CONSOLIDATED OUTLINES IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

I. INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS

a. Definitions: Political Law, Constitutional Law, Constitution

Political Law has been defined as that branch of public law which deals with the organization and operation of the governmental organs of the State and defined the relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory (Macariola vs. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77).

.b. THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

b.1. Amendment and Revision

Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:

1. The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or2. A constitutional convention.

Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.

The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.

Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.

Section 4.Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.

Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition (Article XVII, 1987 Constitution).

1

b.1.1. Notes and Cases

Distinction between amendment and Revision

Revision may involve a rewriting of the whole constitution. The act of amending a constitution on the other hand, envisages a change of only specific provisions (Javellana vs. Executive Secretary, et al., 50 SCRA 367 [1973]).

The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition” is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people—first, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal, and, second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition; The full text of the proposed amendments may be either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it, and if so attached, the petition must state the fact of such attachment. [Lambino vs. Commission on Elections, 505 SCRA 160(2006)]

Logrolling confuses and even deceives the people. There is logrolling when the initiative petition incorporates an unrelated subject matter in the same petition; Under American jurisprudence, the effect of logrolling is to nullify the entire proposi tion and not only the unrelated subject matter [Lambino vs. Commission on Elections, 505 SCRA 160(2006)]

1. Santiago vs. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 1062. Lambino vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006 (En Banc)

b.1.1 Doctrine of fair and proper submission1. Tolentino vs. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702

b.2. Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy1. Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408

c. The Constitution as Interpreted by Courts: Theory of Judicial Review

c.1. Theory of Judicial Review1. Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)2. Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil 139

c.2. Conditions for the Exercise of the Judicial Review1. Dennis B. Funa vs. Executive Secretary Eduardo R.   Ermita, Office of the President, G. R. No. 184740,   February 11, 2010

2. Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal vs. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G. R. No. 191618, November 23, 2010

3. Integrated Bar of the Philippines vs. Zamora, 338 SCRA 814. Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc., et al vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, et

al/Kilusang Mayo Uno, et al vs. Hon. Eduardo Ermita, et al/Bagong Alyansang

2

Makabayan (Bayan), et al vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al/Karapata, et al vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al/The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, et al vs. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, et al/Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-Southern Tagalog, et al vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al. G. R. Nos. 178552, 178554, 178581, 178890, 179157, 179461, October 5, 2010

5. Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G. R. No. 160261, November 10, 20036. Manuel Mamba, et al vs. Edgar R. Lara, et al, G. R. No. 165109, December 14, 2009 7. Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, G. R. No. 167614, March 24, 20098. Atty. Oliver O. Lozano and Atty. Evangeline J Lozano-Endriano vs. Speaker Prospero C.

Nograles, Representative, Majority, House of Representatives/Louis “Barok” C. Biraogo vs. Speaker Prospero C. Nograles, Representative, Congress of the Philippines, G. R. No. 187883, June 16, 2009

9. Dante V. Liban, et al vs. Richard J. Gordon, G. R. No. 175352, January 18, 201110. Alunan III vs. Mirasol, 276 SCRA 50111. Malaluan vs. COMELEC, 254 SCRA 39712. Gonzales vs. Narvasa, 337 SCRA 73313. Atty. Evillo C. Pormento vs. Joseph “Erap”

    Ejercito Estrada and COMELEC, G. R. No.    191988, August 31, 2010

14. Bayan vs. Zamora, 342 SCRA 44915. Rodolfo G. Navarro, et al vs. Executive Secretary

Eduardo Ermita, et al, G. R. No. 180050, April 12, 201116. Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr., et al vs. Toll

Regulatory Board, et al/Hon. Imee R. Marcos, et    al vs. The Republic of the Philippines, et

al/Gising Kabataan Movement, Inc., et al vs. The Republic of the Philippines, et al/The Republic of the Philippines vs. Young Professionals and Entrepreneurs of San Pedro, Laguna, G. R. No. 166910, 169917, 173630, 183599, October 19, 2010

c.3. Functions of Judicial Review1. Osmeña vs. COMELEC, 199 SCRA 7502. Occeña vs. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 13. Salonga vs. Cruz Paño, 134 SCRA 4384. Javier vs. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 1945. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. COMELEC,   G. R. No. 133486, January 28, 2000

c.4. What Court May Exercise Judicial Review1. JM Tuason & Co. vs. Court of Appeals, 3 SCRA 6962. Ynot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659

c.5. Political Questions1. Estrada vs. Arroyo, G. R. No. 146738, March 2,

                                     2001

3

2. IBP vs. Zamora, 338 SCRA 813. Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G. R. No.

                                     160261, November 10, 2003

c.6. Effect of Declaration of Unconstitutionality(Article 7, New Civil Code of the Philippines)

1. Serrano de Agbayani vs. PNB, 38 SCRA 4292. Salazar vs. Achacoso, 183 SCRA 1453. League of Cities of the Philippines represented by LCP National President Jerry P.

Trenas, et al vs. COMELEC, et al, G. R. No. 176951/G. R. No. 177499/G. R. No. 178056, August 24, 2010

c.7. Principles of Constitutional Interpretation1. Francisco vs. House of Representatives, supra.2. Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc., et

           al vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, et al/Kilusang Mayo           Uno, et al vs. Hon. Eduardo Ermita, et al, supra.

