Judge
Youthful Offender: A person charged with an offense but
found to be a youthful offender could be provisionally
released on recognizance at courts decision.

Section 14
PT&T Co. vs. NLRC
the SC held that the petitioners policy of not accepting
or considering as disqualified from work any woman
worker who contracts marriage, runs afoul of the test of,
and the right against, discrimination, which is
guaranteed all women workers under the Constitution.
While a requirement that a woman employee must
remain unmarried may be justified as a bona fide
occupational qualification where the particular
requirements of the job would demand the same,
discrimination against married women cannot be
adopted by the employer as a general principle.

PRC vs. De Guzman

while it is true that the SC has upheld the constitutional
right of every citizen to select a profession or course of
study subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable
admission and academic requirements, the exercise of
this right may be regulated pursuant to the police power
of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace,
education, order, safety and general welfare. Thus,
persons who desire to engage in the learned
professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge
may be required to take an examination as a
prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers. This
regulation assumes particular pertinence in the field of
medicine, in order to protect the public from the
potentially deadly effects of incompetence and
ignorance.
PMMS, Inc. vs. CA
the Court said that the requirement that a school must
first obtain government authorization before operating is
based on the State policy that educational programs
and/or operations shall be of good quality and,
therefore, shall at least satisfy minimum standards with
respect to curricula, teaching staff, physical plant and
facilities and administrative and management viability.

Section 18

owner. Private rights must yield to the irresistible

demands of the public interest on the time-honored
justification, as in the case of the policed power, that the
welfare of the people is the supreme law.

Bernardo vs. NLRC

The SC held that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons
mandates that qualified disabled persons be granted the
same terms and conditions of employment as qualified
able bodied employees; thus, once hey have attained
the status of regular workers, they should be accorded
all the benefits granted by law, notwithstanding written
or verbal contracts to the contrary. This treatment is
rooted not merely in charity or accommodation, but in
justice for all.

Section 25
BASCO VS PAGCOR
Local Autonomy under 1987 Constitution simply means
the decentralization and does not make the local
governments sovereign within the State or an imperium
imperio.
LIMBONA VS MANGELIN

Section 19
Garcia vs. BOI
BOI committed grave abuse of discretion because it
repudiates the independent policy of government to run
its affairs the way it deems best for the national interest.
Every provision of the Constitution on the national
economy and patrimony is infused with the spirit of
national interest. The non-alienation of national
resources, the State full control over the development
and utilization of contributions to the economic growth
and general welfare of the country and the regulation of
foreign investment in accordance to national goals and
priorities are too explicit not to be noticed and
understood.
Section 20
Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators vs. PCA,
the SC said that although the Constitution enshrines
free enterprise as a policy, it nevertheless reserves to
the Government the power to intervene whenever
necessary for the promotion of the general welfare as
reflected in Sections 6 & 19 of Article XII.
Pest Management Association of the Philippines vs.
Fertilizer and Pesticide
Authority, and Pharmaceutical and Health
Care Association of the Philippines vs. Sec. Duque III

Decentralization of administration is merely delegation

of administrative powers to the LGUs in order to
broaden
the
base
of
governmental
power.
Decentralization of power is the abdication by the
national government powers.
Section 26
Pamatong vs. COMELEC
- There is no constitutional right to run for or hold public
office and, particularly, to seek the presidency. What is
recognized is merely a privilege subject to limitations
imposed by law. Section 26, Article II of the Constitution
neither bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to
the level of an enforceable right. There is nothing in the
plain language of the provision which suggests such a
thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort. The "equal
access" provision is a subsumed part of Article II of the
Constitution, entitled "Declaration of Principles and
State Policies." The provisions under the Article are
generally considered not self-executing, and there is no
plausible reason for according a different treatment to
the "equal access" provision. Like the rest of the policies
enumerated in Article II, the provision does not contain
any judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely
specifies a guideline for legislative or executive action.
The disregard of the provision does not give rise to any
cause of action before the courts.
Section 30
Legspi vs CSC

Despite the fact that our present Constitution enshrines

free enterprise as a policy, it nevertheless reserves to
the Government the power to intervene whenever
necessary to promote the general welfare. Free
enterprise does not call for removal of protective
regulations. It must be clearly explained and proven by
competent evidence just exactly how such protective
regulation would result in the restraint of trade.

Section 21
ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHIL. vs. SEC.
OF AGRARIAN REFORM
Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that
enables it to forcibly acquire private lands intended for
public use upon payment of just compensation to the

The constitutional right to information on matters of

public concern is self-executing without the need for any
ancillary act of legislation.
Valmonte vs de Villa
The constitutional right to information is limited on
matters of public concern and is further subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law. However,
although citizens are afforded the right to information,
the Constitution does not accord them the right to
compel the custodians of official records to prepare lists,
abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to
acquire information of public concern.
Aquino-Sarmiento vs Morato

- When a committee or board is created as public in its

very existence and character such as the MTRCB, there
can be no valid claim to privacy. Here, decisions of
Board and individual voting slips are public in character.

limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the

delegates authority and prevent the delegation from
running riot.
- Subordinate Legislation = delegated power to issue
rules to carry out the general provision of the statute.
(Administrative bodies implement the broad policies by
promulgating their supplementary regulations.)

SEPARATION OF POWERS
Casibang vs. Aquino
In re Manzano
- Members of the SC and other courts shall not be
designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions.
- The committee performs administrative function* which
under Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution
prohibits members of the SC and other courts
established by law to be designated to any agency
performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. To
quote CJ Fernando in Garcia vs. Macaraig, he said that
while the doctrine of separation of powers is a relative
theory not to be enforced with pedantic rigor, the
practical demands of government precluding its doctrine
application, it cannot justify a member of the judiciary
being required to assume a position or perform a duty
non-judicial in character.
Administrative functions are those which involves
the regulation and control the conduct and affairs of
individuals for their own welfare and the
promulgation of rules and regulations to better
carry out the policy of the legislative or such as are
devolved upon the administrative agency by the
organic law of its existence.

Angara vs. Electoral Commission

- Separation of powers as actual division than obtained
through express provision
- Judiciary is the only Constitutional Arbiter to allocate
Constitutional Boundaries
- Judicial Supremacy = supremacy of the Constitution
asserted by the judiciary (not supremacy of the judiciary
itself)
- Judicial Review is limited to Actual Litigation. Judiciary
does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or
expediency of litigation.
- The Electoral Commission is an independent,
impartial, and non-partisan tribunal. The sole power to
determine contests regarding the elections, returns, and
qualifications of the members of the National Assembly
has been transferred in totality to the Electoral
Commission. Its power is clear, complete, and
exclusive.

- Political Question = question of policy; question to be

decided by the people in their sovereign capacity or full
discretionary authority
- Justiciable Question = implies a given right, legally
demandable and enforceable; an act or omission
violative of such right, and a remedy, granted or
sanctioned by law for said breach of right.
Sanidad v. COMELEC
On whether the case is justiciable
Political questions are associated with the wisdom of the
legality of a particular act. Where the vortex of the
controversy refers to the legality or validity of the
contested act, that matter is definitely justiciable or nonpolitical. If the Constitution provides how it may be
amended, the judiciary as the interpreter of that
Constitution, can declare whether the procedure
followed or the authority assumed was valid or not.
On whether the President may propose Constitutional
amendments
If the President has been legitimately discharging the
legislative functions of the interim Assembly, there is no
reason why he cannot validly discharge the function of
that Assembly to propose amendments to the
Constitution, which is but an adjunct, although peculiar,
to its gross legislative power.
(Note that at the time Prez. Marcos had legislative
powers and there was no legislative department at the
time)
Daza v. Singson
Where the legality or validity of the act is in question and
not the wisdom of the act, the Court may take
jurisdiction and decide on the acts validity. Even in
political questions the Court may take jurisdiction under
the expanded judicial power extended to it by Art 8 Sec.
1 of the Constitution.
(Judicial power includes the duty to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and 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.)

Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA

- Legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of
the law cannot be delegated. What can be delegated is
the discretion to determine how the law may be
enforced.
- Completeness test and Sufficient Standard Test:
Completeness Test = complete in all its terms and
conditions when it leaves the legislature such that what
is left is merely its enforcement.
Sufficient Standard Test = adequate guidelines or

Delegation of Powers
Garcia v. Exec. Secretary
The Congress may authorize the President to fix tariff
rates and duties subject to such limitations and
restrictions that they may impose. This is expressly
provided for in Art 6, Sec 28 par 2 of the Constitution.

Araneta v. Dinglasan
The delegation of emergency powers by Congress to
the President may be limited by Congress subject to
restrictions it may provide. Congress may withdraw the
delegated power at any time. In this case, the
emergency power was withdrawn at the time Congress
became able to exercise its legislative duties again.

Pelaez vs. Auditor General

The two tests (Completeness test and Sufficient Standard test)
must be applied together.
Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita
Where the effectivity of the law is made dependent on the
verification by the executive of the existence of certain
conditions, the verification is delegated to the executive. (This is
an example of contingent legislation - a valid delegation of law
execution).

Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
The principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable
to all three branches of government specifically in the
case of the legislative. What can be delegated is the
discretion to determine how the law may be enforced
and not what the law shall be since the ascertainment of
the latter subject is within the prerogative and
determination of the legislature. Delegation of legislative
power is permitted and valid provided that is passes the
two accepted tests- completeness test and the sufficient
standard test. The reason for such delegation is the
increasing complexity of the task of the government and
the growing inability of the legislature to cope directly
with the myriad problems demanding its attention.
Rodriguez v. Gella
Act No. 671 was expressly in pursuance of the
constitutional limitation of the delegation of emergency
powers. It is presumed that the National Assembly
intended it to be for a limited period. Executive Orders
Nos. 545 and 546, which was anchored to the said Act
are declared null and void and the respondents are
ordered to desist from appropriating, releasing and
allotting expending funds set aside therein.
People v. Vera
Act No. 4221 is tantamount to an undue delegation of
legislative power. The powers of the government are
distributed among three coordinate and substantially
independent organs: the legislative, the executive and
the judicial. Each of the departments of the government
derives its authority from the Constitution.
US vs. Ang Tang Ho
If the act within itself does not define a crime and is not
complete, legislative act remains to be done to make it a
law or a crime, the doing of which is vested in the Gov,
generally, the act is a delegation of legislative power,
and is thus unconstitutional and void.
Ynot vs. IAC
There is no standard that the officials must observe in
determining to whom to distribute the confiscated
carabaos and carabeef. There is thus an invalid
delegation of legislatie power.

Section 5
Tobias v. Abalos
The creation of a new congressional district is but a
natural consequence of a municipalitys conversion into
a city. The Constitution provides that a city should have
a population of at least 250,000 and is entitled to at
least 1 representative.
Mariano Jr. v. Comelec
As decided in Tobias v. Abalos, the Constitution provides
that the compositions of the House should not be more
than 250 members, unless otherwise provided by law.
The natural result in the creation of a new legislative
from a special law whose purpose is to convert a
municipality into a city is sanctioned by the Constitution.
Montejo v. Comelec
The Comelec has no power to reapportion districts but
only to make minor adjustments.
Republic Act No. 7941 An act providing for the election
of the party-list representatives through the party-list
system and appropriating funds therefrom.
Section 13
Zandueta vs. De la Costa
When a judge of first instance, presiding over a branch
of a Court of First Instance of a judicial district by virtue
of a legal and valid appointment, accepts another
appointment to preside over the same branch of the
same Court of First Instance, in addition of another
Court of First Instance to the old one, enters into the
discharge of the functions of his new office and receives
the corresponding salary, he abandons his old office and
cannot claim to be entitled to repossess it or question
the constitutionality of the law by virtue of which his new
appointment has been issued; and, said new
appointment having been disapproved by the
Commission on Appointments of the National Assembly,
neither can he claim to continue occupying the office
conferred upon him by said new appointment, having
ipso jure ceased in the discharge of the functions
thereof.

Tablarin vs. Gutierez

Because the necessity standards are set forth in the statute (RA
No. 2383), providing for standardization and regulation of
education, delegation is valid.
Section 14

Puyat vs. De Guzman

No Member of the Batasang Pambansa shall appear as
counsel before any court without appellate jurisdiction,
before any court in any civil case wherein the
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof is the adverse party, or in any
criminal case wherein any officer or employee of the
Government is accused of an offense committed in
relation to his office,or before any administrative body.
Neither shall he, directly or indirectly be interested
financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or
special privilege granted by the Government, or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
any government-owned or controlled corporation, during
his term of office.
He shall not accept employment to intervene in any
cause or matter where he may be called to act on
account of his office.
Section 16
Santiago vs. Guingona, Jr.
Where no provision of the Constitution, the laws or even
the rules of the Senate has been clearly shown to have
been violated, disregarded or overlooked, grave abuse
of discretion cannot be imputed to Senate officials for
acts done within their competence and authority.
Avelino vs. Cuenco
The constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to
elect its own president should not be interfered with, nor
taken over, by the judiciary.
When the constitution declares that a majority of each
House shall constitute a quorum, it does not mean all of
its members. Majority of all the members constitute the
House. Hence, 12 senators who unanimously voted
constitute a majority of 23 senators (10 walked out, 1
out of the country).
OSMEA VS. PENDATUN
The House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly
behavior as conferred upon by the Constitution. Also,
Congress has the inherent legislative prerogative of
suspension.
PAREDES, JR. VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Sandiganbayan has the authority to suspend a district
representative in violation of the Anti-Graft Law as it is
being imposed on the representative NOT as a member
of the House.

CASCO PHIL CHEMICAL CO VS GIMENEZ

Enrolled bill doctrine- the term urea formaldehyde is
conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the
measure passed by the Congress and approved by the
President.
Section 18
Daza vs Singson
- The sense of the Constitution is that the membership in the
COA must always reflect political alignments and must adjust to
changes. Nowhere, however, in the Constitution require that the
party must be a registered party.
Coseteng vs Mitra
- Endorsement of other representatives (in COA) cannot be
counted in favor of a representative if they do not belong to the
latter's party.
Guingona vs Gonzales
- Full complement of 12 seats in COA is not mandatory
Rounding out 0.5 to 1 is unconstitutional as it would deprive other
parties of seats in COA.

Sec. 21:
Bengzon vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
- Investigation was not in aid of legislation where it merely aims
at determining whether a law is violated. To allow such
investigation is to violate separation of powers.
Arnault vs Nazareno
- Power of Investigation includes power to punish a
contumacious witness for contempt. Experience has shown that
mere requests for information are frequently unavailing.
- In aid of legislation - not difficult to satisfy. Necessity or lack of
necessity for legislative action is determined by the sum total of
information to be gathered as a result of investigation, and not by
a fraction of such information elicited from single question. It is
sufficient that the question is germane to the subject matter of
inquiry. There is no need for it to be directly related or connected
to possible legislation.
Neri vs Senate Committee on Accountability
- Exception to legislative inquiry: Executive Privilege (which is
extended to all close advisors of the President)
- It is wrong for Senate to punish one for contempt where
executive privilege is properly invoked.
- Senate's mistakes in the case at bar: (1) invitations to Neri did
not include possible statute; (2) contempt order lacks required #
of votes; (3) Senate did not first rule on the claim of executive
privilege and instead dismissed Neri's explanation; (4) rules of
procedure on inquiries in aid of legislation not duly published.

