ARTICLE I: National Territory

Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea[1], is a belt of coastal waters extending at most twelve nautical miles
from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is
regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (both military and
civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it; this sovereignty also extends to the
airspace over and seabed below.
The term "territorial waters" is also sometimes used informally to describe any area of
water over which a state has jurisdiction, including internal waters, the contiguous zone,
the exclusive economic zone and potentially the continental shelf.
BASELINE: Normally, the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured is the lowwater line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the
coastal state. This is either the low-water mark closest to the shore, or alternatively it may
be an unlimited distance from permanently exposed land, provided that some portion of
elevations exposed at low tide but covered at high tide (like mud flats) is within 12 nautical
miles (22 km) of permanently exposed land. Straight baselines can alternatively be defined
connecting fringing islands along a coast, across the mouths of rivers, or with certain
restrictions across the mouths of bays. In this case, a bay is defined as "a well-marked
indentation whose penetration is in such proportion to the width of its mouth as to contain
land-locked waters and constitute more than a mere curvature of the coast. An indentation
shall not, however, be regarded as a bay unless its area is as large as, or larger than, that of
the semi-circle whose diameter is a line drawn across the mouth of that indentation". The
baseline across the bay must also be no more than 24 nautical miles (44 km) in length.
INTERNAL WATERS: Waters landward of the baseline are defined as internal waters, over
which the state has complete jurisdiction: not even innocent passage is allowed. Lakes and
rivers are considered internal waters, as are all "archipelagic waters" within the outermost
islands of an archipelagic state such as Indonesia or the Philippines.
TERRITORIAL SEA: A state's territorial sea extends up to 12 nautical miles (22 km) from
its baseline. If this would overlap with another state's territorial sea, the border is taken as
the median point between the states' baselines, unless the states in question agree
otherwise. A state can also choose to claim a smaller territorial sea.
Conflicts still occur whenever a coastal nation claims an entire gulf as its territorial waters
while other nations only recognize the more restrictive definitions of the UN convention.
Two recent conflicts occurred in the Gulf of Sidra where Libya has claimed the entire gulf
as its territorial waters and the U.S. has twice enforced freedom of navigation rights (Gulf
of Sidra incident (1981), Gulf of Sidra incident (1989)).

CONTIGUOUS ZONE: The contiguous zone is a band of water extending from the outer
edge of the territorial sea to up to 24 nautical miles (44 km) from the baseline, within
which a state can exert limited control for the purpose of preventing or punishing
"infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its
territory or territorial sea". This will typically be 12 nautical miles (22 km) wide, but could
be more (if a state has chosen to claim a territorial sea of less than 12 nautical miles), or
less, if it would otherwise overlap another state's contiguous zone. However, unlike the
territorial sea there is no standard rule for resolving such conflicts, and the states in
question must negotiate their own compromise. The United States invoked a contiguous
zone on 24 September 1999.[2]
CONTINENTAL SHELF: Article 76[4] gives the legal definition of continental shelf of
coastal countries. For the physical geography definition, see the continental shelf page.
The continental shelf of a coastal nation extends out to the outer edge of the continental
margin but at least 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the baselines of the territorial sea if
the continental margin does not stretch that far. The outer limit of a country's continental
shelf shall not stretch beyond 350 nautical miles (648 km) of the baseline, or beyond
100 nautical miles (185 km) from the 2,500 meter isobath, which is a line connecting the
depths of the seabed at 2,500 meters.
The outer edge of the continental margin for the purposes of this article is defined as:
a series of lines joining points not more than 60 nautical miles (111 km) apart where the
thickness of sedimentary rocks is at least 1% of the height of the continental shelf
above the foot of the continental slope; or
a series of lines joining points not more than 60 nautical miles apart that is not more than
60 nautical miles from the foot of the continental margin.
The foot of the continental slope is determined as the point of maximum change in the
gradient at its base.
The portion of the continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile limit is also known as the
extended continental shelf. Countries wishing to delimit their outer continental shelf
beyond 200 nautical miles have to submit information on their claim to the Commission on

matters related to the establishment of the outer limits of their continental shelf. The limits

Government to provide for general welfare. Government entrusted to be responsible for

coping with social and economic problems with commensurate power of control over
economic affairs: live up to commitment of promoting general welfare through state action.

established based on these recommendations shall be final and binding.

Republic vs. Judge of CFI Rizal

Countries were supposed to lodge their submissions to extend their continental shelf
beyond 200 nautical miles within 10 years of UNCLOS coming into force in the country, or
by 13 May 2009 for countries where the convention had come into force before 13 May
1999. As of 1 June 2009, 51 submissions have been lodged with the Commission, of which
8 have been deliberated by the Commission and have had recommendations issued. The 8
are (in the order of date of submission): Russian Federation; Brazil; Australia; Ireland; New
Zealand; the joint submission by France, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom; Norway
and Mexico. A coastal nation has control of all resources on or under its continental shelf,
living or not, but no control over any living organisms above the shelf that are beyond its
exclusive economic zone. This gives it the right to conduct petroleum drilling works and
lay submarine cables or pipelines in its continental shelf.

The rice and Corn Administration is a government agency without a distinct and separate
legal personality from that of the Republic of the Philippines.

the Limits of the Continental Shelf. The Commission must make recommendations on

VFP vs. Reyes

Public Office the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a
given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an
individual is vested with some portion of sovereign functions of the government, to be
exercised by him for the benefit of the public.

Section 1: Philippines as a democratic and republican State

Office (distinguished from employment or contract) the creation and conferring of an

office involves a delegation to the individual of some of the sovereign functions of the
government, for the benefit of the public; that some portion of the sovereign function of the
country, either legislative, executive or judicial, attaches, for the time being, to be exercised
for the public benefit.

Bacani vs. NACOCO

MIAA vs. CA

Government Functions: (revised Admin. Code) refers only to government entity through
which the function of the government are exercised as an attribute of sovereignty, and in
this are included those arms to the government through w/c political authority is made
effective whether they be provincial, municipal or other form of local government. These
are what we call municipal corporations. They do not include government entities which
are given a corporate personality separate and distinct from the government and which are
governed by the Corporation law. Their powers, duties and liabilities have to be determined
in the light of that law and their corporate charters.

GOCC a stock or non-stock corporation, vested with functions relating to the public
needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the government
directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or where applicable (for stock
corps.), to the extent of at least 51% of its capital stock.

Article II

ACCFA vs. CUGCO

Governmental functions:
1) constituent the very bonds of society and are compulsory
2) ministrant undertaken only by way of advancing the general interest of society;
optional.
Land reform program governmental function and cannot be undertaken by any private
enterprise (no capacity).
PVTA vs. CIR

(MIAA as a government instrumentality) Instrumentality defined as any agency of the

National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special
functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers,
administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter.
Ramiscal vs. Sandiganbayan
AFP-RSBS a GOCC and its funds are in the nature of public funds. Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction over offenses committed by presidents, directors, trustees or managers of
GOCCs. What charges to file, and who are to be charged are matters addressed to the
discretion of the Ombudsman.
Alzaga vs. Sandiganbayan
The character and operations of the AFP-RSBS are imbued with public interest thus the
same is a government entity and its funds are in the nature of public funds. (similar to the
GSIS)

PSPCA vs. COA

GOCCs are subject to the control or supervision of the State (unlike PSPCA). A juridical
entity impressed with public interest does not make the entity a public corporation. The true
criterion to determine whether a corporation is public or private is found in the totality of
the relation of the corporation to the State. If it is created by the State as its own agency or
instrumentality to help in carrying out its governmental functions, then that corporation is
considered public; otherwise, it is private.
Serana vs. Sandiganbayan
A UP Student Regent is a public officer. It is not a natural right. It exists, when it exists at
all only because and by virtue of some law expressly or impliedly creating or conferring it.
Compensation is not an essential element of public office. It is merely incidental to the
public office. Delegation of sovereign functions is essential in public office. An investment
on an individual of some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be
exercised by him for the benefit of the public makes one a public officer. The
administration of UP is a sovereign function of the State. (Art. XIV)
De Jure and De Facto Government
Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh
Kinds of de facto government: 1) government that gets possession and control of, or
usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal government and
maintains itself against the will of the latter (like England under the Commonwealth); 2)
established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the
enemy in the course of war, and which is denominated a government of paramount force
(like Castine in Maine and Tampico, Mexico); 3) established as an independent government
by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent State (like the
Southern Confederacy).
Distinguishing characteristics of the 2nd kind of de facto government: 1) its existence is
maintained by active military power within the territories and against the rightful authority
of an established and lawful government; 2) while it exists it must necessarily be obeyed in
civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such
force, do not become responsible, as wrongdoers, for those acts, though not warranted by
the laws of the rightful government.
Letter of Associate justice Puno
Revolution the complete overthrow of the established government in any country or state
by those who were previously subject to it.; sudden, radical and fundamental change in the
government or political system, usually effected with violence or at least some acts of
violence; occurs whenever the legal order of a community is nullified and replaced by a
new order away not prescribed by the first order itself.

The Aquino government was revolutionary government due to the fact that it was
established in defiance of the existing legal processes. It was a revamp of the Judiciary and
the Military signaled the point when the legal system then in effect, had ceased to be
obeyed by the Filipino. (De Facto Government).
People vs. Gozo
The Philippines has authority over its entire domain. There is no portion of it that is beyond
its power. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws
govern therein and apply to all. The extent of its jurisdiction is both territorial and personal.
A State may allow another to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional right over certain
portions of its territory (auto-limitation) but these areas do not retain an alien character, but
remain as native soil.
Section 2: International Law and Philippine Municipal Law
Tanada vs. Angara
The principles in Art. 2 are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for the
enforcement of the courts. They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the
exercise of its power of judicial review. They do not embody judicially enforceable rights
but guidelines for legislation. A law should be passed by Congress to clearly define and
effectuate such principles. GATT as international law needs to be ratified to be transformed
into municipal law.
Bayan vs. Zamora
As long as the VFA possesses the elements of an agreement under international law, the
said agreement is to be taken equally as a treaty, which is an international instrument
concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether
embodied in a single instrument or in 2 or more related instruments, and whatever it
particular designation. In international law, there is no difference between treaties and
executive agreements in their binding effect upon states concerned, as long as the
negotiating functionaries have remained within their powers. In this, jurisdiction, we have
recognized the binding effect of executive agreements even without the concurrence of the
Senate or Congress.
Lim vs. Exec. Sec.
A party to a treaty is not allowed to invoke its internal law as justification for its failure to
perform a treaty. A treaty is favored over municipal law pursuant to the principle of pacta
sunt servanda. Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed
by them in good faith. The VFA gives legitimacy to the Balikatan Exercises.
Mijares vs. Ranada

There is no obligatory rule derived from treaties or conventions that requires the
Philippines to recognize foreign judgments, or allow a procedure for the enforcement
thereof.
Shagri-La vs. Developers
Pharmaceutical vs. Duque III

The fundamental theory of liberty exclude any general power to standardize its children by
forcing them to accept instruction from public school teachers only.
Wisconsin vs. Yoder
Only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can over-balance
the primary interest of parents in the religious upbringing of their children.

Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the law of the land
either by transformation or incorporation. Transformation requires that the international
law be transformed into domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local
legislation. Incorporation applies, when by mere constitutional declaration , international
law is deemed to have force and effect of domestic law. Treaties become part of the law of
the land through transformation, by concurrence of 2/3 majority vote of the members of
Senate.

Inherent duty of the state to act as parens patriae (parent of the STATE).

Section 3: Civilian Supremacy

Ginsburg vs. New York

IBP vs. Zamora

The knowledge that parental control cannot always be provided and societys transcendent
interest in protecting the welfare of the children justify reasonable regulation of the sale of
material to them.

Orders which resemble the functions of aid by the AFP already present and existent within
the functions of society such as elections, national exams, relief and rescue operations and
projects of the Red Cross, are not violative of civilian supremacy.

Schools may take disciplinary action when:

1.

violations of school policies in connection with school sponsored activities

2.

misconduct affecting students status or good name or reputation of the school.

Section 16: Right to a balanced and healthful ecology

Section 5: Maintenance of Peace and Order

Opposa vs. Factoran

Kilosbayan vs. Morato

Intergenerational justice and responsibility: Section 16 one of the few self-executing

principles in Article 2.

The principles in Article 2 do not embody self-executing constitutional rights, but mere
guidelines for legislation and aid for the judiciary.