II. THE PHILIPPINES AS A STATEa. STATE, DEFINED1. The Province of North Cotabato vs. GRP, G. R. No. 183591, October 14, 20082. Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Campos Rueda, 42 SCRA 23b. Territory1. Article I, 1987 Constitution2. Part IV, UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 19823. RA 9522c. People

c.1. Different Concepts of “People”

c.2. Citizenship

c.2.1. Importance1. Lee vs. Director of Lands, G. R. No. 128195,

October 3, 2001

c.2.2. Modes of Acquisition: Citizens of the Philippines1. Tecson vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 161434,

                    March 3, 20042. Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 5433. Re: Application of Ching, Bar Matter No. 914,

                    October 1, 19994. Carlos T. Go, Sr., vs. Luis T. Ramos/Jimmy T.

Go vs. Luis T. Ramos/Hon Alipio F.Fernandez et al vs. Jimmy T. Go a.k.a. JaimeT. Gaisano, G. R. No. 167569/G. R. No.

4

167570/G. R. No. 171946, September 4,2009

5. Bengson III vs. HRET, G. R. No. 142840, May   7, 20016. Co vs. HRET, 199 SCRA 6927. Belgamo Cabiling Ma, et al vs. Commissioner

Alipio F. Fernandez, Jr., et al, G. R. No. 183133, July 26, 2010

c.2.3. Naturalization: Judicial, Administrative,                                          Congressional

1. Commonwealth Act No. 4732. RA 5303. RA 91394. Moya vs. Commissioner, 41 SCRA 2925. Republic vs. dela Rosa, G. R. No. 104654, June 6, 19946. Republic vs.Liyao, 214 SCRA 7487. Limkaichong vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 178831-32, April 1, 2009

c.2.4. Loss of Citizenship1. Bengson III vs. HRET, supra.2. Coquilla vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 151914,

            July 31, 2002

c.2.5. Reacquisition1. Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 7312. Tabasa vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No.

           125793, August 29, 20063. Angat vs. Republic, G. R. No. 132244,

           September 14, 19994. Altajeros vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 163256,

November 10, 2004

c.2.6. Dual Citizenship and Dual Allegiance1. RA 92252. Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 6303. Nicolas Lewis vs. COMELEC, G. R. No.   162759, August 4, 20064. Calilung vs. Datumanong, G. R. No. 160869,

            May 11, 2007d. Sovereignty 1. Sinco, Philippine Political Law2. Reagan vs. CIR, 30 SCRA 9683. Tañada vs. Angara, G. R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997e. Sovereign Immunity: Doctrine of Non-Suability of State

5

e.1. Basis1. Section 3, Article XVI, 1987 Constitution2. Republic vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 83

e.2. Suit Against the State1. Professional Video, Inc, vs. Technical Education and   Skills Development Authority, G. R. No. 155504,   June 26, 20092. Republic vs. Feliciano, 148 SCRA 4243. Del Mar vs. PVA, 51 SCRA 4244. PNB vs. CIR, 81 SCRA 3145. Air Transportation Office vs. Spouses David and   Elisea Ramos, G. R. No. 159402, February 23, 20116. Lansang vs. CA, G. R. No. 102667, February 23,   20007. Calub vs. Court of Appeals8. Shell Philippines Exploration B. V. vs . Efren Jalos,et al, G. R. No. 179918, September 8, 2010

e.3. Consent1. Republic vs. Feliciano, 148 SCRA 4242. Meritt vs. GPI, 34 Phil 3113. Act. No. 30834. USA vs. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 4875. Commissioner of Public Highways vs. Burgos, 96

                                     SCRA 831f. Government

f.1. Government in General, Defined1. US vs. Dorr, 2 Phil 322

f.2. “Government of the Philippines”, Defined1. Section 2, Administrative Code of the Philippines2. Estrada vs. Arroyo, supra

f.3. Kinds of Government1. Co Kim Cham vs. Tan Keh, September 17, 19452. Lawyers League for Better Philippines vs. Aquino,

           Supra

f.4. Functions of the Government: Ministrant and       Constituent

f.5. Doctrine of Parens Patriae1. GP vs. Monte de Piedad, G. R. No. 9959, December

           13, 1916g. Principles and Policies of the Philippine Government

6

1. Art. II, 1987 Philippine Constitution2. Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, G. R. No. 122156, February 3, 19973. Tañada vs. Angara, G. R. No. 118925, May 2, 19974. Representatives Gerardo S. Espina, et al vs. Hon. Ronaldo Zamora, Jr., et al, G. R. No.

143855, September 21, 2010

g.1. Principles

g.1.a. Sovereignty of the People and RepublicanismRead: Concurring Opinion of Justice Mendoza in

                Estrada vs. Arroyo, supra.Read: Dissenting Opinion of Justice Puno in

                Tolentino, et al vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 148334,                January 21, 2004

g.1.b. Adherence to International law1. Philip Morris vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No.

                   91332, July 16, 19932. Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, G. R. No.

                    139465, January 18, 2000   Compare: Doctrine of Transformation3. Government of USA vs. Purganan, G. R. No.