U.S. VS PONS
The Court may not go beyond the the recitals of the
legislative journals for the purpose of determining the
date of adjournment when such journal are clear and
explicit. To inquire the veracity of journals, when they
are clear and explicit, would be to violate both the letter
and spirit of the laws, to invade the coordinate and
independent department of the government and to
interfere with the legitimate powers and functions of the
Legislature.

Sec. 21 and 22:

Senate vs Ermita
- When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how
department heads are implementing the statutes, it is not
imperative.
- The oversight function of Congress may be facilitated by
compulsory process only to the extent that it is performed in
pursuit of legislation.
- Appearance of department heads in question hour is

discretionary.
- When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for
the department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a
valid claim of privilege.
- EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE privilege based on doctrine of
separation of powers, exempting executive from disclosure
requirements where such exemption is necessary to the
discharge of highly important executive responsibilities. It covers
categories of information not of persons.
Sec. 24:
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance
- The phrase originate exclusively does not refer to the
appropriations law but to the appropriations bill. It is sufficient that
the House of Rep. initiated the passage of the bill.
Alvarez vs Guingona
- A bill of local application, such as one asking for the conversion
of a municipality into a city, is deemed to have originated from the
House provided that the bill of the House was filed prior to the
filing of the bill in the Senate even if, in the end, the Senate
approved its own version.
- The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its
receipt of the bill does not contravene the constitutional
requirement as long as the Senate does not act thereupon until it
receives the House bill.
Sec. 25:
Garcia vs Mata
- RIDER a provision not related to the appropriation act (is
prohibited)
Demetria vs Alba
- transfer of appropriations prohibited
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- The list of those who may be authorized to transfer funds is
exclusive.
- Case at bar: Congressmen are allowed to determine the
necessity of realignment, but House Speaker or Senate Pres. will
have to approve the realignment before items are realigned.
- Case at bar: Chief of Staff may not be give authority to realign
appropriations.
Sec. 26:
Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board
- Imposition of tax is sufficiently related to the regulation of video
industry where the title is comprehensive enough to include such
subject (taxation) related to the general purpose (creation of
Videogram Board)
Phil. Judges Assoc. vs Prado
- Repeal/Withdrawal of franking privilege is germane to the
object of the title, which is to create postal service system.
Hence, the same is embraced in the title/
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance [Sec. 26 (1)]
- Withdrawing tax exemptions granted before is embraced in the
subject of the title which is to widen the tax base
Tan vs Del Rosario
- 3 purposes of Sec. 3(1), Art. VI:
(a) to prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation
(b) to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by
means of provisions which might be overlooked
(c) to fairly apprise the people of the subjects of

legislation
Tobias vs Abalos
- Provision providing for a separate legislative district is germane
to the subject of the bill creating the City of Mandaluyong
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance [Sec. 26 (2)]
- IF it is only the printing that is being dispensed by presidential
certification, the time saved would be so negligible as to be of
any use in ensuring immediate enactment. (Printing and
Readings on separate days both dispensable by pres.
certification)
- Where no Senators controverted the reality of the factual basis
of certification, growing budget deficit may be considered as
basis for presidential certification. Senators, in responding to the
call of the Pres. by voting on the bill, manifested their belief in the
urgent need for certification of the bill.
Sec. 27:
Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance
- It is within the power of a conference committee to include in its
report an entirely new provision not found in either House Bill or
Senate Bill. (Amendment in the nature of substitution is
warranted as long as amendment is germane to the subject
matter of the bill)
- to disregard the enrolled bill is to disregard the respect due the
other 2 departments.
Gonzales vs Macaraig
- President can veto an item
- Doctrine of inappropriate provisions a provision that is
constitutionally inappropriate may be singled out for veto if it is
not an appropriation or revenue item. An inappropriate provision
in an appropriations bill is an item in itself.
Bengzon vs Drilon
- President's power to veto an item does not grant authority to
veto part of an item (or provisions).
- President cannot veto a law or repeal a law.
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- Provisions that are germane to the specific appropriations
cannot be vetoed.
- Requirement of Congressional approval for release of funds for
modernization of AFP can be incorporated in separate bill and
hence inappropriate. It was properly vetoed.
- Executive Impoundment refusal of the President to spend
funds already allocated by Congress for a specific purpose (the
duty to implement the law includes the duty to desist from
implementing it when implementation would prejudice public
interest). The Court, however, did not rule on this issue, and
rather declared the provision concerning benefits of CAFGUs as
an inappropriate provision.
Sec. 28:
Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pilipinas vs Tan
- a tax is considered uniform when it operates with the same
force and effect in every place where the subject may be found.
Province of Abra vs Judge Hernando
Abra Valley College vs Aquino
- Where a lot is not used exclusively for educational purpose, it
may be taxed if the use is not incidental to the attainment of main
purpose.
Tan vs Del Rosario
- Uniformity of taxation means:

(a) standards that are used are substantial and not

arbitrary
(b) categorization is germane to achieve legislative

body.
- Case at bar: COMELEC erred in implementing a Resolution
when respondents filed petition for Initiative and not Referendum.

purpose
(c) law applies, all things being equal, to both present
and future conditions
(d) classification applies equally well to all those
belonging to the same class
Sec. 29:
Pascual vs Sec. of Public Works
- Appropriation for a road owned by a private individual is invalid
because it is not for a public purpose. Subsequent donation did
not validate the law because validity of a statute depends upon
the power of Congress at the time of its approval and not upon
subsequent events.
Aglipay vs Ruiz
- Appropriation for special stamp issue is valid as it is not
specifically made to benefit a religious denomination but for a
public purpose. The benefit acquired by the Church is incidental
only.
Guingona vs Carague
- The Automatic Reappropriation Law for servicing foreign debts
is valid because the amount is fixed by the parameters of the law
itself which requires the simple act of looking into the books of
Treasure (the amount is determinable).
- Budgetary process:
(a) budget preparation
(b) legislative authorization
(c) budget execution
(d) budget accountability

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Sec. 1:
Marcos vs Manglapus
- The President has residual powers. The President is more
than the sum of specific powers enumerated in the Constitution.
- What is not part of the legislative and judicial departments is
deemed part of the executive.
- The 1987 Constitution provided for a limitation of specific
powers of the President, particularly those relating to the
commander-in-chief clause, but not a diminution of the general
grant of executive power.
Soliven vs Makasiar
- The privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of
Presidential duties free from any hindrance or distraction
considering that being the Chief Executive demands undivided
attention.
- The privilege pertains to the President by virtue of the office and
may be invoked only by the holder of the office. There is nothing
which prohibits the President to waive this privilege.
Estrada vs Desierto
- A non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity from suit
(immunity is only during the tenure)
- Even a sitting President is not immune from suit for non-official
acts or from wrongdoing. (Public office is a public trust. The rule
is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the State
and the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but stands
in the same footing as any other trespasser.)

Osmena vs Orbos
- Increase of petroleum prices to resolve the Terminal Fund
Balance deficit is valid as it was a valid exercise of police power.

Sec. 13:

PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- Pork barrel provisions in the annual budget allowing members
of Congress to perform executive function of spending money
appropriated are not in violation of separation of powers because
Congress itself had specified the uses of the fund and the power
given was merely recommendatory to the President who could
approve or disapprove the recommendation.

Doromal vs Sandiganbayan
- Sec Sec. 13, Art. VII is applicable in a case where the accused
has not signed any document of any bid of the family corporation
of which he is a member, submitted to any government
department.
- Case at bar: Petitioner has at least an indirect interest with the
transaction with DECS and NMYC.