LLDA vs. CA

Section 12: Family life, mother, unborn

Roe vs. Wade
On the basis of the right to privacy, abortion was legalized up to the 6 th month of
pregnancy. The constitutional provision bars any application of the Roe vs. wade decision
in this jurisdiction.
Meyer vs. Nebraska
Education should always be diligently promoted as it has always been regarded as a matter
of supreme importance. It is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education
suitable to his station in life. Rights of parents are superior to the State.
Pierce vs. Society of Sister

It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary requirements of due process yield to

the necessities of protecting vital public interests like the protection of the safety, health
and general welfare and comfort of the public, as well as the protection of plant and animal
life: through the exercise of police power.
Section 19: Self-reliant and independent national economy
Garcia vs. BOI
The State shall develop self-reliant and independent national economy effectively
controlled by Filipinos. The government must run its affairs the way it deems best for the
national interest, without any external influence or control.
Tanada vs. Angara

Independence refers to freedom from undue foreign control of the national economy
especially in such strategic industries as in the development of natural resources and public
utilities. It does not prohibit competition, so long as it is fair and reasonable. Some amount
of competition would be beneficial for the consumers, as well as producers.
Section 26: Equal access to political opportunities and political dynasties
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 the
law. Equality is not sacrificed so long as the burdens engendered by the limitations are
meant to be borne be any one who is minded to file a certificate of candidacy.
Article VI
Powers of Congress: plenary: article XVI authorizes Congress to pass law to change name
of country, national anthem or national flag; subject to ratification by the people.
VALID DELEGATION
Legislative/ Law making
Legislative <->

Executive

Law

Implementing Rules and Regulations

2. Reasonableness of means
Araneta vs. Gatmaitan EO 22, 66 and 88
The legislature has the discretion to what the law should be while the executive has the
authority or discretion to the execution of such laws, provided that the execution be
exercised under and in pursuance of the law.
Any fishing net or fishing device Protect fish fry and fish eggs (under fisheries law)
Fish trawl destroys fish fry and fish eggs and comes under Any fishing net or fishing
device
People vs. Maceren
The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an executive official the power to declare what
acts should constitute a criminal offense. It can only authorize the issuance of regulations
and the imposition of the penalty provided for in the law itself. An administrative agency
cannot amend an act of Congress.
obnoxious and poisonous substance under fisheries law prohibited
Fisheries Administrative 84 Prohibits electro fishing (created by sec. of Agriculture and
Natural resources, and Commissioner of Fisheries)
-

Penalizes something that is not included in the law that created it (fisheries law)

Law-making <-> Rule-making

Test of completeness and Sufficient standard test

Principle of non-delegability of Legislative Power

Ad. 84 goes beyond the fisheries law: added the criminalization of electro fishing

<->

People v. Rosenthal Blue Sky Law

Agustin vs. Edu

The executive has the power of subordinate legislation, insofar as it interprets the laws
were it is based, and not going beyond and enacting laws. Moreover, this enhances
convenience and promotes specialization through the administrative bodies.

To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, which implies at the
very least that the legislative itself determines matters of principle and lays down
fundamental policy. Otherwise, the charge of complete abdication may be heard to repel. A
standard thus defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and
specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the
legislative command is to be effected. It is the criterion by which legislative purpose may
be carried out. Thereafter, the executive or administrative office designated may in
pursuance of the above guidelines promulgate supplemental rules and regulations. The
standard may be either express or implied. If the former, the non-delegation objection is
easily met. The standard though does not have to be spelled out specifically. It could be
implied from the policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole. In the Reflector Law,
clearly the legislative objective is public safety.

Substantive shares- under insular treasurer

Not undue delegation: standard of public interest
Delegation to be made: sufficient standard to define rules and regulations
Laws constitutional basis:
1. Public purpose

EWD LOI 229 and 479

Memorandum Circular No. 32

Order 52: creation of NMAT for standardization

Standard Public Safety

Guingona v. Carague

Vienna Convention for Road Signs and Signals

Delegation of Legislative Powers: The legislature does not abdicate its function when it
describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his authority. The
power to make laws and to alter and repeal them CANNOT be delegated.

Free Telephone Workers vs. Min. of labor

What cannot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make laws and to alter
and repeal them; the test is the completeness of the statute in all its term and provisions
when it leaves the hands of the legislature. SC furthered that there lies a distinction
between the (1) delegation of power to make the laws that necessarily involves a discretion
as to what it shall be (law-making powers of the Congress) and (2) delegation of authority
as to its execution to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law (law-execution powers
of administrative bodies). This principle of non-delegation is in response to the
complexities of modern governments giving rise to the adoption, within certain limits, of
the principle of subordinate legislation.
Min of Labor resolve labor disputes -> compulsory arbitration of NLRC
Eastern Shipping vs. POEA
With the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant of peculiar problems, the
national legislature has found it more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the
authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute. This is called the
power of subordinate legislation.
Memorandum Circular No. 2 implementation
Standard: fair and equitable employment practice
No contract bet employer and employee POEA to protect the employee
Tablarin vs. Gutierrez
With the growing complexities of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of
governmental regulation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a
constantly growing tendency toward the delegation of greater power by the legislature, and
toward the approval of the practice by the courts. As regards the issue of failing to establish
the necessary standards, the court believes that standards have indeed been set, as can be
found in Section 1 of the 1959 Medical Act: the standardization and regulation of medical
education.
RA 2382 created the Board of Medical Education
Standard: standardization and regulation of the Medical education: power to determine and
prescribe requirements for the admission into Med schools

Completeness of Law: The law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions
when it leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do when it
reaches him except to execute and enforce it.
Budget Appropriation books of treasury determine the appropriation for debt
Total amount of debt along with interests and other fees standard to be used
Conference vs. POEA
POEA Resolution to increase seamen compensation and benefits
Osmena vs. Orbos
For a valid delegation of power, it is essential that the law delegating the power must
be
(1) Complete in itself, that it must set forth the policy to be executed by the
delegate and
(2) It must fix a standardlimits of which are sufficiently determinate or
determinableto which the delegate must conform.
The standard of legislative delegation must be express or implied. If the former, the nondelegation objection is easily met. The standard though does not have to be spelled out
specifically. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act considered as a
whole. What the law intended was to permit the additional imposts for as long as there
exists a need to protect the general public and the petroleum industry from the adverse
consequences of pump rate fluctuations.
OPSF Created by Marcos reimburse oil companies of the changes in the price to
stabilize prices for consumers
Oil Producers -> Market forces change prices -> imported to Philippines
Viola vs. Alunan
Local Government Code provides National Liga authority to create positions, as it may
deem necessary.
Fernandez v. Sto Tomas

Authority to reorganize civil service commission

Bayan v. Ermita

Standard: decentralization for efficiency and responsiveness in the management of the

agencies

BP No. 880 permits for rallies: issued by the Mayor, clear and present danger standard for
issuance

Not create and abolish but to reorganize: revised administrative code

The delegation to the mayors of the power to issue rally permits is valid because it is
subject to the constitutionally-sound clear and present danger standard.

Chiongbian v. Orbos
RA 6734 ARMM plebiscite: 4 provinces for creation of autonomous region
President given power to merge the remaining regions: sufficient standard: efficient
administration implied in another law

Gerochi vs. DOE

Constitutionality of EPIRA and Universal Charge
Undue Delegation Power of tax: UC not a tax but exercise of Police power

Rodrigo vs. Sandiganbayan

Complete: amount of universal charge is based on guidelines provided in EPIRA

DBM given authority to fill in the details of the salary grade, classification

Sufficient Standard: total electrification, viability of power industry, electricity made

affordable

Not undue delegation: standards given

Abakada v. Ermita
Vat 10% to 12%, following certain criteria
President, through the Secretary of Finance, given criteria to ascertain facts of the situation
in relation to the implementation of the increase. The case is not a delegation of legislative
power but a delegation of ascertainment of facts upon which the enforcement and
administration of the increase rate under the law is contingent. The legislature has made the
12% rate contingent upon a specified fact or condition, which is outside of the control of
the executive. Thus, there is no discretion that is exercised by the President. The court cited
Wayman vs. Southward: The power to ascertain facts is such a power which may be
delegated. There is nothing essentially legislative in ascertaining the existence of facts or
conditions as the basis of the taking into effect of law The ground for this that legislature
has determined that under given circumstances, certain executive or administrative action is
to be taken and that under other circumstances, different or no action at all is to be taken.
What is left to the administration is not legislative determination of what public policy
demands but simply an ascertainment of what the facts of the case require to be done
according to the terms of the law by which he is governed.

ABAKADA vs. Purisima

BIR and BOC: system of rewards and sanctions
Revenue targets given by DBCC; employees covered by the civil service commission and
contracts of the employees
UNDUE DELEGATION
People vs. Vera
Probation Act will only be applied to provinces which provide salaries for probation
officers
Not complete in itself w/n having probation officers under discretion of the provincial
board
Not sufficient standard arbitrary standard given
People vs. Barrias

Beltran v. Sec. of Health

The penalty must not be left to the administrative agency, but must be provided by statute.

RA 7719 Voluntary Blood Donation and regulate blood banks

People vs. Panlilio

Public Health sufficient guideline. There is a valid exercise of police power if (a) public
interest requires state interference, and (b) the means employed are necessary to the
attainment of such objectives. in this regard the interests of the owners/operators of the
CBBs must give way to the higher interest of the people.

Act No. 1760 not criminalizing act

May be charged under other law: Penal Code

People vs. Dacuycuy

Law imposes fine, but no terms of imprisonment Minimum, medium and maximum
sentence depending on the circumstances of the crime (mitigating, etc.)

Encroahment of the legislative into the realm of judiciary: decision is judiciary in nature as
it involves the interpretation and application of the RA unto the IRR.
Tatad vs. Sec of DOE

Judge given legal discretion - circumstances in the crime = penalty to be imposed

RA 8180 Deregulating the Downstream Oil Industry

Act 296 less than 3000.00 php

2 phases: trasition

Cebu Oxygen vs. Drilon

Full deregulation: implementation should be based on two criteria:

RA 6470 increasing minimum wage = implementing rules

1.

global oil prices decline

Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

2.

US-Peso exchange rate stable

EO 626 A: prohibition on inter-province transport of carabao and cara-beef.

as may deem necessary gives legislative power to officers: arbitrary
Implementing rules cannot add or detract from the provisions of law it designed to
implement.
Pharmaceutical and Health Care Assoc. vs. Duque III
EO No. 51 (Milk Code) legislative power under freedom consti: Pres. Aquino
WHO promote the use of breastmilk; Milk Code promote the use of breastmilk; DOH

EO 372 implemented full deregulation adding additional criteria: depletion of OPSF:

void: executive misapplication. Congress has to rely more on the practice of delegating the
execution of laws to the executive and other administrative agencies, as society becomes
more complex. According to jurisprudence, there are two tests to determine, whether it is a
valid delegation 1) the completeness test, and, 2) the sufficient standard test.
Congress: Senate and House of Representatives
HoR: 2 ways to run: (3 year term, 3 consecutive terms) = 250 members unless otherwise
provided by law
1.

District representative natural-born, at least 25 years old, read and write,

registered voter of the district, resident of same district at least one year
preceding the day of the election

2.

Party-list representative

International law Soft Law and hard Law: WHO soft law, regulation: has to be enacted
into local regulation before it becomes binding
There was a defect RIRR invalidated: provided a ban on advertisement on milk
substitutes, but the law, does not provide for a total ban, only the international law was
followed
International soft law must first be enacted into a local regulation before it can be followed
by any agency
Milk Code provides the local enactment of the soft law and it is what should have been
followed

Senate: term of 6 years, re-election for 2 consecutive terms only

Election: 6 years for first 12, 3 years for latter 12 = 24 members
Section 5: Composition of the HoR = 80% district representatives + 20% party-list
representatives
Barangay vs. COMELEC

ABAKADA vs. Purisima

Standards for apportioning seats for Party-list Representatives

BIR and BOC System of rewards RA 9335, section 12: creation of the Joint
Congressional Oversight Committee for approval of IRR of the RA.

20% composition : merely a ceiling, not mandatory to fill in all seats: merely reserved for
PLR
Ang Bagong Bayani vs. COMELEC

Characteristics of a party-list: (guideline for COMELEC)

1.

must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups

2.

must comply with declared statutory policy of enabling Filipinos belonging to

marginalized and underrepresented sectors be elected in the HoR.

3.

Must not represent a religious sect

4.

Must not be disqualified under section 6 of RA 7941

5.

Party or org must not be an adjunct of or a project organized by the

government

RA 8583: Novaliches as a city: certification as to income, population and area not fatal:
statements of NSO, Bureau of Local Government Finance, and Land
Montejo vs. COMELEC
COMELC res. No 2736: change legislative district of Capoocan and Palompon:
COMELEC only to make minor adjustments
Legislative district can only be apportioned by legislative i.e. congress
Herrera vs. COMELEC
Province of Guimaras made into 4th class province

6.

Party must comply with requirements, as well as its nominees under section 9
RA 7941

Districting based on number of inhabitants: not reapportionment: can be undertaken by

COMELEC (districting)

7.

Nominee must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector

Sema vs. COMELEC

8.

Nominee must be able to contribute to the formulation of legislation

RLA RA 9054: power to create province, cities, etc.

AKLAT vs. COMELEC

AKLAT re-disqualified: did not meet qualifications mentioned in the bagong bayani case
Tobias vs. Abalos
RA 7675: Mandaluyong into an urbanized city: create own legislative district and a new
legislative district of San Juan: reapportionment
Gerrymandering creation of a new legislative district to increase possible number of
voters for elections, contrary to the guideline of contiguous, compact and adjacent
territory.
Consti one province at least on representative
Not gerrymandering rep who issued RA will actually be made to lose part of his district:
contiguous, compact and adjacent territory

Creation of the province of Shariff Kabunsan: the power to create provinces inherently
involves the power to create legislative districts. However, under the present Constitution,
the power to increase the allowable membership in the House of Representatives, as well as
the power to reapportion legislative districts, is vested exclusively in Congress (by virtue of
Sections 5, (1), (3) and (4) of Article 6). This textual commitment to Congress of the
exclusive power to create or reapportion legislative districts is logical. Congress is a
national legislature and any increase in its allowable membership or in its incumbent
membership through the creation of legislative districts must be embodied in a national
law. It would be anomalous for regional or local legislative bodies to create or reapportion
legislative districts for a national legislature like Congress. An inferior legislative body,
created by a superior legislative body, cannot change the membership of the superior
legislative body.
Bagabuyo vs. COMELEC
Legislative apportionment representation in the HoR

Criteria: population (250,000) and, income or area

Reapportionment is brought about by changes in population and mandated by the

constitutional requirement of equal representation. Hence, emphasis is given to the number
of people represented; the uniform and progressive ratio to be observed among the
representative districts; and accessibility and commonality of interests in terms of each
district being, as far as practicable, continuous, compact and adjacent territory. In terms of
the people represented, every city with at least 250,000 people and every province
(irrespective of population) is entitled to one representative.