                    148571, December 17m 2002

g.1.c. Civilian Supremacy

g.1.d. Government as Protector of the People, and                 People as Defenders of the State

g.1.e. Separation of Church and State1. Article III, Section 52. Article IX, Section 2 (5)3. Article VI, Section 5 (2)

Exceptions:1. Article VI, Section 28 (3), Section 29 (2)2. Article XIV, Section 3 (3), Section 4 (2)3. Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201

g.2. Policies (Sections 7-28)

g.2.a. Independent Foreign Policy and Nuclear-        Free Philippines

g.2.b. Just and Dynamic Social Order

7

g.2.b.1. Social Justice (Section 10)  1. Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil 726

g.2.b.2. Human Rights (Section 11)g.2.b.3. Equality of Men and Women (Section 14)g.2.b.4. Promotion of Health and Ecology

  (Section 14)1. Oposa vs. Factoran, 224 SCRA 7922. A. M. No. 09-6-8-SC (New Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases)

g.2.b.5. Priority of Education, Science,           Technology, Arts, Culture & Sports           (Section 17)g.2.b.6. Urban Land Reform and Housing            (Article III, Sections 9-10)g.2.b.7. Reform in Agriculture and Other           Natural Resources (Section 21)g.2.b.8. Protection to Labor (Section 18)g.2.b.9. Independent People’s Organization            (Section 19)g.2.b.10. Family (Section 12)g.2.b.11. Self-Reliant & Independent Economic             Order (Sections 19-20)g.2.b.12. Communication and Information             (Section 24)g.2.b.13. Autonomy of Local Governments             (Section 25)g.2.b.14. Rights of Indigenous Cultural             Communities (Section 22)g.2.b.15. Honest Public Service and FullDisclosure (Section 27)

1. Valmonte vs. Belmonte, 170 SCRA 2562. Akbayan vs. Aquino, G. R. No. 170516, July 16, 2008

III. POWERS AND STRUCTURES OF THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT:

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS1. Cruz, Philippine Political Law2. Separate Opinion, Justice Puno, Macalintal vs. COMELEC, et al, G. R. No. 157013, July

10, 2003IV. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT: STRUCTURE

Article VI, 1987 Constitutiona. Composition1. Sema vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 177597, July 16, 2008

a.1. Senate (Sections 2-4)a.2. House of Representatives (Sectiones 5-8)

8

 1. Republic Act No. 7941 2. Rodolfo G. Navarro, et al vs. Executive Secretary

Eduardo Ermita, et al, G. R. No. 180050, February 10,2010

 3. Senator Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III and Mayor Jesse     Robredo vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010 4. Victorino B. Aldaba, et al vs. COMELEC, G. R. No.     188078, March 15, 2010 5. Tobias vs. Abalos, G. R. No. L-114783, December 8,     1994 6. Aquino vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 118577, March 7, 1995 7. Mariano, Jr. vs. COMELEC, G. R. No.118577, March 7,     1995 8. Veterans Federation Party vs. COMELEC, 342 SCRA 244 9. Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 vs. COMELEC, G. R.     No. 177271, May 4, 2007 10. Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) vs.      COMELEC, G. R. No. 172103, May 4, 2007 11. Bagong Bayani-OFW vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 147589,      June 26, 2001 12. Partido vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 164702, March 15,      2006 13. Torayno vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 137329, August 9,      2000 14. Banat vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 137329, August 9, 2000 15. Banat vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 179271/G. R. No.      179295, July 8, 2009 16. Ang Ladlad-LGBT Party vs. COMELEC, G. R. No.      190582, April 8, 2010 17. Philippine Guardians Brotherhood vs. COMELEC, G. R.      No. 190529, April 29, 2010

b. QUALIFICATIONS AND TERM OF OFFICE1. Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs Board, G. R. No. 157870, November 3, 2008

b.1. Residence Requirement 1. Macalintal vs. COMELEC, et al., supra 2. Read also Separate Opinion of Justice Puno

b.2. Term vs. Tenure 1. Dimaporo vs. Mitra, 202 SCRA 779 2. Gaminde vs. COA, G. R. No. 154512, December 13, 2000 3. Socrates vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 154512, November 12,

         2002c. ELECTION (Sections 8-9)1. Tolentino, et al vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 148334, January 21, 20042. Macalintal vs. COMELEC, July 10, 2003

9

d. ORGANIZATIONS & SESSIONS

d.1. Election of Officers (Section 16 (1))d.2. Quorum (Sections 16 (2))

 1. Avelino vs. Cuenco, 83 Phil 17d.3. Rules of Proceedings (Sections 16 (3), 21)

 1. Arroyo vs. de Venecia, G. R. No. 127255, August 14,        1997

  2. Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., et al vs. Senate Committee of      the Whole Represented by Senate President Juan Ponce      Enrile, G. R. No. 187714, March 8, 2011

   d.4. Discipline of Members (Section 16 (3)) 1. Alejandrino vs. Quezon, 46 Phil 83 2. Osmeña vs. Pendatun, 109 Phil 863 3. Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 126055, April 19,     2001

  d.5. Journal and Congressional Records (Section 16 (4))

d.5.a. The Enrolled Bill Theory1. Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil 12. Casco vs. Gimenez, 7 SCRA 347

d.5.c. Matters to be Entered in the Journala.) yeas and nays on 3rd and final reading (Sec. 26 (2))b.) veto message of the President (Sec. 27 (1))c.) yeas and nays on repassing of the vetoed bill (id)d.) yeas and nays on any question upon request of    1/5 of members present (Sec. 16 (4))

d.5.d. Journal Entry Rule vs. Enrolled Bill Theory1. Astorga vs. Villegas, 56 SCRA 7142. Morales vs. Subido, 27 SCRA 1313. Arroyo vs. de Venecia, 277 SCRA 268

e. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (Section 16 (4), par. 2)f. SESSIONS

f.1. Regular Sessions (Sections 15 and 16 (5))

f.2. Special Sessions     1. Section 15     2. Article VII, Sections 10-11     3. Article VII, Sections 18, par. 3

f.3. Joint Sessions

f.3.a. Voting Separately

10

1. Article VII, Section 4, 11 (4), 92. Section 23 (1)3. Article XVII, Section 1 (1)

f.3.b. Voting Jointly1. Article VII, Section 18

g. CONSTITUTIONAL ORGANS WITHIN CONGRESS

g.1. Electoral Tribunals (Sections 17 and 19)

g.1.a. Composition1. Tañada vs. Cuenco, 103 Phil 1051

g.1.b. Function1. Henry “June” Dueñas, Jr. vs. HRET and

                     Angelito “Jett” P. Reyes, G. R. No. 185401,                     July 21, 2009

2. Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil 1393. Barbers vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 165691,   June 22, 20054. Limkaichong vs. COMELEC, G. R. No.  179120, Biraogo vs. Nograles, G. R. Nos.  179132-33, Paras vs. Nograles, G. R. Nos.  179240-41, Villando vs. COMELEC, G. R. Nos.  178831-32, April 1, 2009

g.2. Commission on Appointments (Sections 18 and 19)      1. Guingona, Jr. vs. Gonzales, G. R. No. 106971,          October 20, 1992      2. Coseteng vs. Mitra, 187 SCRA 377      3. Daza vs. Singson, 180 SCRA 496

h. SALARIES   1. Article XVIII, Section 10   2. Article XVIII, Section 17

i. PRIVILEGESi.1. Freedom from arrest (Section 11)     1. Martinez vs. Morfe, 44 SCRA 22

i.2. Privelege of Speech and Debate     1. Jimenez vs. Cabangbang, 17 SCRA 876     2. People vs. Jalosjos, G. R. No. 132875, February 3,

2000     3. Pobre vs. Sen Santiago, G. R. No. AC No. 7399,

11

August, 25, 2009

j. RESTRICTIONS (Sections 13, 14, 12, 20)  1. Adaza vs. Pacana, Jr. 135 SCRA 431  2. Puyat vs. de Guzman, 113 SCRA 31  3. Dante Liban, et al vs. Richard J. Gordon, G. R. No. 175352,      July 15, 2009  4. Dennis B. Funa vs. Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita,      Office of the President, G. R. No. 184740, February 11, 2010

j.1. Appearace as counsel    1. Villegas vs. Legaspi, G. R. No. 53869, March 25, 1982

V. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT: POWERS (Article VI)a. GENERAL PLENARY POWERS (Section 1)

Read: Part I of Legislative Investigations and Right to PrivacyBy: Honorable Reynato S. PunoThe Lawyers Review, April 30, 2005

b. LEGISLATIVE MILLc. REQUIREMENTS AS TO BILLS

c.1. Subject and Title (Section 26)     1. Cruz vs. Paras, 123 SCRA 569

c.2. As to specific laws (Article VII, Section 22)     Sections 24-5:     1. Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630     2. Demetria vs. Alba, 148 SCRA 208     3. Abakada Guro vs. Ermita, G. R. No. 16056, September

1, 2005 (en banc)

     Section 291. Guingona vs. Carague, 196 SCRA 221

Section 28Article XIV, Section 4 (3) and (4)Lung Center vs. Quezon City, G. R. No. 144104, June29, 2004

c.3. Presidential Veto (Section 27)     1. Bolinao Electronics Corp vs. Valencia, 11 SCRA 486     2. Gonzales vs. Macaraig, 191 SCRA 452     3. PHILCONSA vs. Enriquez, G. R. No. 113105, August

19, 1994

c.4. Effectivity of Laws      1. Tañada vs. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27

12

      2. EO 200, June 18, 1987      3. PVB Employees vs. Judge Vera, G. R. No. 105364,

 June 28, 2001

c.5. Initiative and Referendum      1. R. A. No. 6735, August 4, 1989      2. Garcia vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 111230, September

 30, 1994d. LIMITATIONS TO POWER OF LEGISLATION

d.1 Express Limitations      1. Article III, Sections 26, 28      2. Article XIV, Section 4 (3)      3. Section 29-31

 Fabian vs. Desierto, G. R. No. 129742, September 16,         1998

d.2. Implied Substantive Limitations

d.2.a. Non-delegation of Legislative Powers1. People vs. Vera, 65 Phil 56 (focus only on pp.    112- 125)2. Edu vs. Ericta, 35 SCRA 4813. ACCFA vs. CUGCO, 30 SCRA 6494. Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA, 166 SCRA    533

Exceptions under the Constitution:1. Sections 23 (2) and 28 (2)-delegation to the President2. Section 32, Article VI-delegation to the people3. Article X, Section 5-delegation to LGUs

d.2.b. Procedural Limitations (Sections 26-27)1. Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado, 227    SCRA 703

e. AIDS TO LEGISLATIONRead: Part I of Legislative Investigations and Right to Privacy

By: Hon. Reynato S. PunoThe Lawyers Review, April 30, 2005

e.1. Question Hour (Section 22)     1. Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita, G. R. No.