Sec. 30:
First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs CA
- B.P. Blg. 129 granting exclusive appellate jurisdiction to CA over
the decisions of quasi-judicial bodies is not superseded by
Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 providing that decisions of
BOI are appealable to SC because advice and concurrence of
SC was not sought.
Diaz vs CA
- Sec. 10 of EO No. 170 stating a party adversely affected by a
decision of ERB may file a petition with SC was superseded by
the Constitution stating that jurisdiction of SC cannot be made to
increase without its advice and concurrence.
Sec. 32:
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs COMELEC
- Initiative is entirely the work of electorate; the process of lawmaking by the people themselves
- Referendum consists merely of the electorate approving or
rejecting what has been drawn up or enacted by a legislative

Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary

- EO No. 284 is unconstitutional insofar it allows a member of the
Cabinet to hold not more than two positions in the government.
(Respondent's contention that Sec. 7, Art. IX-B is an exception
would defeat the obvious legislative intent which is to prohibit
cabinet members from holding multiple offices.)
Aytona vs Castillo
- As a rule, once an appointment is issued, it cannot be
reconsidered where the appointee has qualified. Exception: ad
interim appointments issued in the last hours of an outgoing
Chief Executive (midnight appointments made for buying
votes).
In re Valenzuela and Vallarta
- Sec. 15 (President shall not make appointments within 2
months prior to the next Presidential election) is applicable to the
members of the Judiciary.
- This sort of appointment is made for partisan considerations.
De Castro vs. JBC
Sec. 16:

may not be reversed by CSC and call it temporary.

Binamira vs Garrucho
- Appointment or designation involves exercise of discretion
which cannot be delegated. Even if it be assumed that the power
could be exercised by Minister of Tourism, it could be recalled by
the President.
- Designation is considered only an acting or temporary
appointment, which does not confer security of tenure.
Sarmiento vs Mison
- 4 groups of officers whom the President shall appoint:
(a) heads of the executive departments, ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces
from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other whose
appointments are vested in him in this Constitution
(b) all other officers of the Government whose
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law
(c) those whom the President may be authorized by law
to appoint
(d) officers lower in rank whose appointments the
Congress may by law vest in the President alone.
- Case at bar: Confirmation of COA is not needed in appointment
of Commissioner of Bureau of Customs because a bureau head
is not among those within the first group of appointments where
consent of COA is required.
Bautista vs Salonga
- Confirmation of COA is not needed in appointment of Chairman
of Commission of Human Rights because such appointment is
not vested in the President in the Constitution. The President
appoints Chairman of CHR pursuant to EO 163 (CHR Chairman
is thus within the 3rd group of officers)
Quintos-Deles vs Commission of Appointments
- The appointment of Sectoral Representatives requires
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The seats
reserved for sectoral representatives may be filled by
appointment by the President by express provision of Sec.7,
Article XVIII of the Constitution (hence, sectoral representatives
are within the 1st group of officers)
- Exceptions to those officers within the 1 st group: (1)
Ombudsman and his deputies, and (2) members of the Supreme
Court and judges of lower courts.
Calderon vs Carale
- Confirmation by COA is required only for presidential
appointees that are within the 1 st group of officers as mentioned
in Sarmiento vs Mison.
- Congress may not expand the list of appointments needing
confirmation.
- Case at bar: RA 6715, which requires the COA confirmation in
appointments of NLRC Chairman and Commissioners,
transgresses Sec. 16, Art. VII. The appointments of NLRC
Chairman and Commissioners do not need COA confirmation
because they fall under the 3rd group of officers.
Tarrosa vs Singson
- affirmed the ruling in Calderon vs Carale
- Case at bar: Appointment of Central Bank Governor does not
need COA confirmation.
Flores vs Drilon
- A law which limits the President to only one appointee is an
encroachment to the prerogative of the President because
appointment involves discretion to choose who to appoint.
Luego vs Civil Service Commission
- CSC is without authority to revoke an appointment because of
its belief that another person was better qualified, which is an
encroachment on the discretion vested solely in the appointing
authority.
- The permanent appointment made by the appointing authority

Pobre vs Mendieta
- The vacancy in the position of Chairman of the Professional
Regulation Commission cannot be filled by the Senior Associate
Commissioner by operation of law (or by succession) because it
will deprive the President of the power to appoint the Chairman.
Sec. 17
Drilon vs Lim
- Distinction between power and control:
An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an
act. if they are not followed, he may, in his discretion, order
the act undone or re-done by his subordinate or he may even
decide to do it by himself.
Supervision does not cover such authority. The
supervisor merely sees to it that rules are followed, but he
himself does not lay down such rules, nor does he have the
discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are not
observed, he may order the work done or re-done but only to
conform to the prescribed rules. He may not prescribe his
own manner except to see to it that the rules are followed.
(Note) Power of control pertains to power of an officer to alter,
modify, nullify, or set aside what a subordinate has done in the
performance of his duties and to substitute his judgment to that of
the former [Mondano vs Silvosa]
Villena vs Secretary of the Interior
- Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency (alter ego principle) -acts
of the Secretaries of Executive Departments, when performed
and promulgated in the regular course of business or unless
disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, are
presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive
- Case at bar: Secretary of the Interior is invested with the
authority to order the investigation of the charges against the
petitioner and to appoint a special investigator for that purpose.
Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. vs Pano
- Department heads are President's men of confidence. His is
the power to appoint them; his, too, is the privilege to dismiss
them at pleasure. Normally, he controls and directs their acts.
Implicit then is his authority to go over, confirm, modify or reverse
the action taken by his department secretaries.
- Case at bar: The President, through his Executive Secretary,
may undo an act of the Director of Lands
City of Iligan vs Director of Lands
- The President has the power to grant portions of public domain
to any government entity like the City of Iligan because he has
control over the Director of Lands, who has direct executive
control in the lease, sale or any form of concession or disposition
of the land of public domain.
Gascon vs Arroyo
- Case at bar: Executive Secretary has the power and authority to
enter into the Agreement to Arbitrate with the ABS CBN as he
acted for and in behalf of the President when he signed it.
Kilusan Bayan vs Dominguez
- An administrative officer has only such powers as are expressly
granted to him and those necessarily implied in the exercise
thereof. These powers should not be extended by implication
beyond what may be necessary for their just and reasonable
execution.
Angangco vs Castillo
- The power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint, but not
with regard to those officers or employees who belong to the
classified service for as to them the inherent power cannot be
exercised

NAMARCO vs Arca
- Executive power of control extends to government-owned
corporations.
Sec. 18:
Guazon vs De Villa
- The President has the power to ordain saturation drives. There
is nothing in the Constitution which denies the authority of the
Chief Exec. to order police actions to stop unabated criminality,
rising lawlessness, and alarming communist activities.

- President's grant of executive clemency to a person dismissed

from his office pursuant to an administrative case (but where the
latter has been acquitted in a criminal case based on the same
facts alleged in the criminal case) entitles the latter to automatic
reinstatement and backwages.
Sabello vs DECS
- Pardon (in a criminal case) frees the individual from all the
penalties and disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights.
Although such pardon may restore a person's eligibility to public
office, it does not entitle him to automatic reinstatement. He
should apply for reappointment to said office.
- [Compare with Garcia vs COA]

Ruffy vs Chief of Staff

- Courts martial are simply instrumentalities of the executive
power, provided by the Congress for the President as
Commander in chief to aid him in properly commanding the army
and navy and enforcing discipline therein and utilize under his
order those of his authorized military representatives.

Llamas vs Orbos
- In granting the power of executive clemency, the Constitution
does not distinguish between criminal and administrative cases.

Olaguer vs Military Commission No. 34

- Due process of law demands that in all criminal prosecutions
the accused be entitled to a trial. The trial contemplated by the
due process clause is trial by judicial process. Military
Commissions are not courts within the Philippine judicial system.
Judicial power is vested only in the courts. Military commissions
pertain to the executive department and are instrumentalities of
the President as commander-in-chief to aid him in enforcing
discipline in the armed forces.