Samson vs. Aguirre

Section 6

Mariano vs. COMELEC

RA 7854: Municipality of Makati into a highly urbanized city
Valid: reapportionment thru special law: duty of congress to reapportion

Bengson vs. COMELEC

Section 7: term of representatives

Repatriation oath of allegiance, which reinstates previous status as a Filipino: naturalborn in Tarlac

Dimaporo vs. Mitra, Jr.

Aquino vs. COMELEC

BP Blg. 881 forfeiture or voluntary giving up of ones tenure, due to the act of filing of
certificate of candidacy.

Domicile physical residence, and intention to return there permanently.

Term legally mandated

Less than one year residency prior to date of elections; lease of a house not permanent:
disqualified. The place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home,
where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return
and remain, i.e., his domicile is that to which the Constitution refers when it speaks of
residence for the purposes of election law.

Tenure actual time

Marcos vs. COMELEC

Lucero vs. COMELEC

Criteria for the abandonment of domicile:

Failure of elections = special elections

actual removal or change in domicile

Tolentino vs. COMELEC

bona fide intention of abandoning and establishing new one

acts which correspond to the purpose

Vacancy in senate: RA 7166: permanent vacancy at least one year before expiration of the
term, shall call and hold a special elections, but in case of vacancy in senate, special
election will be held simultaneously with the next regular elections.

absence of which would continue the domicile of origin

Special elections can coincide with regular elections

Domino vs. COMELEC

Ocampo vs. HRET

Lease of house not indicative of intent of permanence

2nd placer cannot take the place of a disqualified first placer

Perez vs. COMELEC

Salaries

Domicile- the place where a party actually of constructively has his permanent home,
where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return
and remain

The salaries of members of the Senate is governed by Article VI of the Constitution as

follows:

The fact that a person registered as a voter in one district is not proof of his domicile in the
said district.
Petitioner ran for governor of the province previously
SJS vs. COMELEC
COMELEC resolution additional qualification of a candidate for senate: unconstitutional
as it violates the explicit qualifications in the consti

Forfeiture, expulsion, voluntary renunciation

Section 9: Filling-in Vacancies

Sec. 10. The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be
determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the
expiration of the full term of all the members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives approving such increase.
Sec. 20. The records and books of accounts of Congress shall be preserved and be open to
the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the Commission on
Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses
incurred for each Member.

It must be noted that in accordance with the above provisions, there is no prohibition
against the receipt of allowances by the members of Congress. The second section, on the
other hand, seeks to avoid the recurrence of the abuses committed by the members of the
Old Congress in allotting themselves fabulous allowances the amount of which they
refused to divulge to the people. It is now provided under the Constitution that the books of
accounts of Congress shall be open to public inspection and must be audited by the
Commission on Audit. Moreover, every member of Congress itemized expenditures,
including allowances, shall be published annually for the information of the people.

Though, it was not libelous against the petitioners, only alleges that they were unwitting
tools, not that they were the planners themselves.

It is interesting to note that the Constitution in Section 17, Article XVIII, provides the
corresponding salaries of Senators, to wit:

Fernandez intervention circumstances show that there is indirect appearance as counsel

before administrative body

Until the Congress provides otherwise, the President shall receive an annual salary of three
hundred thousand pesos; the Vice-President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, two hundred forty
thousand pesos each; the Senators, the members of the House of Representatives, the
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and the Chairmen of the Constitutional
Commissions, two hundred four thousand pesos each; and the Members of the
Constitutional Commissions, one hundred eighty thousand pesos each.

Santiago vs. Guingona

However, under Joint Resolution No. 1, the salaries of the members of the Senate is
increased to salary grade 33 with monthly equivalent rate of P35,000.00. The Senate
President, on the other hand, is raised to salary grade 34 with a monthly basic salary of
P40,000.00.

Quorum majority of the house instead of majority of all the members of the house

Section 11: Immunity of arrest

punishable by more than six years imprisonment; while congress is in session 4 th
Monday of july (SONA) and ends 30 days before the next session (compulsory recess),
with small recesses in between.

Part of communicative and deliverative process

Puyat vs. De Guzman
IPI elections = puyat group vs. acero group = SEC case

Minority vs. majority = must be understood in ordinary terms

Avelino vs Cuenco
Adjournment -> proclamation of new senate president and session continued with only 12
members present

12 members out of 23 is majority of the house = based on the number of those present
People vs. jalosjos
Compulsion to attend: jalosjos saying that he could be persuaded for being unable to attend
session: not reason for release
Absence is for a valid reason: being detained

People vs. Jalosjos

Arroyo vs. De Venecia

Conviction of more than 6 years imprisonment immunity not applicable

RA 8240 passed in congress not in accordance with house rules: arroyo still had questions
regarding the bill but it was still passed: no calling of the yeas and nays.

Elected by constituents even though he was already convicted.

Trillanes vs. Pimentel

Internal rules violated not in court jurisdiction only the house can determine its rules
and punish its members

No person charged by capital offense or offense punishable by reclusion perpetua shall be

admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong.

Osmena vs. Pendatun

Capacity to carry out his duties while in prison.

Jimenez vs. Cabangbang
Libelous letter: not in the exercise of his duties

Privilege speech accusing Pres. Garcia of bribery -> house comitte to investigate -> House
resolution # 175 declaring him guilty of disorderly behavior and suspension for 15 months
Although exempt from prosecution or civil action for words uttered in congress, members
may be questioned in CONGRESS ITSELF.

Disorderly behavior the house has exclusive power and the court has none.

ABAKADA vs. Ermita

Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan

Enrolled bill to be followed as it was the one approved by both houses and by the president.

Santiago charged with graft and corruption for allowing aliens to stay in Phils.

SECTION 17: Senate and House Representatives Electoral Tribunal

Suspended by sandiganbayan pending criminal case: not punishment for disorderly

behavior, but preliminary preventive measure for graft and corrupt act.

Election Contest - statutory contests in which the contestant seeks not only to oust the
intruder, but also to have himself inducted into the office.

US vs. Pons

Pre-proclamation contests - any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the

board of canvassers in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and
appreciation of the election returns.

Pons charged under Act 2381 anti-opium importation

Act 2381 said to have been passed after last day of session: according to the journals,
clock was stopped at 12 midnight: law passed valid

Angara vs. Electoral Commission

= journal prevails over extraneous evidence

Prescription given by Electoral commission has sole jurisdiction over election returns and
qualifications of its members

Casco vs Gimenez

Vera vs. Avelino

Urea and formaldehyde vs urea formaldehyde (as written in the law passed)

Deferment of oath-taking not election contest

Wording of the law urea formaldehyde: error in the printing

Oath-taking- makes one a members of the legislature: under jurisdiction of the Electoral
tribunal

Between the journals and the enrolled bill: enrolled bill prevails
Morrales vs. Subido
Enrolled bill over journal
Astorga vs. Villegas

Chavez vs. COMELEC

Pre-proclamation cases not allowed for president, vp, senators and members of HoR
Aquino vs COMELEC

Due to the circumstances in the case, the court looked into the Senate journals.

Electoral tribunal does not assume jurisdiction until the winning candidate has been
proclaimed and has taken his oath of office

= amendments made but not included in the bill signed by the president

2nd placer cannot take the place of the winning candidate

Senate president and Chief Executive: had already withdrawn their signatures: invalidates
the law

Perez vs. COMELEC

Phil. Judges vs. Prado

Franking privileges of judiciary

COMELEC no longer has jurisdiction as perez was already proclaimed.

Garcia vs HRET

Enrolled bill clear, no need to look into journals

HRET acted according to its own rules, no grave abuse of discretion resulting in
lack/excess of jurisdiction.

But law must be struck down as it violates the equal protection of the law, in regards to the
removal of franking privileges of the judiciary

Rasul vs. COMELEC

HRET exclusivity in jurisdiction over election contests relating to its own members.

Guerrero vs. COMELEC

Section 18: Commission on Appointment

Villarosa vs. HRET

Daza vs. Singson

Initials not to be used, only one nickname per candidate: not known as Girlie: JTV initials
of her husband

Shift in representation of LDP party = reapportionment of the Commission on Appointment

Aggabao vs COMELEC
Barbers vs. COMELEC
Roces vs. HRET

Must be based on proportional representation, political party must be permanent

Coseteng vs. Mitra
2 seats per appointment into commission
Guingona vs. Gonzales

Electoral tribunals: 3 justices appointed by Chief Justice, 6 from members of Senate or the
HoR

Cannot reduce the number of seats of a party in favor of another.

Abbas vs SET

12 member Commission not mandatory, what is mandatory is the proportional

representation

Electoral tribunal must always be composed of legislative members: for every 2 legislators
only one justice.

Section 21 legislative investigations

Pimentel vs. HRET

Negros vs. sanguniang Panlungsod

Party-list reps in HoR did not elect a member to the HRET

Power of inquiry for the legislative only, not delegated

Bondoc vs. Pineda

Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

HRET must be non-partisan: must not alter composition of the HRET.

Power of inquiry to be exercised only for legislative purposes

Robles vs. HRET

Senate vs. Ermita

Motion to withdraw does not end tribunals jurisdiction

Question hour vs. power of inquiry

Arroyo vs. HRET

Gudani vs. Senga

NON-TRADITIONAL PROCESS OF PRECINCT-LEVEL DOCUMENT-BASED

EVIDENCE the process of procuring election documents used not only during the actual
balloting stage of the election but much earlier, as early as the time of the registration of
voters. (not the best form of evidence)

Commander-in-chief powers may limit power of inquiry of congress

Lerias vs. HRET

Original copy of the certificates of canvass should be the best evidence

Standard vs. Senate

Compel to attend in aid of legislation
Neri vs. Senate

Sandoval vs. HRET

Executive privilege: 2 kinds: presidential communications (between president and

executive official) and deliberative process (between executive officials only)

Substitute service exhaust all means of locating recipient,

Garci vs House

Senate inquiry must be deferred until publication of the Senate rules has been complied
with.
Section 22: Question Hour

Bills authorizing increase of public debt

Bills of local application in relation to provinces, cities and municipalities, ex. Change
municipality into a city

Voluntary with consent of the President, or upon the request of the house

Private bills ex. Reacquisition of citizenship

For oversight functions

Tolentino vs. Sec of Finance

Arnault vs Nazareno

It is the bill that has to originate from the HoR, not the law itself.

The materiality of the question must be determined by its direct relation to the subject of
the inquiry and not by its inherent relation to any possible or proposed legislation. (Answer
might be the basis if the subject is to be made the subject of legislation.)

HoR and Senate equal = has power to propose amendment, even through substitution.

Senate continuing power of investigation terminates at the end of session; may be taken
up again at the next session.
Sabio vs. Gordon
Senate vs Ermita
Question hour vs. in aid of legislation: can only be limited by PRESIDENTIAL
communication privilege

originate exclusively from the HoR, but Senate may propose and concur with
amendments.
Alvarez vs Guingona
The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the Bill of the
House, does not contravene the constitutional requirement that a bill of local application
should originate from the House of Representatives, for as long as the Senate does not act
thereupon until it receives the House Bill.
Presentations on (3 area- 3 groups)

Executive: with presidential consent vs. anyone

Constitutional commissions on COMELEC: Civil Service and COA

Remedy: Sec 21: habeas corpus petition vs. sec 22: questions to be submitted beforehand
and executive session

Southern Cross vs Philcemcor

Section 23: congress sole power to declare the existence of a state of war, but may by law
authorize president for a limited time, to exercise powers necessary and to carry out a
declared national policy.

Bill is a tariff bill for a particular purpose

Pascual vs Sec. of Public Works

Lawless violence, invasion or rebellion either suspend writ of habeas corpus or declare
martial law.

Incidental advantage to the public or to the state, which results from the promotion of
private interest and the prosperity of private enterprises or business, does not justify their
aid by the use public money.

In line with David vs. Arroyo gr. no. 171396 (re BP 1070)

Section 25 Rules on Appropriation

Section 24: origin of money bills, private bills and local application

Brillantes vs COMELEC

Appropriations specific sum of money appropriated for departments for the performance
of their functions

Electronic quick count (Phase III) not included in the GAA

Revenue bills raising taxes

Tariff bills raises revenue from importation and exportation of goods

Appropriation in the GAA for modernization of Election system; not for quick count
Guingona vs Carague
Appropriation there must be a fixed amount: valid if it only needs to be computed

Garcia vs. Mata

Cordero vs. Cabatuando

3rd law should have applied, but applicable provision was invalidated due to its insertion in
the Appropirations Act.

The constitutional requirement (one title one bill rule) is satisfied if all parts of the law
related to, and are germane to the subject matter expressed in the title of the Bill.

Atitiw vs Zamora

It is sufficient of the title is comprehensive enough reasonably to include the general object
which the statute seeks to effect, without expressing each and every end and means
necessary or convenient for the accomplishment of the object.

In order that a provision or clause in a general appropriations bill may comply with the test
of germaneness, it must be particular, unambiguous, and appropriate.
Particular if it relates specifically to a distinct item or appropriation in the bill
and does not refer generally to the entire appropriations bill
Unambiguous when its application or operation is apparent on the face of the
bill and it does not necessitate reference to details or sources outside the appropriations bill
Appropriate when its subject matter does not necessarily have to be treated in a
separate legislation.
Farinas vs Executive Secretary
Difference between elective and appointed officials.
Demetria vs Allba
The president cannot indiscriminately transfer funds without regard as to whether or not the
funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item from which the same are to be taken,
or whether or not the transfer is for the purpose of augmenting the item to which said
transfer is to be made.