169777, April 20, 2006

e.2. Legislative Investigations (Section 21)

13

     1. Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita, G. R. No.169777, April 20, 2006

2. Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, G. R. No. L-89914, November 20, 19913. Negross Oriental II Electric Coop vs. SP, 155 SCRA 4214. Arnault vs. Nazareno, 87 Phil 295. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee vs. Majaducon, July 29, 20036. In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of Camilo Sabio, G.

R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006 (en banc)7. Senate vs. Ermita, G. R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006 (en banc)8. Gudani vs. Senga, G. R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006 (en banc)

Read: Separate Opinion of J. Puno in Macalintal vs. COMELEC, July 10, 2003

9. Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigation, G. R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008

10. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee vs. Majaducon,G. R. No. 136760, July 29, 2003

     11. Standard Chartered Bank vs. Senate Committee on                                     Banks, G. R. No. 167173, December 27, 2007

f. OTHER POWERS

f.1. As Board of Canvassers in Elections for President and     Vice-President (Article VII, Section 4)f.2. Call Special Election for President and Vice-Presidentf.3. Revoke/extend suspension of privilege of writ of habeas     corpus, declaration of martial law (Article VII, Section 18)f.4. Approve Presidential Amnesties (Article VII, Section 19)f.5. Confirm certain appointments (Article VII, Section 9 and     16)f.6. Concur in treaties (Article VII, Section 21)     1. Bayan Muna, as represented by Rep. Satur Ocampo,         et al vs. Alberto Romulo, in his capacity  as Executive         Secretary, et al, G. R. No. 159618, February 1, 2011f.7. Declare war and delegate emergency powers (Section 23)     1. David vs. Arroyo, G. R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006

(en banc)     2. Agan vs. PIATCO, G. R. No. 155001, May 5, 2003

(en banc)f.8. Judge President’s fitness     Article VII, Section 11, par. 4

1. Estrada vs. Arroyo, supraf.9. Power of Impeachment (Article XI)

f.9.a. Who may be impeached (Article XI, Section 2)1. In re Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771

f.9.b. Grounds (Article XI, Section 2)f.9.c. Procedure (Article XI, Section 3 (1) to (6)

14

1. Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez vs. The House of   Representatives Committee on Justice, et al,

                    G. R. No. 193459, February 15, 20112. Ma. Merceditas C. Gutierrez vs. The House ofRepresentatives Committee on Justice, et al,G. R. No. 193459, March 8, 2011

f.9.d. Effect (Article XI, Section 3 (7))1. Barcenas vs. House of Representatives, G. R.    No. 160405, November 10, 2003

f.10. Power to Amend ConstitutionVI. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT: THE PRESIDENT (Article III)

a. QUALIFICAITONS, ELECTION, TERM, OATH (Sections 2, 4, 5)1. FPJ vs. Arroyo, P. E. T. Case No. 002, March 29, 20052. Legarda vs. De Castro, P. E. T. Case No. 003, March 31, 20053. Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal vs. P. E. T., G. R. No. 191618, November 23, 2010b. PRIVILEGE AND SALARY (Section 6)

b.1. Executive Immunitiy     1. Soliven, Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393     2. Estrada vs. Desierto, G. R. No. 146710-15, March 2,         2001     3. Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 152259,

July 29, 2004

b.2. Executive Privilege     1. Almonte, et al vs. Vasquez, G. R. No. 95367, May 23,

19952. Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita, G. R. No.

169777, April 20, 20063. Neri vs. Executive Secretary, suprac. PROHIBITIONS (Section 13)1. Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 85468, September 7, 19892. Civil Liberties Uniou vs. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317

Compare with prohibitions against other officials:Article VI, Section 13Article IX, A, Section 2Article IX, B, Section 7Article VIII, Section 12

Exceptions to the Rule:Vice-President- Article VII, Section 3, par. 2Secretary of Justice- Article VIII, Section 8 (1)Ex oficio positions

d. SUCCESSION

15

1. At the beginning of the term Article VII, Section 7, 102. During the term Article VII, Section 8, 103. Temporary Disability Article VII, Sections 2-3

Estrada vs. Arroyo, suprae. REMOVAL (Article XI, Sections 2-3)

VII. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE PRESIDENTa. EXECUTIVE POWER (Article VII, Sections 1 and 17)1. Marcos vs. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 and 178 SCRA 7602. Gonzales vs. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 2303. DENR vs. DENR Employees, G. R. No. 149725, August 19, 20034. Louis “Barok” C. Biraogo vs. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010/Rep. Edcel C.

Lagman, et al vs. Exec. Sec. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al, G. R. No. 192935 & G. R. No. 19303. December 7, 2010

b. POWER OF CONTROL1. Mondano vs. Silvosa, 97 Phil 1432. Villena vs. Sec. of Interior, 67 Phil 4513. Free Tel. Workers vs. Minister of Labor, 108 SCRA 754. Atty. Sylvia Banda, et al vs. Eduardo R. Ermita, et al, G. R. No. 166620, April 20, 2010c. POWER OF GENERAL SUPERVISION OVER LGUS