Constantino, Jr. vs Cuisia

- The debt-relief contracts, providing for buy-back and bondconversion schemes, entered into pursuant to Financing Program
are not beyond the powers granted to the President under Sec.
20, Art. VII. The only restriction that the Constitution provides,
aside from the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, is that
loans must be subject to limitations provided by law. Accordingly,
the contention that buy-back and bond-conversion schemes are
neither loans nor guarantees, and hence beyond the
Presidents power to execute, are without merit.

Sec. 18:

Quilona vs General Court Martial

Gudani vs Senga
- The President has constitutional authority to prevent a member
of the armed forces from testifying before a legislative inquiry, by
virtue of her power as commander-in-chief, and that as a
consequence, a military officer who defies such injunction is
liable under military justice. At the same time, the Court also
holds that any chamber of Congress which seeks the
appearance befoe it of a military officer against the consent of the
President has adequate remedies under law to compel such
attendance. Any military officer whom the Congress summons to
testify before it may be compelled to do so by the President. If
the President is not so inclined, the President may be
commanded by judicial order to compel the attendance of the
military officer. Final judicial orders have the force of the law of
the land which the President has the duty to faithfully execute.
Sec. 19:
Torres vs Gonzales
- A judicial pronouncement is not necessary in determining
whether the conditions in the pardon are violated. The
determination of whether there is a violations of the conditions
rests exclusively in the sound judgment of the President.

Sec. 21:
Commissioner of Customs vs Eastern Sea Trading (1961)
- The concurrence of the House of Congress is required by our
fundamental law in the making of treaties which are however
distinct and different from executive agreements which may be
validly entered without such concurrence.
Pimentel, Jr. vs Exec. Sec.
- The power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to
concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate is limited only
to giving or withholding its consent or concurrence to the
ratification. Hence, it is within the authority of the President to
refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or having secured its
consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. This discretion to
ratify lies within the President's competence alone.
- 4 steps in treaty-making process:
(a) negotiation
(b) signing of the treaty (simply a means of
authenticating the instrument and a symbol of good faith)
(c) ratification (formal act by which a statute confirms
and accepts the provisions of a treaty)
(d) exchange of instruments of ratification
- In the case at bar, the treaty was merely signed.

Monsanto vs Factoran
- Pardon implies guilt. While it relieves the party pardoned from
all punitive consequences of his criminal act, it relieves him from
nothing more. It does not, therefore, restore a convicted felon to
public office forfeited by reason of conviction.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

People vs Salle, Jr.

- Pardon may be granted only by final judgment. Where the
judgment of conviction is still pending appeal, executive
clemency may not yet be granted. Before an appellant may be
granted pardon, he must first ask for the withdrawal of his appeal.

Santiago vs Bautista
- The courts may not exercise judicial power when there
is no applicable law.
- Case at bar: An award of honors to a student by a
board of teachers may not be reversed by a court where
the awards are governed by no applicable law.

Garcia vs COA

Sec. 1:

Daza v Singson

- Even if the issue presented was political in nature, the

Court is still not be precluded from resolving it under the
expanded jurisdiction conferred upon it that now covers,
in proper cases, even the political question.
- That where serious constitutional questions are
involved, "the transcendental importance to the public of
these cases demands that they be settled promptly and
definitely brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of
procedure."
Mantruste Systems v Court of Appeals
- There can be no justification for judicial interference in
the business of an administrative agency, except when it
violates a citizen's constitutional rights, or commits a
grave abuse of discretion, or acts in excess of, or
without jurisdiction.
- Courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the
Asset Privatization Trust (administrative body), nor
block, by an injunction, the discharge of its functions
and the implementation of its decisions in connection
with the acquisition, sale or disposition of assets
transferred to it.
Malaga v Penachos, Jr.
- It was previously declared the prohibition pertained to
the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders by
courts against administrative acts in controversies
involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical
cases. The Court observed that to allow the courts to
judge these matters would disturb the smooth
functioning of the administrative machinery. On issues
definitely outside of this dimension and involving
questions of law, courts could not be prevented by any
law (in this case, P.D. No. 605) from exercising their
power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts.

the constitutionality of an act of the legislature will not be

determined by the courts unless that question is
properly raised and presented in appropriate cases and
is necessary to a determination of the case.
J. Joya v PCGG
- The rule is settled that no question involving the
constitutionality or validity of a law or governmental act
may be heard and decided by the court unless there is
compliance with the legal requisites for judicial inquiry,
namely: that the question must be raised by the proper
party; that there must be an actual case or controversy;
that the question must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity; and, that the decision on the constitutional
or legal question must be necessary to the
determination of the case itself. But the most important
are the first two (2) requisites.
- Not every action filed by a taxpayer can qualify to
challenge the legality of official acts done by the
government. A taxpayer's suit can prosper only if the
governmental
acts
being
questioned
involve
disbursement of public funds upon the theory that the
expenditure of public funds by an officer of the state for
the purpose of administering an unconstitutional act
constitutes a misapplication of such funds, which may
be enjoined at the request of a taxpayer.
Legaspi v Civil Service Commission
- It becomes apparent that when a Mandamus
proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the
requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere
fact that the petitioner is a citizen, and therefore, part of
the general "public" which possesses the right.
-"Public" is a comprehensive, all-inclusive term. Properly
construed, it embraces every person.

PACU v Secretary of Education

Dumlao v COMELEC
- Judicial power is limited to the decision of actual cases
and controversies.
(Mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education
might under the law withdraw the permit of one of
petitioners does not constitute a justiciable controversy.)
- Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic
questions to satisfy scholarly interest therein however
intellectually solid the problem may be. This is
especially true where the issues "reach constitutional
dimensions, for then there comes into play regard for
the court's duty to avoid decision of constitutional issues
unless avoidance becomes evasion.

- For one, there is a misjoinder of parties and actions.

One petitioner does not join other petitioners in the
burden of their complaint, nor do the latter join the
former in his. They, respectively, contest completely
different statutory provisions.
- For another, there are standards that have to be
followed in the exercise of the function of judicial review,
namely: (1) the existence of an appropriate case; (2) an
interest personal and substantial by the party raising the
constitutional question; (3) the plea that the function be
exercised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the
necessity that the constitutional question be passed
upon in order to decide the case.

Mariano, Jr. v COMELEC

Bugnay Const. and Devt. Corp. v Laron
- Considering that those contingencies mentioned by the
petitioners may or may not happen, petitioners merely
pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an
actual case or controversy. Petitioners who are
residents of Taguig (except Mariano) are not also the
proper parties to raise this abstract issue (city of Makati
is involved). Worse, they raise this futuristic issue in a
petition for declaratory relief over which this Court has
no jurisdiction.
Macasiano v National Housing Authority
-It is a rule firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that

- The doctrine holds that only when the act complained

of directly involves an illegal disbursement of public
funds raised by taxation will the taxpayer's suit be
allowed. The essence of a taxpayer's right to institute
such an action hinges on the existence of that requisite
pecuniary or monetary interest.
- It is not enough that the taxpayer-plaintiff sufficiently
show that he would be benefited or injured by the
judgment or entitled to the avails of the suit as a real
party in interest.

Kilosbayan v Guingona, Jr.