Philconsa vs Gimenez
It has been the general disposition of the court that the constitutional provision involving
the one title one subject rule should be construed liberally, in favor of the validity of the
statute.
The purpose of this rule is to:
1.

prevent fraud or surprise in the legislature

2.

fairly appraise the people, through such publication of legislation that are being
considered, in order that they may have the opportunity of being heard thereon by
petition or otherwise, if they shall so desire.

The requirement that the subject of the act shall be expressed in its title is not a mere rule
of legislative procedure; it is MANDATORY. It is the duty of the court to declare void any
statute not conforming to the constitutional provision.
Alalayan vs NPC

Liga vs. COMELEC

If the object of the law is to amend a previous legislation, it will suffice if the title gives
reference to the amended law.

Philconsa vs Enriquez

Insular lumber vs CTA

Chief of Staff cannot be delegated power to augment: only for those enumerated in the
constitution.
Sanchez vs COA

The primary purpose of the one subject-one title rule is to prohibit duplicity of legislation,
the title of which might completely fail to appraise the legislators or the public of the
nature, scope and consequences of the law or its operation. -> every presumption fails its
validity

2 requisites for augmentation: 1) Actual savings; and, 2) there is an existing item to be

augmented.

Where there is doubt as to the insufficiency of either the title or the Act, the legislation
should be sustained.

Deputy Executive Secretary of DILG no power to augment: only president, senate

president, speaker of the House, Chief Justice, and heads of Constitutional Commissions

Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board

Section 26: Subject and title of bills General prohibition on riders

Art. VI, Sec. 26 is sufficiently complied with if the title is comprehensive enough to
include the general purpose to which a statute seeks to achieve.

It is satisfied if all the parts of the statue are related to, and are germane to the subject
expressed in the title, or as long as they are not inconsistent with and foreign to the general
subject and title. PRACTICAL rather than TECHNICAL construction.
Phil. Judges vs Prado
The title need not be an index of the body of the act, or be comprehensive as to cover every
single detail of the measure. It need only that all provisions in said act should be germane
to the subject thereof.
Tobias vs Abalos
A liberal construction of the one title-one subject rule has been invariably adopted by the
court so as not to impede or cripple legislation.
Tatad
vs
DOE
The title of a law need not mirror or fully index or catalogue all the contents or provisions
of the said law.
De Guzman vs COMELEC
Purpose of section 26: 1) prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation; 2) to prevent
surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of provisions in bills of which titles gave no
info, and which might therefore be overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally adopted;
and, 3) to fairly appraise the people through such publication of legislative proceedings as
is usually made, of the subjects of legislation that are being considered, in order that they
may have opportunity of being heard thereon by petition or otherwise if they so desire.
Section 26 is said to have been complied with if the title is comprehensive enough to
embrace the general to embrace the general objective it seeks to achieve: presumption is in
favor of validity.
Cawaling vs COMELEC
Every statutes has in its favor the presumption of validity: grounds for nullity must be
beyond reasonable doubt. (This also goes for one title-one subject rule).
Section 27: Procedure in Law-making
Arroyo vs De Venecia
No rule of the House of Representatives has been cited which specifically requires that in
case involving the approval of a conference committee report, the Chair must restate the
motion and conduct a viva voce or nominal voting.
The constitution does not require that the yeas and nays of the Members be taken every
time a House has to vote, except only in the ff circumstances: 1) upon the last and third

readings of the bills; 2) at the request of 1/5 of the members present; and, 3) in repassing a
bill over the veto of the president.
Abakada vs Ermita
It is within the power of a conference committee to include in its report an entirely new
provision that is not found either in the House bill or in the Senate bill. If the committee
can propose an amendment consisting of one or two provisions, there is no reason why it
cannot propose several provisions, collectively considered as an amendment in the nature
of a substitute, so long as such amendment is germane to the subject of the bills before the
committee.
Bicameral conference committees have power to introduce amendments.
No amendment rule pertains only to the procedure to be followed by each house of the
Congress with regard to bills initiated in each of said respective Houses, before said bill is
transmitted to the other house for its concurrence or amendment.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs CTA
An item in a revenue bill doesnt refer to an entire section imposing a particular kind of
tax, but rather to the subject of the tax and the tax rate. To construe item as referring to
the whole section, would tie the presidents hand in choosing either to approve the whole
section at the expense of also approving a provision therein which he deems unacceptable
or veto the entire section at the expense of foregoing the collection of the kind of tax
altogether.
In Appropriation bills, the president may exercise item-veto.
Gonzalez vs Macaraig
The terms item and provision in budgetary legislation and practice are concededly
different. An item in a bill refers to the particulars, the details, and the distinct and several
parts of a bill. It furthered that an item of an appropriation bill obviously means an item
which in itself is a specific appropriation of money, not some general provision of law,
which happens to be put into an appropriation bill.
Inappropriate provisions should be treated as items subject to the veto power of the
president.
To determine if a provision is an inappropriate provision: test of appropriateness
It is not enough that a provision be related to the institution or agency to which funds are
appropriated. Conditions and limitations properly included in an appropriation bill must
exhibit such a connection with money items of appropriation that they logically belong in a
schedule of expenditures. For the rule to apply, restrictions should be such in the real sense

of the term, not some matter which are more appropriately dealt with in a separate
legislation.
Bengzon vs Drilon
The act of the Executive in vetoing particular provisions is an exercise of a constitutionally
vested power. But the veto power is not absolute. Only particular items may be vetoed.
The president cannot set aside or reverse a final and executory judgment of the court
through the exercise of the veto power, nor can she enact or amend statutes promulgated by
her predecessors, much less to repeal existing laws.
Philconsa vs Enriquez
Where the veto is claimed to have been made without or in excess of the authority vested in
the President, the issue of an impermissible intrusion of the Executive into the Legislative
domain arises.
Section 28: Taxation
Planters vs Fertiphil
Public purpose is at the heart of a tax law. It is an elastic concept. The inherent requirement
that taxes can only be exacted for a public purpose still stands. When a tax law is only a
mask to exact funds from the public when its true intent is to give undue benefit and
advantage to a private enterprise, the law will not satisfy the requirement of public
purpose. The purpose of the law is evident from its text or inferable from other secondary
sources.

3) the law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future conditions
4) the classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same class.
Under the tax system, the trend is to treat different things differently.
CIRvsCA
All subjects or objects similar must be equally taxed, or put on equal footing both in
privileges and liabilities; no exemptions.
All taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class must be taxed at the same rate
and the tax must operate with the same force and effect in every place where the subject
may be found.
Abra Valley College vs Aquino
The exemption in favor of property used exclusively for charitable or educational purposes
is not limited to property actually indispensable therefore, but extends to facilities that are
incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of said purpose, such as in
the case of hospitals, a school for training nurses, a nurses home, property used to provide
housing facilities for interns, doctors, superintendents, and other members of the hospital
staff, etc.
The exemption extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for
the accomplishment of the main purpose of the charitable or educational (or religious)
institution.
The test of exemption is the use of the property for purposes mentioned in the constitution.

CIR vs Lingayen

Bayan vs Zamora

A tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the
subject of it is found. Uniformity means that all property belonging to the same class shall
be taxed alike. (Follows requisites for a valid classification).

John Hay vs Lim

Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance

Tax exemption based on valid classification (?)
Tan vs. Del Rosario
Uniformity of taxation follows valid classification between individuals and corporations:
1) the standards that are used therefore are substantial and not arbitrary
2) the categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose

Since only Congress can pass tax laws, it follows that only Congress can provide tax
exemptions, through the passage of legislation.
Southern Cement vs Philcemcor
The power of taxation by nature and by command of the fundamental law is a preserve of
the legislature.
The delegation of taxation power by the legislative to the executive is authorized by the
constitution itself. The constitution also grants Congress the right to impose restrictions and
limitations on the taxation power of the president. The restrictions and limitations imposed
by Congress take on the mantle of a constitutional command, which the executive branch is
obliged to observe.

Lung Center vs QC

Section 29: Restrictions on the Use of Public Funds

To determine whether an enterprise is a charitable institution/entity or not, the elements

which should be considered include the statutes creating the enterprise, its corporate
purpose, its constitution and by-laws, the methods of administration, the nature of the
actual work performed, the character of the services rendered, the indefiniteness of the
beneficiaries, and the use and occupation of the properties. A charity may be fully defined
as a gift, to be applied consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite
number of persons, either by bringing their minds and hearts under the influence of
education or religion, by assisting them to establish themselves in life or otherwise
lessening the burden or government. The test whether an enterprise is charitable or not is
whether it exists to carry out a purpose recognized in law as charitable or whether it is
maintained for gain, profit or private advantage.

Pascual vs Secretary of Public Works

A charitable institution does not lose its character as such and its exemptions from taxes
simply because it derives income from paying patients, or receivables from the government
(or donations), so long as the money received is devoted or used altogether to the charitable
object which it is intended to achieve, and no money inures to the private benefit of the
persons managing or operating the institution.
Abakada vs Ermita
The power of tax cannot be delegated, but the details as to the enforcement and
administration of an exercise of such power may be left to the executive, including the
power to determine the existence of facts which its operation depends, the rationale being
that the preliminary ascertainment of facts as basis for the enactment of legislation is not
itself a legislative function but is simply ancillary to legislation. The constitution does not
require that Congress find for itself every fact upon which it desires to base legislative
action or that it make for itself detailed determinations which it has declared to be
prerequisite to application of legislative policy to particular facts and circumstances
impossible for Congress itself to properly investigate.
Congress may delegate to the President the power to increase a tax, dependent on a certain
set of facts, upon the completion of which the president may carry out the delegated power.
Spouses Constantino vs Cuisia

MIAA vs Mabunay
Legislative may delegate to the agency the power to provide for the means of obtaining
object of an appropriation but such act cannot go beyond statutes.
Public bidding has been a practice, which is the accepted method of arriving at a fair price
and prevents favoritism and overpricing.
Guingona vs Carague
Constitution does not require exact, specific appropriation made by law.
COMELEC vs. Quijano
No money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made
by law.
Appropriation must first be made prior to the bidding and creation of contracts, so as to
provide for a guideline regarding the amount that can be used for the specific enterprise.
Gaston vs Republic Planters Bank
Taxes levied for a specific purpose are considered to be special funds, which is an exercise
of the police power of the state. Once the specific purpose is accomplished or abandoned,
the funds become and are transferred to the general funds of the state.
Revenues collected are to be treated as a special fund, to be administered in trust for the
purpose intended.
Osmena vs. Orbos
Money named as tax but actually collected in the exercise of the police power of the state
may be placed in a special trust account.

The Congress can delegate to the cabinet Secretary (i.e. Secretary of Finance), in his
capacity as the alter ego of the president, to carry out the authority vested on the Chief
Executive under Section 28.

Section 30: Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Republic vs City of Kidapawan

The provision is intended to give the SC a measure of control over cases placed under its
appellate jurisdiction.

Tax exemption cannot be granted without the concurrence of the majority of the members
of congress, and may only be done through the passage of legislation. Only congress can
provide for tax exemptions, as it is the only branch that has power to tax.

Diaz vs CA

First Lepanto Ceramics vs CA

Fabian vs Disierto

express powers of the president those enumerated in the constitution

A law is invalid when it increases the appellate jurisdiction of the court without its advice.

residual powers anything not expressly provided in the Constitution, article VI

Villavert vs Desierto

Laurel vs. Garcia

Tirol vs COA

Power to enter into contracts except for property under public dominion

Cabrera vs Lapid

Djumantan vs. Domingo

Section 31: Titles of Royalty and Nobility

Right of every state to regulate the entry of persons into their country: deportation part of
executive power

Section 32: Initiative and Referendum

SBMA vs COMELEC
Defensor-Santiago vs COMELEC
Lambino vs COMELEC
Article VII
Section 1 Executive Power
-

Constitutional power granted to the President to enforce laws

Includes rule-making power: implementation and enforcement of laws passed

Philconsa vs Enriquez
Webb vs De Leon
The prosecution of crimes pertains to the executive department, whose principal power and
reasonability is to see that our laws are faithfully executed.
Determining probable cause executive in character

Chavez vs. PCGG

Pontejos vs. OMB
State witness will not be charged with criminal prosecution.
US vs. Nixon
General claim of executive privilege is not absolute nor unqualified; in a situation when a
persons right is made subject of a criminal proceeding, then production of evidence is
essential to uphold the constitutional rights of the accused.
Neri vs. Senate Committee
Presidential communication privilege
Elements:
Protected communication must relate to a quintessential and non-delegable
presidential power
Must be authored or solicited and received by a close advisor of the President of
the President himself

Marcos vs Manglapus
The powers of the president are not limited to those enumerated in the constitution: residual
powers
Right to return found in the UN declaration of Human Rights, International covenant on
human rights, but not absolute: subject to national interests, public policy and welfare,
health, etc.
-

general power to faithfully execute the laws

Remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate

need.
AKBAYAN vs. Aquino
Soliven vs. Makasiar
President may waive immunity from suit. The only person who can invoke immunity is the
president himself.
Harlow vs. Fitzgerald

Qualified Immunity or good faith immunity may be use by an official. A official would
be qualifiedly immune if he (1) does not know that the action taken in his sphere of
responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the victim. (2) did not act with
malicious intent. Govt officials performing discretionary functions generally are shieled
from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights a reasonable person would have known.
Clinton vs. Jones
The President of the United States is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability
predicated on official acts. Some public servants are granted immunity from suits for
money damages arising out of their official acts so as to enable them to perform their
designated functions effectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to
personal liability. The societal interest in providing such public officials with the
maximum ability to deal fearlessly and impartially with the public at large as an acceptable
justification for official immunity. The point of immunity for such officials is to forestall an
atmosphere of intimidation that would conflict with their resolve to perform their
designated function in a principled fashion. However, as much as some public officials
including the President, may be granted immunity, it does not apply to unofficial conduct.
Immunities are grounded in the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the
actor who performed.

remains accountable to the people but he may be removed from office only in the mode
provided by law and that is by IMPEACHMENT.
Constantino vs. Cuisia
The President of the Philippines is the Executive of the Government of the Philippines, and
no other. The heads of the executive departments occupy political positions and hold office
in an advisory capacity, and, in the language of Thomas Jefferson, "should be of the
President's bosom confidence", and, in the language of Attorney-General Cushing, "are
subject to the direction of the President." Without minimizing the importance of the heads
of the various departments, their personality is in reality but the projection of that of the
President. Stated otherwise, and as forcibly characterized by Chief Justice Taft of the
Supreme Court of the United States, "each head of a department is, and must be, the
President's alter ego in the matters of that department where the President is required by
law to exercise authority".
Section 4: Election of President and VP
Anson-Roa vs. Arroyo

Gloria vs. CA

GMA was not elected: she assumed presidency after resignation of Estrada. Thus, there is
no bar from running for presidency as she is not covered by the phrase: run for any
reelection.