Article X, Sections 4, 161. Ganzon vs. CA, 200 SCRA 2712. Dadole vs. COA, G. R. No. 125350, December 3, 2002d. POWER OF APPOINTMENT

d.1. Basis     1. GPI vs. Springer, 50 Phil 259

d.2. With Concurrence of COA      Article VII, Section 16

1. Rufino vs. Endriga, G. R. No. 139554, July 21, 20062. Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 5493. Concepcion-Bautista vs. Salonga, 172 SCRA 1604. Quintos-Deles vs. COA, 177 SCRA 2595. Calderon vs. Carale, 208 SCRA 2541. Heads of Departments2. Ambassadors, Public Ministers and Consuls3. Officers of AFP from colonel and naval captain4. Chairman and members of Constitutional Commissions5. Regular members of JBC (Article VIII, Section 9)6. Sectoral (Article XVIII, Section 7)

d.3. Upon Recommendation of JBC      1. members of SC and all other courts

 (Article VIII, Section 9)      2. Ombudsman and deputies (Article XI, Section 9)

16

d.4. Appointment of Vice-President as Cabinet Member     (Section 3)

d.5. Appointments solely by President (Section 16)      1. Those whose appointments are not otherwise

 provided by law      2. Those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint

d.6. Limitations of Appointing Powerd.6.1. Article VII, Sections 13 and 15

1. Aytona vs. Castillo, 4 SCRA 12. Jorge vs. Mayor, 10 SCRA 3313. Quimsing vs. Tajanlangit, 10 SCRA 4464. Arturo de Castro vs. JBC, G. R. No. 191002,    March 17, 2010    Read: Dissenting Opinion of Justice Carpio

    Morales

d.6.2. Interim or Recess AppointmentsArticle VI, Section 19Article VII, Section 16 par. 2

1. Guevara vs. Inocentes, 16 SCRA 3892. De Rama vs. CA, G. R. No. 131136, February

    28, 20013. Matibag vs. Benipayo, G. R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002

d.6.3. Temporary DesignationsAdministrative Code of 1987, Book III, Sec.17

1. Arturo de Castro vs. JBC, G. R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010Read: Dissenting Opinion of Justice Carpio Morales

d.6.4. Limitations on Appointing Power of ActingPresident (Secs. 14-15)

e. PARDONING POWER (Sec. 19)Article IX, C, Sec. 5

e.1. Pardon Distinguished from Probation     1. People vs. Vera, 65 Phil 56

e.2. Pardon Distinguished from Parole     1. Torres vs. Gonzales, 152 SCRA 272

e.3. Pardon Distinguished from Amnesty     1. Barrioquinto vs. Fernandez, 82 Phil 642     2. Vera vs. People, 7 SCRA

17

e.4. Effect of Pardon     1. Monsanto vs. Factoran, G. R. No. 78239, February 9,

1989

e.5. Who may avail of Amnesty     Macaga-an vs. People, 152 SCRA 430

f. MILITARY POWERS (Sec. 18)Article II, Sec. 13Article VIII, Sec. 1 par. 2

1. Sanlakas vs. Reyes, G. R. No. 159085, February 3, 20042. IBP vs. Zamora, ibid3. Lacson vs. Perez, May 10, 20014. David vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, G. R. No. 171396, May 3, 20065. In Re: Ferdinand Arguelles, Jr. vs. Baladia, Jrl, G. R. No. 167211, March 14, 2006

Compare: Writ of Habeas Data (AM No. 08-1-16-SC); and Writ of Amparo (October 24, 2007)

g. EMERGENCY POWERS (Article VI, Sec. 23 (2))1. David vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, G. R. No. 171396, March 3, 2006 (en banc)h. CONTRACTING AND GUARANTEEING FOREIGN LOANS (Sections. 20, 21)i. POWER OVER FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sec. 21)1. Bayan vs. Zamora, 342 SCRA 4492. Pimentel vs. Executive Secretary, G. R. No. 158088, July 6, 2005

i.1. Deportation of undesirable aliens     1. Go Tek vs. Deportation Board, 79 SCRA 17 POWER         OVER LEGISLATION

i.2. To address Congress (Sec. 23)i.3. Preparation and submission of budget (Sec. 22)    1. Pimentel vs. Aguirre, 336 SCRA 201i.4. Veto power (Sec. 27)i.5. Emergency powers (Article VI, Sec, 23 (2))

VIII. THE JUDICIARY (Article VIII)a. THE SUPREME COURT

a.1. Composition (Sec. 4)      1. Vargas vs. Rilloraza, 80 Phil 297      2. US vs. Limsiongco, 41 Phil 94

a.2. Appointment and Qualifications (Sections 7, 8, 9)     1. Arturo de Castro vs. JBC, G. R. No. 191002,

March 17, 2010

a.3. Salary (Sec. 10)

18

     Article XVIII, Section 171. Perfecto vs. Meer, 85 Phil 5222. Endencia vs. David, 93 Phil 6963. Nitafan vs. CIR, 152 SCRA 284

a.4. Security of Tenure (Sec. 11, Sec. 2, par. 2)     1. De la Liana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294

a.5. Removal (Sec. 11)      Article XI, Sec. 2

a.6. Fiscal Autonomy (Sec. 3)b. POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT

b.1. JUDICIAL POWER

b.1.a. (Article VIII, Sec. 1)1. Santiago vs. Bautista, 32 SCRA 1882. Mantruste Systems, Inc. vs. CA, 179 SCRA 1363. Daza vs. Singson, 180 SCRA 4964. Garcia vs. Board of Investments, 191 SCRA 2885. Barcenas vs. House of Representatives, supra6. Miranda vs. Aguirre, G. R. No. 133064,    September 16, 1999

b.2. JUDICIAL REVIEW     1. Francisco vs. House of Representatives, supra     2. Justice Panganiban’s “Liberty and Prosperity”

b.3. Article VIII, Sec. 5     1. In Re: Bermudez, 145 SCRA 160     2. Rule 122 and AM No. 00-5-03-SC Re Amendments