- A party's standing before this Court is a procedural
technicality which it may, in the exercise of its discretion,
set aside in view of the importance of the issues raised.
- In line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus
standi, ordinary taxpayers, members of Congress, and
even association of planters, and non-profit civic
organizations were allowed to initiate and prosecute
actions before this Court to question the constitutionality
or validity of laws, acts, decisions, rulings, or orders of
various government agencies or instrumentalities.
PHILCONSA v Enriquez
- The Senators have legal standing to question the
validity of the veto. When a veto was made in excess of
the authority of the President, it impermissibily intrudes
into the domain of the Legislature. A member of
Congress can question an act of the Executive which
injures Congress as an institution.
Tatad v Garcia, Jr.
-The prevailing doctrines in taxpayer's suits are to allow
taxpayers to question contracts entered into by the
national government or government-owned or controlled
corporations allegedly in contravention of the law and to
disallow the same when only municipal contracts are
involved (just like in Bugnay case since no public money
was involved).
Oposa v Factoran, Jr.
- CLASS SUIT: The subject matter of the complaint is of
common and general interest not just to several, but to
all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the
parties are so numerous, it becomes impracticable, if
not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the
court.
- Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding
generations can only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.
- Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility
to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the
full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put
a little differently, the minors` assertion of their right to a
sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the
performance of their obligation to ensure the protection
of that right for the generations to come.
Lozada v COMELEC
- As taxpayers, petitioners may not file the instant
petition, for nowhere therein is it alleged that tax money
is being illegally spent. It is only when an act
complained of, which may include a legislative
enactment or statute, involves the illegal expenditure of
public money that the so-called taxpayer suit may be
allowed.
- The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns
the validity of a statute must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has
sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its
enforcement.
Concrete injury, whether actual or
threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute
which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally
capable of judicial resolution. When the asserted harm

is a "generalized grievance" shared in substantially

equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that
harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of
jurisdiction.

Kilosbayan v Morato
- The voting on petitioners' standing in the previous case
was a narrow one, seven (7) members sustaining
petitioners' standing and six (6) denying petitioners' right
to bring the suit. The majority was thus a tenuous one
that is not likely to be maintained in any subsequent
litigation. In addition, there have been charges in the
membership of the Court, with the retirement of Justice
Cruz and Bidin and the appointment of the writer of this
opinion and Justice Francisco. Given this fact it is hardly
tenable to insist on the maintenance of the ruling as to
petitioners' standing.
SECTION 3
Bengzon v Lim
- What is fiscal autonomy? It contemplates a guarantee
of full flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources
with the wisdom and dispatch that their needs require. It
recognizes the power and authority to levy, assess and
collect fees, fix rates of compensation not exceeding the
highest rates authorized by law for compensation and
play plans of the government and allocate and disburse
such sums as may be provided by law or prescribed by
them in the course of the discharge of their functions.
Fiscal autonomy means freedom from outside control.
- The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the
Ombudsman must have the independence and flexibility
needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties.
The imposition of restrictions and constraints on the
manner the independent constitutional offices allocate
and utilize the funds appropriated for their operations is
anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative not only of
the express mandate of the Constitution but especially
as regards the Supreme Court, of the independence
and separation of powers upon which the entire fabric of
our constitutional system is based
SECTION 4
Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. v Court of Appeals, et.al.
- Reorganization is purely an internal matter of the Court
to which petitioner certainly has no business at all.
- The Court with its new membership is not obliged to
follow blindly a decision upholding a party's case when,
after its re-examination, the same calls for a
rectification.
SECTION 5
Drilon v Lim
- The Constitution vests in the Supreme Court appellate
jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of lower
courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or
validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation,
order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
- In the exercise of this jurisdiction, lower courts are

advised to act with the utmost circumspection, bearing

in mind the consequences of a declaration of
unconstitutionality upon the stability of laws, no less
than on the doctrine of separation of powers. As the
questioned act is usually the handiwork of the legislative
or the executive departments, or both, it will be prudent
for such courts, if only out of a becoming modesty, to
defer to the higher judgment of this Court in the
consideration of its validity, which is better determined
after a thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and
with the concurrence of the majority of those who
participated in its discussion.
Larranaga v Court of Appeals
(Transfer the venue of the preliminary investigation from
Cebu City to Manila because of the extensive coverage
of the proceedings by the Cebu media which allegedly
influenced the people's perception of petitioner's
character and guilt.)
- The Court recognizes that pervasive and prejudicial
publicity under certain circumstances can deprive an
accused of his due process right to fair trial. It was
previously held that to warrant a finding of prejudicial
publicity there must be allegation and proof that the
judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that
they might be, by the barrage in publicity.
- In the case at bar, nothing in the records shows that
the tone and content of the publicity that attended the
investigation of petitioners fatally infected the fairness
and impartiality of the DOJ Panel.

- In the absence of any administrative action taken

against a person by the Court with regard to his
certificates of service, the investigation being conducted
by the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court's power
of administrative supervision over all courts and its
personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of
powers.
- Where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other
court employee arises from their administrative duties,
the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint
and refer the same to the Court for determination
whether said Judge or court employee had acted within
the scope of their administrative duties.
Raquiza v Judge Castaneda, Jr.
- The rules even in an administrative case demands that
if the respondent Judge should be disciplined for grave
misconduct or any graver offense, the evidence
presented against him should be competent and derived
from direct knowledge. The judiciary, to which
respondent belongs, no less demands that before its
member could be faulted, it should be only after due
investigation and based on competent proofs, no less.
This is all the more so when as in this case the charges
are penal in nature.
('Misconduct' also implies 'a wrongful intention and not a
mere error of judgment. It results that even if respondent
were not correct in his legal conclusions, his judicial
actuations cannot be regarded as grave misconduct,
unless the contrary sufficiently appears.)

First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v Court of Appeals

SECTION 10
- It is intended to give the Supreme Court a measure of
control over cases paced under its appellate jurisdiction.
For the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging
its appellate jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate
enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate
jurisdiction can unnecessarily burden the Court and
thereby undermine its essential function of expounding
the law in its most profound national aspects.
Aruelo v Court of Appeals
- Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC can not
adopt a rule prohibiting the filing of certain pleadings in
the regular courts. The power to promulgate rules
concerning pleadings, practice and procedure in all
courts is vested on the Supreme Court.
Javellana v DILG
(Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and
DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 does not violate
Article VIII. Section 5 of the Constitution. Neither the
statute nor the circular trenches upon the Supreme
Court's power and authority to prescribe rules on the
practice of law.)
- The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum
Circular No. 90-81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for
public officials to avoid conflicts of interest between the
discharge of their public duties and the private practice
of their profession, in those instances where the law
allows it.

Nitafan v Commissioner of Internal Revenue

- The clear intent of the Constitutional Commission was
to delete the proposed express grant of exemption from
payment of income tax to members of the Judiciary, so
as to "give substance to equality among the three
branches of Government.
SECTION 11
De La Llana v Alba
-Judiciary Act does not violate judicial security of tenure.
This Court is empowered "to discipline judges of inferior
courts and, by a vote of at least eight members, order
their dismissal." Thus, it possesses the competence to
remove judges. Under the Judiciary Act, it was the
President who was vested with such power. Removal is,
of course, to be distinguished from termination by virtue
of the abolition of the office. There can be no tenure to a
non-existent office. After the abolition, there is in law no
occupant. In case of removal, there is an office with an
occupant who would thereby lose his position. It is in
that sense that from the standpoint of strict law, the
question of any impairment of security of tenure does
not arise. Nonetheless, for the incumbents of inferior
courts abolished, the effect is one of separation. As to
its effect, no distinction exists between removal and the
abolition of the office. Realistically, it is devoid of
significance. He ceases to be a member of the judiciary.
People v Gacott, Jr.