Immunity from suit for the president, not for cabinet members.

Brillantes vs. Comelec

Estrada vs. Disierto

Canvassing of votes for President and VP is the tack of Congress. It cannot be undertaken
by the Comelec, even in the disguise of being unofficial.

Though incumbent presidents are immune from suit DURING their tenure, this immunity
does not extend BEYOND their tenure. Additionally, the charges filed against Erap are
criminal in nature, and the SC cannot wrap him in post-tenure immunity from liability. It
would then circumvent the general application of laws to him.
David vs. Arroyo
The President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any
civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constituion or law. It will
degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if he can be
dragged into court litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it is important that he be
freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend to
the performance of his official duties and functions. Unlike the legislative and judicial
branch, only one constitutes the executive branch and anything which impairs his
usefulness in the discharge of the many great and important duties imposed upon him by
the Constitution necessarily impairs the operation of the Government. However, this does
not mean that the President is not accountable to anyone. Like any other official, he

Pimentel vs. Joint Committee

The canvassing of votes of the President and VP by the Congress is not one of its
legislative functions. Thus, it is not covered by the end of the session of Congress, unlike
its legislative funcstions, which end along with the adjournment of its sessions.
Lopez vs. Senate
The constitution provides that Congress has the power to promulgate its rules concerning
the canvassing of votes for the presidency and VP.
Defensor-santiago vs. Ramos
Section 7: Start of Term as of noon June 30

President
Qualify
Pres
.

VP
acts
as
Pres.

VP

No
succe
ssion

fails

to

Not Chosen

Section 11: Incapacity of the President

Death/Disability

Estrada vs. Disierto

Both

Senate
Pres,/Spe
aker
of
HoR
(until one
qualifies)
acting
pres.

Pres.

VP

VP as
actin
g
Pres.

No
success
ion

Both

Senate
Pres. Or
Speake
r
of
HoR

Pres.

VP

Both

VP as
Pres.

Pres.
Nominates
VP
from
members of
Congress
upon
confirmation
by majority
vote of all
members of
both houses

To be determined by Congress: can be ascertained form their acts of recognition of

GMA.
Section 13: Prohibitions

Senate
Pres./S
peaker
of HoR

Rafael vs. Embroidery

Ex-officio capacity not entirely different from current duties and functions; incidental
to their office
CLU vs. Exec. Sec.
The executive is treated as a class in itself and as such, are given stricter prohibitions.

Tecson vs. Lim

The election contest can only contemplate a post-election scenario. It is fair to conclude
that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, defined by Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987
Constitution, would not include cases directly brought before it, questioning the
qualifications of a candidate for the presidency or vice-presidency before the elections are
held.
Section 7-8: Filling in vacancy in the presidency

Dela Cruz vs. COA

Ex-officio capacity no compensation for the executive who acts as such, nor do their
representatives.
Bitonio vs. COA and Amnesty intl vs. COA
Representatives designated by ex-officio members are not exempted from the law: the
designation is an imposition only of additional duties, and does not confer any legally
demandable rights.

Estrada vs. Disierto

Resignation is not a high level legal abstraction. It is a factual question and its elements are
beyond quibble: there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of
relinquishment. The validity of a resignation is not government by any formal requirement
as to form. It can be oral. It can be written. It can be express. It can be implied. As long as
the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect.

Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan

Participation in a contract with the government, though indirect, is still prohibited: but
accused is entitled to investigation and rights conferred by the law.
Section 14-15: Appointments by Acting President

Section 8: Midterm past June 30

Death, Disability; Removal, Resignation

Death, Disability;
Resignation

Pres.

VP

Both

Acting
(SP/SH)

VP is Pres.

Pres. Will nominate

VPP from Congress
(sec. 9)

Senate
Pres./Speaker
HoR as Pres.

Pres.

By Law (Congress)
of

In Re appointment of Valenzuela
There are two kinds of appointments directed against by the appointment ban in Sec. 15,
Art. 7: (1) those made for vote-buying and (2) those made for partisan politics. Midnight
appointments such as the appointments in question are made in consideration of partisan
politics to influence the outcome of the elections. The only appointments that are exempted
from the ban are vacant executive positions that will prejudice public interest.
Section 16: Nature of Appointing Power

Govenrment vs. Springer

The legislative branch has no power to appoint. It is only for the executive.
Bermudez vs. Exec. Sec.
The president need not wait for his/her subordinates recommendation to carry out a duty or
function vested in his/her office.
Pimentel vs. Ermita
The law expressly allows the President to make such acting appointment. Section 17,
Chapter 5, Title I, Book III of EO 292 states that [t]he President may temporarily
designate an officer already in the government service or any other competent person to
perform the functions of an office in the executive branch. Thus, the President may even
appoint in an acting capacity a person not yet in the government service, as long as the
President deems that person competent.
Sarmiento vs. Mison
Except as to those officers whose appointments require the consent of the COA by express
mandate of the first sentence in Sec 16 Art VII, appointments of other officers are left to
the President without need of confirmation by the COA. It is only in the first sentence
where it is clearly stated that positions enumerated therein require the consent of the COA.
The word alone is a mere lapsus.

Rufino vs. Endriga

The power to appoint is the prerogative of the President, except in those instances when the
Constitution provides otherwise. Under Section 16, there is a fourth group of lower-ranked
officers whose appointments Congress may by law vest in the heads of departments,
agencies, commissions, or boards. These inferior or lower in rank officers are the
subordinates of the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards who are vested
by law with the power to appoint. Congress has the discretion to grant to, or withhold from,
the heads the power to appoint lower-ranked officers. The 1987 Constitution only allows
heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards to appoint only officers lower in
rank than such heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
Calderon vs. Carale
The second sentence of Sec 16, Art VII refers to all other officers of the government whose
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law and those whom the President may be
authorized by law. The NLRC Chairman and Commissioners fall within the second
sentence of Sec 16. The Chairman and Members of the NLRC are NOT among the officers
mentioned in the first sentence of Sec 16, whose appointments requires the confirmation by
the Commission on App.
U-Sing vs. NLRC
Same as Calderon

Bautista vs. Salonga

Appointing power solely vests in the President, but once she makes the appointment, the
President loses the power over the position. Its up to the appointed person if she would
accept or not.

Tarrosa vs. Singson

Congress cannot by law expand the confirmation powers of the Commission on
Appointments and require confirmation of appointments of other government officials not
expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16 of Article 7 of the Constitution.

Quinto-Deles vs. CA
Appointment of sectoral representatives need CA confirmation.

Manolo vs. Siztoza

The police force is different from and independent of the armed forces and the ranks in the
military are not similar to those in the PNP. Thus, directors and chief superintendents of the
PNP, such as respondent police officers in this case, do not fall under the first category of
presidential appointees requiring the confirmation by the CA (see first sentence of the first
paragraph of Section 16). PNP is not part of the AFP.

Pobre vs. Mendienta

This provision empowers the President to appoint "those whom he may be authorized by
law to appoint." The law that authorizes him to appoint the PRC Commissioner and
Associate Commissioners, is P.D. 223, Section 2, which provides that the Commissioner
and Associate Commissioners of the PRC are "all to be appointed by the President for a
term of nine (9) years, without reappointment, to start from the time they assume office .
Flores vs. Drilon
The power of choice is the heart of the power to appoint. Appointment involves an exercise
of discretion of whom to appoint; it is not a ministerial act of issuing appointment papers to
the appointee. In other words, the choice of the appointee is a fundamental component of
the appointing power.

Soriano vs. Lista

It is clear from Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution that only appointed officers
from the rank of colonel or naval captain in the armed forces require confirmation by the
CA. The rule is that the plain, clear and unambiguous language of the Constitution should
be construed as such and should not be given a construction that changes its meaning. The
enumeration of appointments subject to confirmation by the CA under Section 16, Article
VII of the 1987 Constitution is exclusive. The clause "officers of the armed forces from the
rank of colonel or naval captain" refers to military officers alone.

Section 17: Power of Control

Lacson-magallanes vs. Pano
The president is vested with the executive power in the 3 branches of government. With
this power, comes the power to control all of the executive departments. He can appoint
these heads, and dismiss them as he pleases. Having the power to control and direct them,
he as well can confirm, modify or reverse the decisions of these department secretaries.
Ang-Angco vs. Castillo
The power of control of the President extends to the power to alter or modify or nullify or
set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to
substitute the judgment of the [President] for that of the [subordinate officer]. This may be
extended to the power to investigate, suspend or remove officers and employees who
belong to the executive department if they are presidential appointees or do not belong to
the classified service for such can be justified that the power to remove is inherent to the
power to appoint. The same cannot be done to officers or employees who belong to the
classified service. The procedure laid down in the Civil Service Act of 1959 must be
followed for their removal.
Villaluz vs. Zaldivar
Inherent in the power to appoint is the power to remove.
NAMARCO vs. Arca
Presidents power of control includes GOCCs as part of the Executive department.
Drilon vs. Lim
Supervision merely to determine if rules are being followed; control change the rules
and creates new ones, and provide penalties for non-compliance with the rules.
PASEI vs. Torres
The Ministry of Labor is under the executive department and the president has the power of
control of its department head (Secretary). It is implicit in the power of control is the power
to review, confirm, modify or reverse acts of Dept heads. In this case, if the Secretary
grants a new license, Marcos can deny or approve of it. Hence, this LOI takes the nature of
a presidential issuance which can be repealed by a later presidential issuance.
De Leon vs. Carpio
All executive departments, bureaus, and offices are under control of President
Presidents power of control over cabinet, who in turn controls bureaus and other
offices under their jurisdiction
o As head of executive department, he may delegate some of his powers to
the Cabinet except when he is required by the Constitution to act in
person or in the exegencies of the situations demand that he act
personally

The NBI is under the Department of Justice and since the Secretary of Justice acts
as alter ego of the President, his orders must be followed by the Director of the
NBI.
Acts of the alter egos of the President are acts of the President himself unless disapproved
or reprobated by the Chief Executive.
Joson vs. Torres
Jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary actions against elective local officials is
lodged in two authorities: The disciplining authority and the Investigating Authority. The
Disciplining Authority is the President whether acting by himself or through the Executive
Secretary. The Secretary of the Interior and Local Government is the Investigating
Authority who may act by himself or by and Investigating committee. The secretary of the
DILG, however is not the exclusive investigating authority. In lieu of the DILG Secretary,
the disciplining authority may designate a special Investigating committee.
Hutchinson vs. SBMA
Chartered instirutions are always under the power of control of the President.
Cruz vs. Sec. of DENR
PRA vs. Bunag
The task of the Department of Budget and Management is simply to review the
compensation and benefits plan of the government agency or entity concerned and
determine if the same complies with the prescribed policies and guidelines issued in this
regard. The role of the Department of Budget and Management is supervisorial in nature,
its main duty being to ascertain that the proposed compensation, benefits and other
incentives to be given to PRA officials and employees adhere to the policies and guidelines
issued in accordance with applicable laws.
Domingo vs. Zamora
Power of the President to reorganize over: 1) office of the President proper; 2) offices
within the office of the President
Romuldez vs. Sndiganbayan
The felonious act of public officials and their close relatives are not acts of the state, and
the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such, but stands on the same footing as any
other offender.
Chavez vs. Romulo
Under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution, he/she is given powers as the Chief
Executive: The president shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus and
offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. As the Chief Executive, GMA
holds the steering wheel that controls the course of her government. She lays down the
policies in the execution of her plans and programs. Whatever policy she chooses, she has
her subordinate to implement them. In short, she has the power of control. Whenever a

specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to her subordinate, she may act directly
or merely direct the performance of a duty. Thus, when GMA directed Ebdane to suspend
the issuance of the PTCFOR, she was just directing a subordinate to perform an assigned
duty. Such act was well within the prerogative of her office.

Section 19: Executive Clemency

Section 18 Commander in Chief

Lansang vs. Garcia

President has 3 courses of action (in times of national emergency):
To call out Armed Forces
To suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
To place the Philippines (entirely or partly) under martial law

Who
exercises
Effect
Groun
ds

Aberca vs. Ver

IBP vs. Zamora
The calling out power is placed in a different category from the power to declare martial
law and the power to suspend martial law and the power to suspend the habeas corpus
otherwise, the framers of the Constitution would have simply lumped together the 3 powers
and provided for their revocation and review without any qualification (see Section 18,
Article 7 codal)
The power to call is fully discretionary to the president.
Lacson vs. Perez
The court may review the factual basis for the proclamation declaring the existence of a
state of rebellion.