SECTION 6
Maceda v Vasquez

- To require the entire Court to deliberate upon and

participate in all administrative matters or cases
regardless of the sanctions, imposable or imposed,

would result in a congested docket and undue delay in

the adjudication of cases in the Court, especially in
administrative matters, since even cases involving the
penalty of reprimand would require action by the Court
en banc.
- Yet, although as thus demonstrated, only cases
involving dismissal of judges of lower courts are
specifically required to be decided by the Court en banc,
in cognizance of the need for a thorough and judicious
evaluation of serious charges against members of the
judiciary, it is only when the penalty imposed does not
exceed suspension of more than one year or a fine of
P10,000.00, or both, that the administrative matter may
be decided in division.

decision appealed from is supported by substantial

evidence and is in accord with the facts of the case and
the applicable laws, where it is clear from the records
that the petition is filed merely to forestall the early
execution of judgment and for non-compliance with the
rules. The resolution denying due course or dismissing
the petition always gives the legal basis.
- When the Court, after deliberating on a petition and
any subsequent pleadings, manifestations, comments,
or motions decides to deny due course to the petition
and states that the questions raised are factual or no
reversible error in the respondent court's decision is
shown or for some other legal basis stated in the
resolution, there is sufficient compliance with the
constitutional requirement.

SECTION 12
In Re: Manzano
- As incumbent RTC Judges, they form part of the
structure of government. Their integrity and
performance in the adjudication of cases contribute to
the solidity of such structure. As public officials, they are
trustees of an orderly society. Even as non-members of
Provincial/City Committees on Justice, RTC judges
should render assistance to said Committees to help
promote the landable purposes for which they exist, but
only when such assistance may be reasonably
incidental to the fulfillment of their judicial duties.
SECTION 14
Nicos Industrial Corp v Court of Appeals
- The Court is not duty bound to render signed decisions
all the time. It has ample discretion to formulate
decisions and/or minute resolutions, provided a legal
basis is given, depending on its evaluation of a case.
- As it is settled that an order dismissing a case for
insufficient evidence is a judgment on the merits, it is
imperative that it be a reasoned decision clearly and
distinctly stating therein the facts and the law on which it
is based.
Mendoza v CFI
- What is expected of the judiciary "is that the decision
rendered makes clear why either party prevailed under
the applicable law to the facts as established. Nor is
there any regid formula as to the language to be
employed to satisfy the requirement of clarity and
distinctness. The discretion of the particular judge in this
respect, while not unlimited, is necessarily broad. There
is no sacramental form of words which he must use
upon pain of being considered as having failed to abide
by what the Constitution directs."
- The provision has been held to refer only to decisions
of the merits and not to orders of the trial court resolving
incidental matters such as the one at bar. (content of the
resolution: incident in the prosecution of petitioner)
Borromeo v Court of Appeals
- The Court reminds all lower courts, lawyers, and
litigants that it disposes of the bulk of its cases by
minute resolutions and decrees them as final and
executory, as where a case is patently without merit,
where the issues raised are factual in nature, where the

- Minute resolutions need not be signed by the members

of the Court who took part in the deliberations of a case
nor do they require the certification of the Chief Justice.
Komatsu Industries (Phils.) Inc v Court of Appeals
- It has long been settled that this Court has discretion
to decide whether a "minute resolution" should be used
in lieu of a full-blown decision in any particular case and
that a minute Resolution of dismissal of a Petition for
Review on Certiorari constitutes an adjudication on the
merits of the controversy or subject matter of the
Petition. It has been stressed by the Court that the grant
of due course to a Petition for Review is "not a matter of
right, but of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no
need to fully explain the Court's denial. For one thing,
the facts and law are already mentioned in the Court of
Appeals' opinion."
Prudential Bank v Castro
- The Constitutional mandate that "no . . . motion for
reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be . . .
denied without stating the legal basis therefor" is
inapplicable in administrative cases. And even if it were,
said Resolution stated the legal basis for the denial and,
therefore, adhered faithfully to the Constitutional
requirement. "Lack of merit," which was one of the
grounds for denial, is a legal basis.
-(certification issue) The requirement of a certification
refers to decisions to judicial cases and not to
administrative cases. Besides, since the decision was a
per curiam decision, a formal certification is not
required.
Oil and Natural Gas Commission v Court of Appeals
- The constitutional mandate that no decision shall be
rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly
and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based
does not preclude the validity of "memorandum
decisions" which adopt by reference the findings of fact
and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of
inferior tribunals.
SECTION 14 (not 16)
Valdez v Court of Appeals
- The (lower) court statement in the decision that a party
has proven his case while the other has not, is not the
findings of facts contemplated by the Constitution and

the rules to be clearly and distinctly stated.

- This Court has said again and again that it is not a trier
of facts and that it relies, on the factual findings of the
lower court and the appellate court which are
conclusive.

resolutions of the Civil Service Commission shall be

appealable to the Court of Appeals. In any event,
whether under the old rule or the present rule, Regional
Trial Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain cases
involving dismissal of officers and employees covered
by the Civil Service Law.

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
A. COMMON PROVISIONS
Section 2
Aruelo v. CA
TUPAS v. NHC
The rule of the Commission should prevail if the
proceeding is before a Commission. But if the
proceeding is before a court, the Rules of Court
prevails. (Sec. 6)
Cua v. Comelec
The 2-1 decision rendered by the First Division was a
valid decision under Article IX-A, Section 7 of the
Constitution. (Sec.7)
Vital-Gozon v. CA
Execution of the Civil Service Commission's decision
should have been ordered and effected by the
Commission itself, when de la Fuente filed a motion
therefor. It declined to do so, however, on the alleged
ground, as de la Fuente claims he was told, that it "had
no coercive powers unlike a court to enforce its final
decisions/resolutions." That proposition, communicated
to de la Fuente, of the Commission's supposed lack of
coercive power to enforce its final judgments, is
incorrect. It is inconsistent with previous acts of the
Commission of actually directing execution of its
decisions and resolutions, which this Court has
sanctioned in several cases; and it is not in truth a
correct assessment of its powers under the Constitution
and the relevant laws

Civil service now covers only government-owned or

controlled corporations with original or legislative
charters, that is those created by an act of Congress or
by special law, and not those incorporated under and
pursuant to a general legislation.
NHC is not covered by civil service so its employees
undoubtedly have the right to form unions or employees'
organizations. The right to unionize or to form
organizations is now explicitly recognized and granted
to employees in both the governmental and the private
sectors.
De los Santos v. Mallare
The office of city engineer is neither primarily
confidential, policy-determining, nor highly technical.
These positions mentioned are excluded from the merit
system and dismissal at pleasure of officers and
employees appointed therein is allowed by the
Constitution. Thus, the city engineer cannot be removed
without just cause.
Salazar v. Mathay
The tenure of officials holding primarily confidential
positions ends upon loss of confidence because their
term of office lasts only as long as confidence in them
endures.
Corpus v. Cuaderno

Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v. Ferrer

While it may be true that the lower court has the
jurisdiction over controversies dealing with the
COMELEC's award of contracts, the same being purely
administrative and civil in nature, nevertheless, herein
petitioner has no cause of action on the basis of the
allegations of its complaint.
"The Commission on Elections shall have exclusive
charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws
relative to the conduct of elections and shall exercise all
other functions which may be conferred upon it by law. It
shall decide, save those involving the right to vote, all
administrative questions affecting elections, including
the determination of the number of location of polling
places, and the appointment of election inspectors and
of other election officials . . . The decisions, orders and
rulings of the Commission shall be subject to review by
the Supreme Court."
Mateo v. CA
The hiring and firing of employees of governmentowned and controlled corporations are governed by the
provisions of the Civil Service Law and Rules and
Regulations.
SC Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95. Final

Highly technical employees cannot be removed by

reason of lack or loss of confidence by the one making
the appointment.
Luego v. Civil Service Commission
The CSC has no authority to disapprove or revoke a
permanent appointment on the ground that another
person is better qualified than the appointee. The CSC
is not empowered to determine the kind or nature of the
appointment extended by the appointing officer, its
authority being limited to approving or reviewing the
appointment in the light of the requirements of the Civil
Service Law. Approval is more appropriately called an
attestation, that is, of the fact that the appointee is
qualified for the position to which he has been named.
Province of Camarines Sur v. CA
Lack of civil service eligibility makes an appointment
temporary; thus, the appointment is revocable at any
time (without a fixed and definite term) or dependent
upon the pleasure of the appointing power. Obtaining
the civil service legibility later on does not ipso facto
convert a temporary appointment into a permanent one.
SSS Employees Association v. CA

The right of government employees to organize does

not include the right to strike.

pending appeal.