Period

Reprieves

Commutati
on

President

President

Postpones to a
day
certain/
Prevent
Suppress lawless
violence
Invasion
Rebellion
Prevent /
Suppress lawless
violence

Requisites

Invasion
Rebellion
Final
Judgment
Notice
Revocation

Sanlakas vs. Exec. Sec.

The President has full discretionary power to call out the armed forces and to determine the
necessity of the exercise of such power. None of the petitioners have supported their
assertion that the President acted without factual basis.

Judicial Review &

Period
Beneficiar
individual
Who can
y
question
Courts & legis.
Limitation
Except:
Assembly
impeachment;
election
offense
(Comelec
recommendati
on)

David vs. Arroyo

The president may call out the AFP without confirmation from Congress, but may not
exercise emergency powers without congressional enactment.

Acceptanc
e

Lim vs. Exec. Sec.

Cristobal vs. Labrador

Pardon

Fines

President
President
Suspend
Declare
Call in
Privilege of
Martial
AFP
Writ of Habeas
Law
Remission
Exempts
Corpus
of part of from
the Yes
punishment
?
?
punishment
(looks
forward)
Yes
yes
yes
-relieved
Yes
yes
yes
from
consequenc
?
es
-civil
Gen. Rule: 60liability
days (except if extended or
revoked by Congress)
Final
Judgment
?
?
?
Individual
?
-> Open
Same

Amnesty
Pres. + maj.
Of all of
Congress
-abolishes
offense
(looks
backward)

Final
Final
Judgment
judgment
Congress w/in
48 hours

-before
conviction
-treason,
Congress
political
Yes. The test is w/n the Pres. offense/law
Acted arbitrarily 7 sufficiently of nations
based on the facts; decide in 60
days
Individual
Individual
Class
of
individuals
Any Citizen
Same
Open

Same Open
Same (if tax
amnesty,
needs
legislative
concurrenc
e)

Gen. Rule:
needed
except
if
absolute

There are only two limitations on the pardoning power of the executive: that the power be
exercised after conviction (final judgement) and that such power does not extend to cases
of impeachment. Pardon was granted to Santos after he has served his sentence and his case
was not that of impeachment. Thus, the pardoning power of the executive cannot be
restricted by legislative action. An absolute pardon blots out not only the crime committed
but removes all disabilities resulting from conviction. Often, imprisonment is not the only
punishment when one goes against the law but punishment also comes in the form of
accessory and resultant disabilities. When pardon is granted after the term of imprisonment
has expired, absolute pardon removes all that is left of the consequences of conviction.

Pardon does not restore a convicted felon to public office. He must first acguire a
reappointment, not a reinstatement, and does not exempt him from paying civil liabilities.

Llamas vs. Orbos

Section 21 International agreements, treaties, etc.

The president may grant clemency for administrative cases in the executive branch: the
constitution does not distinguish between criminal and administrative cases.

Gonzales vs. hechanova

People vs. Salle

after final judgment of conviction no appeals: if pardon is applied for, it shall not be
processed pending an appeal. The judgment must fist be final.

Garcia vs. COA

Since the pardon was based on innocence, the accused should be accorded his rights
previously held. He should be automatically reinstated and given back wages, as if he never
left his office, as his dismissal is rendered null and void, due to lack of the cause of action
to which his innocence was found.

Although the president may enter into agreements without previous legislative authority, he
may not by executive agreement, enter into transactions which is prohibited by statutes
enacted prior thereto. Under the constitution, the main function of the executive is to
enforce the laws enacted by congress. He may not defeat legislative enactments by
indirectly repealing the same through an executive agreement providing for the
performance of the very act prohibited by said laws.

People vs. Bacang

USAFFE vs. Treasurer
Pardon cannot be extended pending an appeal.
Executive agreements are two classes:
Drilon vs. CA
Once a person has been pardoned, or has served his sentence, his case can no longer be
reopened and reinvestigated.
Torres vs. Gonzales
The acceptance of a conditional pardon, carried with it the authority or power given to the
President to determine whether the condition of the pardon has been violated. To no other
department of the Government has such power been entrusted or delegated. Such act of the
President is not subject to judicial scrutiny.
People vs Cassido
Amnesty granted to classes of persons guilty of political offenses, instituted before or
after criminal prosecution or even after conviction.
Monsanto vs. factoran

1) PRESIDENTIAL AGREEMENTS- Agreement made purely by executive acts

affecting external relations and independent of or needs no legislative
authorization.
2) CONGRESSIONAL- EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS- Agreement entered into in
pursuance of acts of congress.
The agreement may fall under any of these 2 classes. Why?
1) Because congress granted authority to the president to obtain loans and incur
indebtedness with the Government of US.
2) Even assuming that there was no legislative authorization, the agreement may still
be entered into purely as executive acts (which usually relates to money
agreements for settlement of pecuniary claims of the citizens.
3) Senate resolution 15 admitted the validity and the binding force of the agreement.
4) The act of congress appropriating funds for the yearly installments (under the
agreement) constitute a ratification thereof. Because international agreements are
for the executive, the courts may not encroach upon their validity.

Tanada vs. Angara

Bayan vs. Zamora
Treaty signed and approved by 2/3 majority vote of all members of the Senate.
Abaya vs. Ebdane
An "exchange of notes" is a record of a routine agreement that has many similarities with
the private law contract. The agreement consists of the exchange of two documents, each of
the parties being in the possession of the one signed by the representative of the other.
Under the usual procedure, the accepting State repeats the text of the offering State to
record its assent. The signatories of the letters may be government Ministers, diplomats or
departmental heads. The technique of exchange of notes is frequently resorted to, either
because of its speedy procedure, or, sometimes, to avoid the process of legislative approval.
It is stated that "treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols, declarations,
memoranda of understanding, modus vivendi and exchange of notes" all refer to
"international instruments binding at international law."Significantly, an exchange of notes
is considered a form of an executive agreement, which becomes binding through executive
action without the need of a vote by the Senate or Congress. Agreements concluded by the
President which fall short of treaties are commonly referred to as executive agreements and
are no less common in our scheme of government than are the more formal instruments
treaties and conventions. They sometimes take the form of exchange of notes and at other
times that of more formal documents denominated "agreements" or "protocols". The point
where ordinary correspondence between this and other governments ends and agreements
whether denominated executive agreements or exchange of notes or otherwise begin,
may sometimes be difficult of ready ascertainment.
Pharmaceutical vs. DOH
Non-customary laws need to be transformed into local legislation before it can be binding:
ratification and concurrence of Senate.

Judicial function is an act performed by virtue of judicial powers; the exercise of which is
the doing of something in the nature of the action of the court. In order that a special action
of certiorari may be invoked in this jurisdiction, the following must exist:
a. That there must be a specific controversy involving the rights of persons or property;
b. Such controversy is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer for hearing and
determination of rights and obligations.
Manila Electric vs. Pasay Transit
The Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot be required to exercise any
power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the
administering of judicial functions.
The power conferred on this court is exclusively judicial, and it cannot be required or
authorized to exercise any other. . . . Its jurisdiction and powers and duties being defined in
the organic law of the government, and being all strictly judicial, Congress cannot require
or authorize the court to exercise any other jurisdiction or power, or perform any other
duty And while it executes firmly all the judicial powers entrusted to it, the court will
carefully abstain from exercising any power that is not strictly judicial in its character, and
which is not clearly confided to it by the Constitution.
Noblejas vs. Teehankee
Judicial power does not include the power to discipline officers in others branches of
government with equal rank as that of a judge. This is beyond the judicial sphere.
Radiowealth vs. Agregado
The preservation of Judiciarys integrity and effectiveness is necessary. Corollary to this
is the power of judiciary to maintain its existence. The quality of the government depends
upon the independence of judiciary and the officials of the government cannot deprive the
courts of anything which is vital to their functions.

Article VIII

Marbury vs. Madison

Judicial review: authority of the court to inquire into the acts of the branches of
government or instrumentalities thereof.

Furthermore, the prerogatives of this court which the Constitution secures against
interference include not only the powers to adjudicate cases but all things that are
REASONABLY necessary for the administration of justice. The purchase of the necessary
equipment would contribute to a more effective judiciary. Lastly, these are implied and
incidental powers that are as essential to the existence of the court as the powers
specifically granted to it.

Santiago vs. Bautista

In re Laureta

Section 1: Judicial Power

The Court's authority and duty under the premises is unmistakable. It must act to preserve
its honor and dignity from the scurrilous attacks of an irate lawyer, mouthed by his client,
and to safeguard the morals and ethics of the legal profession.
In re Borromeo
Judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or factors.
They should not be subject to intimidation, the fear of civil, criminal or administrative
sanctions for acts they may do and dispositions they may make in the performance of their
duties and functions. Hence it is sound rule, which must be recognized independently of
statute that judges are not generally liable for acts done within the scope of their
jurisdiction and in good faith. The Court has repeatedly and uniformly ruled that a judge
may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order or decision he
renders. The exercise of the power of contempt of the court is valid.
Director of Prisons vs. Ang Cho Kio
The power to revoke a conditional pardon is within the realm of the executive, and does not
fall within the jurisdiction of the judiciary. Neither does the judiciary have the power to
give advisory opinions. Its main duty is to settle disputes and uphold rights, in the absence
of which it cannot render opinions, as this is not one of its functions.
Echegaray vs. Sec. of Justice
The finality of a judgment does not mean the Court has lost all its powers over the case. By
the finality of the judgment, what the court loses is its jurisdiction to amend, modify, or
alter the same. The court still has jurisdiction to execute and enforce it. The power to
control the execution of its decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction. Supervening
events may change the circumstance of the parties and compel courts to intervene and
adjust the rights of the litigants to prevent unfairness.
Postponement of the date: The particulars of the execution itself are absolutely under the
control of the judicial authority, while the executive has no power over the person of the
convict except to provide for carrying out of the penalty and to pardon. The date can be
postponed, even in sentences of death. Under the common law this postponement can be
ordered in 3 ways: (1) by command of the King (2) by discretion of the court (3) by
mandate of the law.
PCGG vs. Disierto
The Constitution has tasked this Court to determine whether or not there has been grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government, including the Office of the Ombudsman. Specifically,

this Court is mandated to review and reverse the ombudsmans evaluation of the existence
of probable cause, if it has been made with grave abuse of discretion.
Domingo vs. Scheer
Although the courts are without power to directly decide matters over which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
government and are not empowered to execute absolutely their own judgment from that of
Congress or of the President, the Court may look into and resolve questions of whether or
not such judgment has been made with grave abuse of discretion, when the act of the
legislative or executive department violates the law or the Constitution.
Angara vs. Electoral Tribunal
Judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review in actual and appropriate cases and
controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no one branch or agency of the
government transcends the Constitution, which is the source of all authority.
The Electoral Commission is an independent constitutional creation with specific powers
and functions to execute and perform, closer for purposes of classification to the legislative
than to any of the other two departments of the government; is the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly.

US vs. Nixon
The mere assertion of an intra-executive dispute does not defeat federal jurisdiction.
Furhtermore the attorney general had conferred upon the special prosecutor the unique
tenure and authority to represent the US and with this explicit power to contest the
invocation of executive privilege in seeking evidence deemed relevant to the performance
of his duties. Actions of the prosecutor are well within the scope of this express authority
seeking specified evidence, which are admissible and relevant ot the criminal case at hand.
Thus the issue is of a type considered traditionally justiciable, the fact that both officers
are of the exec branch does not bar this.
Marcos vs. Manglapus
Given the expanded jurisdiction of the SC, it no longer cowers behind the political question
doctrine save for certain undeniable situations such as recognition of states or the grant of
pardons. The SC, in the face of the present controversy, has the duty of ascertaining
whether or not the Executive goes beyond the power vested by the Constitution. There
exists a conflict between the rights asserted by the Marcoses as opposed to the exercise of
executive power by the President for the preservation of national interest and security.

Daza vs. Singson

The issue presented is justiciable rather political, involving as it does the legality and not
the wisdom of the act complained of, or the manner of filling the Commission on
Appointments as prescribed by the Constitution. Even if the question were political in
nature, it would still come within the powers of review under the expanded jurisdiction
conferred upon the SC by Article VIII, Section 1, of the Constitution, which includes the
authority to determine whether grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction has been committed by any branch or instrumentality of the government.

The courts may only look into the constitutionality of the acts of officials, and not if these
acts conform to the internal rules of each branch of government (HoR rules).

Garcia vs. BOI

There is an actual controversy whether the petro-chemical plant should remain in Bataan or
be transferred to Batangas.

Garcia-Rueda vs. Pascasio

While the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case
should be filed, this Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when
there is an abuse of discretion, in which case Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may
exceptionally be invoked pursuant to Section I, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. In
this regard, "grave abuse of discretion" has been defined as "where a power is exercised in
an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility so patent and
gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined
by, or in contemplation of law.

Djumantan vs. Domingo

Being final arbiter, it has power to review the order of the Commission of Immigration and
Deportation, as a branch or instrumentality of the Government. GADELJ
Mariano vs. Comelec
A hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen into an actual case is not a justiciable
controversy which the court can take cognizance of. A hypothetical issue which rests on
many contingent events does not pose an issue ripe for adjudication.
PPI vs. Comelec
Issue not ripe for judicial review due to lack of actual case or controversy.
SBMA vs. Comelec
Courts may decide only actual controversies, not hypothetical questions or cases. Judicial
power has been defined in jurisprudence as "the right to determine actual controversies
arising between adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction". It is "the
authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are enforceable
and demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for violation of such
rights". Thus, there can be no occasion for the exercise of judicial power unless real parties
come to court for the settlement of an actual controversy and unless the controversy is such
that it can be settled in a manner that binds the parties by the application of existing laws.
Tanada vs. Angara
The court cannot look into the wisdom of the acts of the legislature.
Arroyo vs. De Venecia

CIR vs. Santos

The Constitution contemplates that the inferior courts should have jurisdiction in cases
involving constitutionality of any treaty or law, for it speaks of appellate review of final
judgments of inferior courts in cases where such constitutionality happens to be in issue.
But this authority does not extend to deciding questions, which pertain to legislative policy.

Defensor-Santiago vs. Guingona

The present constitution now fortifies the authority of the courts to determine in an
appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments. It speaks of judicial
prerogative in terms of duty: Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
and to determine whether or not there has been a GADALEJ on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government.
Tatad vs. DOE
Judicial power includes not only the duty of the courts to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, but also the duty to
determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. The
courts, as guardians of the Constitution, have the inherent authority to determine whether a
statue enacted by the legislature transcends the limit imposed by the fundamental law.
Where a statute violates the Constitution, it is not only the right, but the duty of the
judiciary to declare such null and void. The petitioner is not assailing the wisdom of the
law, but its constitutionality. Therefore, there is a justiciable controversy.
Telebap vs. Comelec
A justiciable controversy has arisen as GMA allaged that said law violates its rights against
deprivation of property without just compensation and that it has sustained millions of
pesos in damages resulting therefrom.

Miranda vs. Aguirre

The term political question connotes what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a
question of policy. It refers to those questions which under the Constitution are to be
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is
concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.
A purely justiciable issue implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an
act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law, for
said breach of right.
Cutaran vs. DENR
There is no justiciable controversy because the applications are still pending. Hence, there
is not government act to speak of and rule upon.
Estrada vs. Disierto
Review of the inability of the president to perform his duties and the decision of Congress
is no longer a political question. Courts cannot expand executive immunity from suit. The
1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine when it
expanded the power of judicial review of this court not only to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable but also to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. The judiciary has
focused on the thou shall nots of the Constitution.
Cawaling vs. Comelec
A political question is one in which the wisdom, expediency or justice of the legislative
enactment is being questioned. The courts cannot rule on the wisdom of the laws.
Montesclaros vs. Comelec
A proposed bill cannot be the subject of judicial review because it is not a law. Judicial
review may only be exercised after a laws has been passed, not before it.
John Hay vs. Lim
The courts retain full discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition filed directly to
it if compelling reasons or the nature and importance of the uses raised, warrant.
Remanding the case to the lower courts would unduly prolong the case.
Velarde vs. SJS
Requirements for declaratory relief sought by respondents are: 1) justiciable controversy,
2)controversy is between people whose interests are adverse, 3) party seeking relief has a
legal interest in the controversy and 4) the issue is ripe for judicial determination.
A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe
for judicial determination, not one which is merely one of conjecture or merely

anticipatory. This petition failed to allege an exsitng controversy or dispute between the
petitioner and the named respondents.
Panganiban vs. Shell
The court cannot rule of feared hypothetical abuse: not an actual case or controversy.
There is not cause of action. No injury or encroachment of right legally enforceable or
demandable.
SMART vs. NTC
The court has jurisdiction over administrative issuances of agencies, which were issued in
the exercise of their quasi-legislative, and not quasi-judicial function.
Buac vs. Comelec
Recount of plebiscite ballots is exclusively within the realm of the Comelec: not to be
interfered with by the courts.
Information Technology vs. Comelec
The court does not give advisory opinions. It can nly rule on actual cases or controversies,
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.
Macasiano vs. NHA
Requisites for declaratory relief:
1) There must be a justiciable controversy;
2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; and
3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy.
Tano vs. Socrates
Court will not entertain direct resort unless redress desired cannot be obtained in
appropriate court and when there is exceptional circumstance to justify availment of
remedy.
Section 2: Power of Legislature to Apportion Jurisdiction
Mantruste vs. CA
The court is prohibited by law to interfere with, or block, a decision of an executive
agency.
Malaga Vs. Penachos
Courts are not barred from issuing restraining orders against government entities, if the
requirements and procedures set by law are followed.
Section 3: Fiscal Autonomy
In Re Clarifying and Strengthening.

The authority of the DBM to review the plantilla and compensation of court personnel
extends only to calling the attention of the Court on what it may perceive as erroneous
application of budgetary laws and rules on position classification.

All remedies must first be exhaust before seeking recourse to the courts: if the issue
involves the rules of the HoR regarding the composition of HRET and the CA, then the
proper recourse is through the HoR, and not the courts.

Section 4: Compositions and Sessions

Gonzales vs. Macaraig

Members of congress have the requisite standing to raise constitutional issues.

Fortrich vs. Corona

it is clear that only cases are referred to the Court en banc for decision whenever the
required number of votes is not obtained. Conversely, the rule does not apply where, as in
this case, the required three votes is not obtained in the resolution of a motion for
reconsideration. Hence, the second sentence of the aforequoted provision speaks only of
case and not matter. The reason is simple. The above-quoted Article VIII, Section
4(3) pertains to the disposition of cases by a division. If there is a tie in the voting, there is
no decision. The only way to dispose of the case then is to refer it to the Court en banc.
On the other hand, if a case has already been decided by the division and the losing party
files a motion for reconsideration, the failure of the division to resolve the motion because
of a tie in the voting does not leave the case undecided. There is still the decision which
must stand in view of the failure of the members of the division to muster the necessary
vote for its reconsideration. Quite plainly, if the voting results in a tie, the motion for
reconsideration is lost. The assailed decision is not reconsidered and must therefore be
deemed affirmed.

Jaworski vs. PAGCOR

Members of Congress have standing to file suits assailing the legality of acts of other
branches of government, or instrumentalities thereof.
Province of Batangas vs. Romulo
The crucial legal issue submitted for resolution of this Court entails the proper legal
interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions. Moreover, the transcendental
importance of the case, as it necessarily involves the application of the constitutional
principle on local autonomy, cannot be gainsaid. The nature of the present controversy,
therefore, warrants the relaxation by this Court of procedural rules in order to resolve the
case forthwith.
Disomangcop vs. Datumanong
CHR-employees vs. CHR

People vs. Dy
The divisions of the Supreme Court are not different and distinct from the actual tribunal. It
can be said that the decisions promulgated by each division are actually decisions of the
Supreme Court en banc.

Pimentel vs. Exec. Sec.

Info. Tech. Foundation vs. Comelec

Section 5: Powers of the Supreme Court

Velarde vs. SJS

PACU vs. Sec. of Education

Before a case can be filed with the Supreme Court, the petitioners must first exhaust all
available administrative remedies, and it is encumbent upon them to prove that their rights
have been violated.

Domingo vs. Carague

Republic vs. Nolasco
Legaspi vs. CSC

Tan vs. Macapagal

PASEI vs. Torres
Solicitor General vs. MMDA
The court may suspend procedural rules to give way for substantive justice. The requisite
of having an actual case or controversy ripe for adjudication (in invoking the courts power
of judicial review) may be waived by the court in cases of transcendental importance.
Militante vs. CA
Pimentel vs. HRET

Joya vs. PCGG

Tatad vs. Garcia
Board of Optometry vs. Colet
Only natural and juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil
action, and every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in
interest. Under Article 44 of the Civil Code, an association is considered a juridical person

if the law grants it a personality separate and distinct from that of its members. A real party
in interest under Section 2 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court is a party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment on the suit, or the party entity led to the avails of the
suit. Since OPAP, COA, ACMO, and SMOAP were not shown to be juridical entities, they
cannot be deemed real parties in interest.
Anti-Graft League of the Philippines
Telecom vs. Comelec
Cruz vs. Sec. of DENR
Petitioners, as citizens, possess the public right to ensure that the national patrimony is
not alienated and diminished in violation of the Constitution. Since the government, as the
guardian of the national patrimony, holds it for the benefit of all Filipinos without
distinction as to ethnicity, it follows that a citizen has sufficient interest to maintain a suit
to ensure that any grant of concessions covering the national economy and patrimony
strictly complies with constitutional requirements. Thus, the preservation of the integrity
and inviolability of the national patrimony is a proper subject of a citizens suit.
In addition, petitioners, as taxpayers, possess the right to restrain officials from wasting
public funds through the enforcement of an unconstitutional statute. It is well-settled that a
taxpayer has the right to enjoin public officials from wasting public funds through the
implementation of an unconstitutional statute, and by necessity, he may assail the validity
of a statute appropriating public funds. The taxpayer has paid his taxes and contributed to
the public coffers and, thus, may inquire into the manner by which the proceeds of his taxes
are spent. The expenditure by an official of the State for the purpose of administering an
invalid law constitutes a misapplication of such funds.
Lozano vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
Lim vs. Exec. Sec.
Though being lawyers does not grant these petitioners standing because of lack of
sufficient interest (IBP v ZAMORA) and there was no exercise of Congress spending
powers to warrant a taxpayers suit, this issue is one of transcendental importance (to the
public), where the SC can relax the standing requirements and allow the suit to prosper.
Chavez vs. PEA
The petitioner has locus standi because of his invocation of his right to information and to
the equitable diffusion of natural resources is a matter of transcendental public importance.
Furthermore, since PEA did not conduct public bidding, there was no information released
to the public regarding the details of its disposition of property. Hence, any citizen can
demand from PEA this information at any time during the bidding process, but only upon
the committees official recommendation (because the right to info only attaches upon that
moment).

Tolentino vs. Comelec

Ordinarily, the petition will be dismissed because first, the petitioners only assert a harm
which is a generalized and not a particular interest. Second, there was no allegation that
taxpayers money was misused by the COMELEC in violation of specific constitutional
protections. However, because of the nature of the issues as being imbued with public
interest (right of suffrage) and one which will most likely arise again, the petitioners are
granted standing to file.
Agan vs. PIATCO
The petitioners are employees of service providers currently operating at the MIAA and
service providers who have contracts with MIAA. They will surely sustain direct injury
upon the implementation of the PIATCO contracts because they will be displaced by new
employees/service providers thus losing their means of livelihood. Furthermore, the issues
posed in the cases required a discussion of the BOT Law and its constitutionality.
Tichangco vs. Enriquez
Interest means a material interest in issue that is affected by the questioned act or
instrument, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest. It cannot be vague, speculative
or uncertain.
AIWA vs. Romulo
Petitioners must show that they have sustained or will sustain a direct injury as a result of
the executive or legislative act being questioned. In the absence of such showing the case
will not prosper.
Pimentel vs. Exec. Sec
The Rome Statute is merely intended to complement national criminal laws and courts.
Sufficient remedies are available under our national laws to protect our citizens against
human rights violations.
Senate vs. Ermita
The interest of the petitioner in assailing the constitutionality of laws must be direct and
personal. When the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact that he
is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest.
Purok vs. Yuipico
The general rule is that all actions must be prosecuted and defended by the real parties in
interest and in the name of the real party in interest. An association has the legal personality
to represent its members and the outcome case will affect their vital interest. Additionally,
an association has standing to file suit for its members despite its lack of direct interest if
its members are affected by the action.
David vs. Arroyo
Holy Spirit vs. Defensor

The petitioner association has legal standing to file the petition WON it is the duly
recognized association of homeowners in the NGC. There is no dispute that the individual
members of the HSPSAI are residents of the NGC. They are covered and stand to be
benefited or injured by the enforcement of the IRR (particularly as regards the selection
process of beneficiaries and lot allocation to qualified beneficiaries). Thus, the petitioner
may assail the IRR if it believes it to be unfavorable to the rights of its members.
Furthermore, the petitioners have sustained injury because of the enforcement of the IRR
because they were disqualified and eliminated from the selection process (of being
considered as bona fide residents),
Henares vs. LTFRB
The petitioners have standing to bring this issue to court. This petition focuses on their
fundamental legal right to clean air. This right is an issue of paramount importance for it
concerns the air they breathe and it is imbued with public interest. The consequences of the
counterproductive effects of a neglected environment due to motor vehicle emissions affect
the well-being of everyone.

Mirasol vs. CA
The present case was instituted primarily for accounting and specific performance. The CA
correctly ruled that PNBs obligation to render an accounting is an issue which can be
determined without having to rule on the validity of PD 579. It is not the lis mota of the
case.
Matibag vs. Benipayo
The earliest opportunity is to raise it in the pleadings before a competent court that can
resolve the same.
La Bugal vs. Ramos
The earliest opportunity requirement should not be taken to mean that the question of
constitutionality must be immediately raised after the execution of the act complained of.
That the question of constitutionality has not been raised before is not a valid reason for
refusing to allow it to be raised later.

Francisco vs. Fernando

Francisco has no standing because he did not show that he has personally suffered some
injury from the alleged illegal conduct of the government. He also did not show that he had
a sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of tax money. There is also no
transcendental importance because he did not show a clear disregard of a consti/statutory
prohibition. On the lack of legal basis, all other cities have each enacted anti-jaywalking
ordinances. Such fact serves as sufficient basis for MMDAs scheme. After all, the MMDA
is an admin agency tasked with the implementation of rules and regulations. Furthermore,
the absence of an anti-jaywalking ordinance in Valenzuela does not detract from this
conclusion because there was no proof that the MMDA implemented the scheme in that
city.

Arceta vs. Mangrobang

The constitutional question is not the lis mota in the case. To justify a laws nullification,
there must be a clear breach of the Consti and not one which is speculative.