Section 7

Section 3

Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary

Sarmiento vs. Comelec

While all other appointive officials in the civil service are

allowed to hold other office or employment in the
government during their tenure when such is allowed by
tlaw and the primary function of their office, Cabinet
members, their deputies, and assistants may only do so
when expressly authorized by the Constitution itself.
Flores v. Drilon
The proviso which states, Provided, however, that for
the first year of its operations from the effectivity of this
Act, the mayor of the City of Olongapo shall be
appointed as the chairman and chief executive officer of
the Subic Authority, violates the constitutional
prohibition against appointment or designation of
elective officials to other government posts.
Section 8
Quimson v. Ozaeta
The employment of a person as an agent collector is not
itself unlawful because there is no incompatibility
between aid appointment and his employment as
Deputy Provincial Treasurer and Municipal Treasurer.
There is no legal objection to government official
occupying two government offices and performing
functions to both as long as there is no incompatibility.
The Constitutional prohibition refers to double
appointments and performance of functions of more
than one office.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Section 1
Cayetano v. Monsod
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court,
which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the
practice of law is to perform those acts which are
characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice
law is to give notice or render any kind of service which
device or service requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill.
Brillantes v. Yorac
The President has no authority to make designation of a
Comelec Chairman in an Acting Capacity. The choice of
temporary Chairman in the absence of the regular
chairman comes under the discretion of the Comelec. It
cannot be exercised by the President. A designation As
Acting Chairman is by its very terms essentially
temporary and therefore revocable at will. No cause
need be established to justify its revocation.
Lindo v. Comelec
Comelecs statement that fake and spurious ballots may
have been introduced to increase the votes of protestant
cannot be made a basis for denying the execution

Pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. 7166, it provides:

"All pre-proclamation cases pending before the
Commission shall be deemed terminated at the
beginning of the term of the office involved and the
rulings of the boards of canvassers concerned shall be
deemed affirmed, without prejudice to the filing of a
regular election protest by the aggrieved party.
However, proceedings may continue when on the basis
of the evidence thus far presented, the Commission
determines that the petition appears meritorious and
accordingly issues an order for the proceeding to
continue or when an appropriate order has been issued
by the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari."
Reyes vs. RTC of Oriental Mindoro
All
election
cases,
including
pre-proclamation
controversies, must be decided by the COMELEC in
division. Should a party be dissatisfied with the decision,
he may file a motion for reconsideration before the
COMELEC en banc. It is, therefore, the decision, order
or ruling of the COMELEC en banc that, in accordance
with Art. IX, A, Section 7, "may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari."
Section 4
National Press Club vs. Comelec
The Comelec has also been granted the right to
supervise and regulate the exercise by media
practitioners themselves of their right to expression
during plebiscite periods. Media practitioners exercising
their freedom of expression during plebiscite periods are
neither the franchise holders nor the candidates. In fact,
there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite.
Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines
vs GMA
It is argued that the power to supervise or regulate given
to the COMELEC under Art. IX-C, Section 4 of the
Constitution does not include the power to prohibit. In
the first place, what the COMELEC is authorized to
supervise or regulate by Art. IX-C, Section 4 of the
Constitution, among other things, is the use by media of
information of their franchises or permits, while what
Congress (not the COMELEC) prohibits is the sale or
donation of print space or air time for political ads. In
other words, the object of supervision or regulation is
different from the object of the prohibition. It is another
fallacy for petitioners to contend that the power to
regulate does not include the power to prohibit. This
may have force if the object of the power were the
same.
Adiong vs. COMELEC
The posting of decals and stickers on cars, calesas,
tricycles, pedicabs and other moving vehicles needs the
consent of the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the

preference of the citizen becomes crucial in this kind of

election propaganda not the financial resources of the
candidate. Whether the candidate is rich and, therefore,
can afford to doleout more decals and stickers or poor
and without the means to spread out the number of
decals and stickers is not as important as the right of the
owner to freely express his choice and exercise his right
of free speech. The owner can even prepare his own
decals or stickers for posting on his personal property.
To strike down this right and enjoin it is impermissible
encroachment of his liberties.
Sanidad vs. COMELEC
Comelec spaces and Comelec radio time may provide a
forum for expression but they do not guarantee full
dissemination of information to the public concerned
because they are limited to either specific portions in
newspapers or to specific radio or television times.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
SECTION 2
GUEVARA VS GIMENEZ
The Auditor-General has no madate to disapprove
expenditures which in his opinion are excessive and
extravagant. His authority is limited to the auditing in
expenditures of funds and properties. such function is
limited to a determination of whether there is a law
appropriating funds for a given purpose; whether a
contract entered made by the proper officer has been
entered in conformity with the said appropriation law;
whether the goods and services covered by the said
contract have been delivered or rendered in pursuance
thereof, as attested by the proper officer; and whether
payment therefore has been authorized by the officials
of the corresponding department or bureau. If these
requirements have been fulfilled, it is the ministerial duty
of the Auditor General to approve and pass in audit the
voucher and treasury warrant for said payment. No
discretion to disapprove said payment on the ground
that contract was unwise or unreasonable.
OROCIO VS COA
To determine whether an expenditure of a government
agency or instrumentality is irregular, unnecessary,
excessive, extravagant and unconscionable, the COA
should not be bound by the opinion of the legal counsel
of a particular agency. Legal counsel can only offer
legal advice.
OSMENA VS COA
A compromise agreement between a municipal
corporation (Cebu City) and the parents of victim
(Spouses dela Cerna) was constitutional.
The
participation of the city in an amicable settlement and
eventual execution of a compromise is indubitable within
the power and authority of a municipal corporation.

Notably, the compromise agreement was submitted to

its legislative council, which approved it conformably
with its established rules and procedure.
SAMBELI VS PROVINCE OF ISABELA
COA has the regulatory power to ensure that
government funds and properties are fully protected and
conserved and that irregular unnecessary, excessive, or
extravagant expenditures or uses of funds owned by, or
pertaining to the Government or any of its subdivisions,
agencies of instrumentalities are prevented.
BUSTAMANTE VS COA
Discretion exercised by COA in the denial of the appeal
(on the decision of a Regional Auditor) is within its
power. Also, conclusions of a Board of Directors of a
government-owned and controlled corporation in
safeguarding the proper use of the governments and
peoples property cannot prevail over the constitutional
mandate on COA.
SALIGUMBA VS COA
Supreme Courts power to review COA decisions refers
to money matters and not to administrative cases (rape
case vs. auditing examiner-respondent) involving the
discipline of its personnel.
SECTION 3
PHIL AIRLINES VS COA (more on section 2)
COA has the exclusive authority, subject to limitations,
to define the scope of its audit and examination,
establish the techniques and methods required
therefore. COA can adopt as its own, simply by
reiteration or by reference, without the necessity of
repromulgation, already existing rules and regulations.
It may also expand the coverage thereof to agencies or
instrumentalities under its audit jurisdiction. COA can
advised PAL to desist from bidding the its fuel upon
expiration of contracts
BAGATSING VS COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION
COA, the agency that adopted the rules on bidding
procedure to be followed by government offices and
corporations, upheld the legality of bidding although
there is only one offeror (2 were disqualified- bid below
floor price and technical reasons) since the COA
Circular does not speak of accepted bids but of offerors,
without distinction as to whether they were disqualified.
The interpretation of an agency of its own rules should
be given more weight than the interpretation by the
agency of the law it is merely tasked to administer.