People vs. Vera

It has been held that since the decree pronounced by a court without jurisdiction is void,
where the jurisdiction of the court depends on the validity of the statue in question, the
issue of the constitutionality will be considered on its being brought to the attention of the
court by persons interested in the effect to be given the statute. Also, it is true that as a
general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity.
There are exceptions. Courts, in the exercise of sound discretion, may determine the time
when a question affecting the constitutionality of a statute should be presented. In civil
cases, it has been held that it is the duty of the court to pass on the constitutional questions,
even if it was raised for the first time on appeal IF it appears that a determination of the
question is necessary to a decision of the case. As to the power of the court to consider the
constitutional question raised for the first time in these proceedings, the SC is of the
opinion is that the People of the Philippines and the Fiscal of the City of Manila is a proper
party in these proceedings. The rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute
must have a substantial interest in the case. The enforcement of an invalid statute is
detrimental to public interest. Thus, the state has standing to sue.

Baker vs. Carr

Political questions are those questions under the Constitution, are to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has
been delegated to the legislative/executive branch of the government. Cases which are
political in nature as follows:

Estarja vs. Ranada

The law requires that the question of constitutionality be raised at the earliest opportunity.
In this case, Estarija raised the issue of constitutionality in his MR to the OMB. Verily, the
OMB has no jurisdiction to entertain questions on the constitutionality of a law. Thus,
when petitioner raised the issue of constitutionality before the CA, the constitutional
question was raised at the earliest opportunity. Furthermore, this court may determine when
a constitutional issue may be passed upon.

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate

political department (issues of foreign affairs and executive war powers,
parliamentary rules and regulations)
A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue
Impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly
for nonjudicial discretion (WISDOM)
Possible infringement of separation of powers
An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already
made*

f.

Potentiality of embarrassment from many pronouncements by various departments

on one question *

Significantly in the Philippines, since the Constitution empowers the SC to check for
GADLEJ of other branches, the question is not political even if there is the presence of e
and f.
Omena vs. Pendatun
The resolution was unanimously approved by the Congress and such approval amounted to
the suspension of Congress rules, which can be done by unanimous consent (therefore they
can take up matters already dealt with). In conclusion, the courts may not interfere with
internal rules and regulations of the Congress unless Constitutional rights are violated.
Arroyo vs. De Venecia
The wisdom of house rules (procedure) cannot be judicially determined out of respect for
the separation of powers.
Defensor-Santiago vs. Guingona
The Senate may determine its rules when it comes to voting for the minority leader as it is
not constitutionally provided for. Only the manner of electing the Senate President and
House Speaker is provided for in the Constitution. Each House shall choose such officers
as it may deem necessary.
ICMC vs. Calleja
The determination of immunities accorded to international organizations has been held to
be a political question conclusive upon the courts in order not to embarrass a political
department of the Government. If a plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized by the
executive, it is the duty of the courts to accept the same. These organizations are granted
immunities to prevent control or interference from the local host government (unimpeded
performance).
Tanada vs. Angara
Where an action of the legislative branch is alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it
becomes the judiciarys duty to settle the dispute. The Constitution must be upheld. The SC
stresses, though, that the Court will not review the wisdom (reasons why) the Senate
concurred in the WTO agreement or pass upon the merits of trade liberalization as a policy
espoused by the WTO. It will also not rule on the propriety of the governments policy of
removing taxes, subsidies and other import barriers. It will only check if Senate committed
GADLEJ/violated the Constitution in ratifying the WTO agreement.
Garcia vs. Corona
The court is bound to respect the legislative finding that deregulation is the policy answer
to the problem of high oil prices.

Liang vs. People

Slandering a person could not be covered by the immunity agreement because our laws do
not allow the commission of a crime (defamation) in the name of an official duty. The
imputation of theft cannot be part of official functions. Under the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent, enjoys immunity from crim jurisdiction of the
receiving state except in the case of an action relating to any commercial/professional
activity exercised by the agent in the receiving state outside his official functions.
De Agbayani vs. PNB
This is merely to reflect awareness that precisely because the judiciary is the governmental
organ which has the final say on whether or not a legislative or executive measure is valid,
a period of time may have elapsed before it can exercise the power of judicial review that
may lead to a declaration of nullity. It would be to deprive the law of its quality of fairness
and justice then, if there be no recognition of what had transpired prior to such
adjudication. The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination [of
unconstitutionality], is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly
be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.
Chavez vs. People
It is only in cases where the penalty is death that the RTC must forward the records of the
case to the SC for automatic review. Since the petitioners did not file an appeal, the
decision of their conviction and sentence to RP is final and unappealable.
Pearson vs. IAC
The SC has CONCURRENT jurisdiction with the IAC (now CA) and CFI (now RTC) to
issue extraordinary writs. Parties should seek proper relief from lower courts before going
to the SC. If the CA or RTC can competently issue extraordinary writs, the principle of
hierarchy of courts must be preserved.
People vs. Mateo
To ensure utmost inspection before the penalty of death, RP or LI is imposed, the Court
now deems it wise to provide in these cases a review by the CA before the case is elevated
to the SC. The need for an intermediate review by the CA is merely a procedural matter
that is Constitutionally vested in the SC.
Cebu Womens Club vs. De La Victoria
A party may directly appeal to the SC from a decision of the trial court only on pure
questions of law. The petition does not involve pure questions of law because a question of
law arises when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts
as distinguished from a question of fact which occurs when the doubt or difference arises
as to the truth or falsehood of the facts.
People vs. Gutierrez
It is within the power of the courts to determine the most suitable place of the trial. The
Judicial Power vested in the SC and it connotes certain inherent attributes necessary for an

effective administration of justice. One of these inherent powers is that of the transfer of
trial of cases from one court to another.
First Lepanto vs. CA
Review of BOI decisions first to CA.
Lina vs. Purisima
If in any case elevated to this Court for the correction of any supposed procedural error of
any lower court, it should be found that indeed there has been a mistake, and it further
appears that all the facts needed for a complete determination of the whole controversy are
already before the Court, the SC may at its option dispense with the usual procedure of
remanding and instead resolve the pertinent issues and render final judgments on the
merits.
In Re: Cunanan
Congress may repeal, alter and supplement the rules promulgated by the SC but the
authority and responsibility over the admission of attorneys remain vested in the SC.
In Re: Agrosino
The practice of law is a personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral character, with
special educational qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.
Javellana vs. DILG
These merely prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest
between the discharge of public duties and the private practice of law, and do not infringe
on the SCs power and authority to promulgate rules regarding the practice of law.
Bustos vs. Lucero
Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights as
opposed to remedial law, which prescribes the method of enforcing rights/obtain redress for
invasion. As applied to criminal law, substantive law is that which declares what acts are
crimes and prescribes the punishment for committing them, as distinguished from
procedural law which provides or regulates the steps by which one who commits a crime is
to be punished. Preliminary investigation is eminently remedial (being the first step taken
in a criminal prosecution). The curtailment of the right of an accused in a prelim
investigation to cross examine the witnesses who had given evidence for his arrest does not
offend the Constitution. Prelim investigation is not an essential part of due process (it may
suppressed entirely). Finally,nit is inevitable that the SC in making rules should step on
substantive rights, and the Constitution must be presumed to tolerate if not expect such
incursion as does not affect the accused in a harsh and arbitrary manner but operates only
in a limited and substantial manner to his disadvantage. It has the power to adopt a general
and complete system of procedure.

A substantive law, gives the surviving spouse and to the children the right to receive
support during liquidation, such right cannot be impaired by the Rules of Court, which is a
procedural rule.
PNB vs. Asuncion
A procedural rule cannot amend a substantive law.
Damasco vs. Laqui
Philippine jurisprudence considers prescription of a crime or offense a loss or waiver by the
State of its right to prosecute an act prohibited/punished by law. While it is the rule that an
accused who fails to move to quash before pleading, is deemed to waive all objections, yet
this rule cannot apply to the defense of prescription, which under Art 69 of the RPC
extinguishes criminal liability.
Carpio vs. Sulu Resources
When the SC, in its exercise of its rule-making power, transfers to the CA pending cases
involving a review of a quasi-judicial bodys decisions [MABs], such transfer only relates
to procedure and it does not impair substantive rights because the aggrieved partys right to
appeal is preserved and what is changed is only the procedure by which the appeal is to be
made or decided.
Land Bank vs. De Leon
A petition for review, not an ordinary appeal, is the proper procedure in effecting appeal
from decisions of Special Agrarian Courts in cases involving the determination of just
compensation to the landowners concerned.
People vs. Lacson
If a criminal case is provisionally dismissed without express consent, the new rule would
not apply. In this case, the 11 informations in criminal cases were filed with the RTC which
was well within the two year period therefore the MR is granted and the RTC is directed to
proceed with the criminal cases.
Planters vs. Fertiphil
Retroactive application is only allowed if no vested rights are impaired. In the case, at the
time PPI filed its appeal in 1992, all that the rules require for the perfection of its appeal
was the filing of a notice of appeal. PPI complied with this requirement when it filed a
notice of appeal. Thus, the 1997 Rules of CivPro which took effect on 1997 and required
docket fees cannot affect PPIs appeal which was already perfected in 1992.
In Re: 2003 Bar Examinations
Disbarment due to violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 as well as Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral
conduct/uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession).

Santero vs. CFI of Cavite

Tan vs. Bausch

SC has authority to transfer jurisdiction through Administrative Order.

Tan vs. Comelec
Review of rules of quasi-judicial bodies.

Article X: Local Government

Territorial and Political subdivisions:
1) provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays
2) Autonomous regions (only ARMM so far)
Power of president over LGU: general supervision

Article IX: Constitutional Commissions

Composition
Qualifications

Term
Appointment
Jurisdiction

Powers

Civil Service

Comelec

1 chairman and 2
commissioners
Natural-born, 35 +
yrs old, capacity
for public ad.; not
candidate
for
elctive position in
elctions
immediately
preceding appt

1 chairman and 6
commissioners
Natural-born, 35+
yrs old, college
grad.;
not
candidate
for
elctive position in
elctions
immediately
preceding
appt;
maj.
Including
chairman
should
be member of bar,
+ 10 yr practice
7
yrs
w/out
reappointment
(staggered)
President w/ CA
approval
Electoral process

7
yrs
w/out
reappointment
(staggered)
President w/ CA
approval
Branches,
subdivisions,
instrumentalities
and agencies of
the govt including
GOCCs
with
original charters

Central personnel
agency of the govt

Insure free, orderly

and
honest
elections

Commission
on
Audit
1 chairman and 2
commisisioners
Natural-born, 35 +
yrs old, CPA (10 yrs
auditing
experience),
or
members of the
bar(10
yrs
law
practice);
not
candidate
for
elctive position in
elctions
immediately
preceding appt.
7
yrs
w/out
reappointment
(staggered)
President w/ CA
approval
Government,
any
subdivision,
agency
or
instrumentality,
including GOCCs w/
original
charters
post-audit:
consti
bodies,
autonomous state
univ. and colleges,
other
GOCCs,
NGOs
w/
govt
subsidy or equity
Examine, audit and
settle all accounts
pertaining to the
revenue
and
receipts of, and
expenditures
or
uses of funds and
property
owned
and held in trust
by, or pertaining to
the govt

Article XI: Accountability of Public Officers

Public office: public trust
Impeachment: President, VP, members of SC, members of Constitutional Commissions,
and Ombudsman
Reasons: culpable violation of the Consti, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high
crimes, or betrayal of public trust.
HoR: exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment
Who may file: any member of HoR, or any citizen upon resolution of endorsement by any
member of HoR
Vote: at least 1/3 of all the members of HoR.
Article XII: National Economy and Patrimony

Agricultural
Lands

Other
Nat.
resources

Own/lease
# of years if
leased
# of hectares

Form
of
Exploitation

# of years
Transfer
of
Private land

Franchise

Filipino
Citizens
Own/lease

Filipino
Corporations
Lease
25 years

500 hectares
by lease; 12
hectares
if
owned
Co-production,
joint venture or
production
sharing
agreement
(license,
concession/lea
se)
25
years
(renewable for
addtl 25)
Yes

1000 hectares

Yes

Yes
Filipino;
foreign)

Article XVII: Amendments or Revisions

Congress
Constitutional
Convention

Co-production,
joint venture or
production
sharing
agreement
(license,
concession/lea
se)
25
years
(renewable for
addtl 25)
Yes

(60%
40%

Foreign
Corporation

Technical/financi
al
assistance
(large-scale)
Minerals,
petroleum, and
other
mineral
oils

No (if foreign
individual: only
in
cases
of
hereditary
succession)
No

The People

How?
Congress: vote
of of all
members;
consti.conventi
on
Initiative:
petition of at
least 12% of
all registered
voters, every
legis.
district
represented by
at least 3% of
registered
voters therein

Amendmen
t

Yes

yes

No

Revision

yes

yes

yes

Amendment- alteration of one or a few specific and separable provisions.; improve

specific parts or to add new provisions deemed necessary to meet new conditions or to
suppress specific portions that may have become obsolete or that are judged to be
dangerous.

Revision re-examination of the whole document, or of provisions of the document which

have over-all implications for the entire document, to determine ho and to what extent they
should be altered; may involve a re-writing of the whole Constitution.
Ex. Presidential system to parliamentary revision; change of term of president
amendment
No amendment shall be authorized oftener than once every 5 years.
Congress to provide for the implementation of right to initiative
Congress by a vote of 2/3 of all its members, may call a constitutional
convention
By a vote of a majority of all its members, it may submit to the electorate the
question of calling a convention.
Proposed amendments or revision: submitted all at once for one election by
the people.
Valid amendment or revision: ratified by majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite to be
held not earlier than 60 days not later than 90 days after the approval of such amendment or
revision.
Article XVIII: Transitory Provisions
1987 Constitution took effect on Feb. 2, 1987 (upon ratification by the people)
PCGG continued to operate.
Military Bases: only allowed based on following requisites:
1) a treaty is entered into
2) duly concurred in by the Senate, and when Congress requires, ratified by a
majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum for that purpose
3) the treaty is recognized as such by the other contracting State.