Governing Death Penalty effective October 15, 2004     3. People vs. Mateo, G. R. No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004

b.4. Article VII, Sec. 18 par. 3     Article VII, Sec. 4, par. 7

1. Lopez vs. RoxasArticle IX, A, Sec. 7

b.5. Congressional Power over Jurisdiction of the SC      Sec. 2, par. 1      Article VI, Sec. 30

1. Villavert vs. Desierto, G. R. No. 133715, February 23, 20002. Fabian vs. Desierto, G. R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998

19

b.6. Manner of sitting and votes required      Article VIII, Sec. 4      Rule 56, Sec. 11 and Rule 125, Sec. 3, Rules of Court

1. League of Cities of the Philippines vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 176951, December 21, 2009

2. David Lu vs. Paterno Lu Ym, et al vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals of Cebu City, et al, G. R. No. 153690/G. R. No. 157381/G. R. No. 170889, February 15, 2011

b.7. Requirements as to decisions (Sections 13-14)      1. Yao vs. CA, G. R. No. 132428, October 24, 2000      2. Asiavest vs. CA, G. R. No. 110263, July 20, 2001      3. Fr. Martinez vs. CA, G. R. No. 123547, May 21, 2001      4. Lenindo Lumanog, et al vs. PP/Cesar Fortuna vs.

 PP/PP vs. SPO2 Cesar Fortuna y Abudo, et al, G. R. Nos. 182555/G. R. No. 185123/G. R. No. 187745,September 7, 2010

b.7.1. Mandatory periods for deciding casesArticle VIII, Section 15Article VII, Section 18, par. 3Article XVIII, Sections 12- 14

b.8. ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS

b.8.1. Supervision of lower courts (Sections 6, 11)1. Maceda vs. Vasques, 221 SCRA 464

b.8.2. Temporary assignment of judges (Sec. 5 (3))b.8.3. Change of Venue (Sec. 4)b.8.4. Appointment of officials and employees of

                 judiciary (Sec. 5 (6))

b.9. RULE-MAKING POWERS (Sec. 5 (5))      Article XII, Sec. 14, par. 2      Article VII, Sec. 18, par. 3

1. In Re Cunanan, 94 Phil 5342. In Re Marcial Edillon, 84 SCRA 554

Re: Request for Special Division, AM No. 02-1-09-SC, January 21, 2002

3. Aguirre vs. Rana, Bar Matter No. 1036, June 10, 20034. IN RE: PETITION TO DISQUALIFY ATTY. LEONARD DE VERA, ON LEGAL

AND MORAL GROUNDS, FROM BEING ELECTED IBP GOVERNOR FOR EASTERN MINDANAO IN THE MAY 31, IBP ELECTIONS, A. C. N0. 6052, December 11, 2003

20

b.10. PROHIBITION ON QUASI-JUDICIAL ORADMINISTRATIVE WORKS (Sec. 12)

1. Manila Electric Co. vs. Pasay Trans, 57 Phil 6002. Garcia vs. Macaraig, 39 SCRA 1063. In Re: Judge Rodolfo Manzano, 166 SCRA 246

c. REPORT ON JUDICIARY (Sec. 16)d. THE LOWER COURTS

d.1. Qualifications and Appointments (Sec. 7 (1)(2), 8 (5), 9)      1. SB ng. Taguig vs. Judge Estrella, AM No. 01-1608-

 RJT, January 16, 2001

d.2. Salary (Sec. 10)

d.3. Congressional Power to Reorganize and Security of      Tenure (Sec. 11, 2 (2))

1. De la Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294

d.4. Removal (Sec. 11)d.5. Jurisdiction (Sec. 1)     1. Ynot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659

d.6. Preparation of decisions (Sec. 14)      1. Pedragoza vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 164702, March

 15, 2006      2. Partido ng Manggagawa vs. COMELEC,

 G. R. No. 164702, March 15, 2006

d.7. Mandatory period for deciding      Article VIII, Sec. 15      Article XVIII, Secs. 12-14

1. Marcelino vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 512. De Roma vs. CA, 152 SCRA 205

e. THE JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (Sec. 8)  1. Arturo de Castro vs. JBC, G. R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010

f. AUTOMATIC RELEASE OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR JUDICIARY (Sec. 3)IX. THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

a. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

a.1. Composition and Qualifications      Article IX, B, Sec. 1 (1)      Article VII, Sec. 13, par. 2

21

a.2. Functions     Article IX, B, Sec. 3     Article IX, A, Sec. 7

1. Luego vs. CSC, 143 SCRA 327

a.3. Scope of Civil Service      Article IX, A, Sec. 2 (1)

1. Leyson vs. Ombudsman, G. R. No. 134990, April 27, 20002. Baluyot vs. Holganza, G. R. No. 136374, February 9, 20003. Winston F. Garcia vs. Mariano I. Molina, et al/Winston F. Garcia vs. Mario I. Molina, et

al, G. R. No. 157383/G. R. No. 174137, August 18, 2010a. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

b.1. Composition and Qualifications      Article IX, C, Sec. 1 (1)      Article VII, Sec. 13, par. 2

1. Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210

b.2. Functions

b.2.1. AdministrativeArticle IX, C, Sec. 2 (1), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9)

b.2.2. AdjudicatoryArticle IX, C, Sec. 2 (2) and (3)Javier vs. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 194Canisoca, vs. COMELEC, December 5, 1997

b.2.3. Rule-makingArticle IX, A, Sec. 6

1. Aruelo, Jr., vs. CA, 227 SCRA 311

b.2.4. RegulatoryArticle IX, C, Sec. 4

1. NPC vs. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 194

b.3. Review of Decisions      Article IX, C, Sec. 2 (2)      Article IX, A, Sec. 7

1. Flores vs. COMELEC, 184 SCRA 4842. Garces vs. CA, 259 SCRA 99

b.9. Fiscal Autonomy      Article IX, A, Sec. 5

22

c. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

c.1. Functions     Article IX, D, Secs. 2-3     Article VI, Sec. 20     Article IX, A, Sec. 6

1. Philippine Airlines vs. COA, 245 SCRA 392. National Housing Corp vs. COA, 226 SCRA 553. Luego vs. CSC, 143 SCRA 327

c.2. Scope      1. Ramon R. Yap vs. Commission on Audit,

G. R. No. 158562, April 23, 2010

d. NATIONAL COMMISSIONSA. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (CHR)

a.1. Composition and Qualifications      Article XIII, Sec. 17

1. Bautista vs. Salonga, supra

a.2. Powers and Functions      Article XIII, Sec. 18-19

1. Carino vs. CHR, G. R. No. 96681, December 2, 19912. EPZA vs. CHR, 208 SCRA 1253. Simon, Jr. vs. CHR< 229 SCRA 117

X. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (Article X)a. RIGHT TO VOTE (Sec. 14)1. Ceniza vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 763g. RECALL (Sec. 1)1. Garcia vs. COMELEC, 227 SCRA 100

XI. NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY (Article XII)a. POLICIY (Sec. 1)1. Cruz vs. Sec. DENR, 347 SCRA 728b. NATURAL RESOURCES

b.1. Regalian Doctrine      1. Lee Hong Kok vs. David, 48 SCRA 372

c. PRIVATE LANDS

c.1. Citizenship Requirements (Sec. 7)      1. Godinez vs. Pak Luen, 120 SCRA 223

23

      2. Tejido vs. Zamacoma, 138 SCRA 78

c.2. Exceptions

c.2.1. Legal Succession1. Ramirez vs. Vda de Ramirez, 111 SCRA 7042. Matthews vs. Taylor, G. R. No. 164584, June    22, 2009

c.2.2. Acquisition by former natural-born citizens (Sec. 8)

d. ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES

d.1. Organization and Regulation of Private Corporations      (Sec. 16)

1. NADECO vs. PNB, 192 SCRA 2572. Liban vs. Gordon, G. R. No. 164584, June 22, 2009

d.2. Operation of public utilities (Sec. 11, 17, 18)      1. Albano vs. Reyes, 175 SCRA 264      2. Republic vs. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620

e. MONOPOLIES, COMBINATIONS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION (Sec. 19)1. Lagman vs. Torres, 281 SCRA 330; 282 SCRA 337

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

24

I. POLICE POWER

Definition, Scope & BasisCharacteristicsWho exercise said power?Tests of Police Power

Laws:

1. Balacuit vs. CFI, G. R. No. L-38429, June 30, 19882. Lozano vs. Matinez, 146 SCRA 323 (1986)3. Del Rosario vs. Bengzon, 180 SCRA 521 (1989)4. Tablarin vs. Judge Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 730 (1987)

    Zoning and Regulatory Ordinances:

1. Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operators vs. City Mayor, 20 SCRA 849 (1967)2. Cruz vs. Paras, 123 SCRA 569 (1983)3. Velasco vs. Villegas, 120 SCRA 568 (1983)4. Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties, 234 SCRA 255 (1994)5. Tano vs. Socrates, G. R. No. 110249, August 27, 19976. City of Manila vs. Judge Laguio, G. R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005

    Administrative Rules and Regulations:

1. Bautista vs. Junio, 127 SCRA 329 (1984)2. Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila vs. BOT, 119 SCRA 597 (1982)3. Mirasol vs. DPWH, G. R. No. 158793, June 8m 20064. Anglo-Fil Trading vs. Lazaro, 124 SCRA 494 (1983)5. PPA vs. Cipres Stevedoring, G. R. No. 145742, July 14, 20056. Chavez vs. Romulo, G. R. No. 157036, June 9, 2004

II. EMINENT DOMAIN

Definition

25

Who exercises the power?

1. City of Manila vs. Chinese Cemetery of Manila, 40 Phil 349 (1919)2. Moday vs. CA, 268 SCRA 368 (1997)

    Constitutional Limitation: Article II, Sec. 9    Distinguished from destruction due to necessity    Objects of Appropriation

1. RP vs. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620 (1969)

    Where Expropriation Suit is file

1. Barangay San Roque vs. Heirs of Pastor, G. R. No. 138896, June 20, 2000

    TakingDefinition and scope

    Requisites of Taking

1. Republic vs. Castelvi, 58 SCRA 336 (1974)2. City Government of Quezon City vs. Ericta, 122 SCRA 759 (1983)

    Deprivation of Use

1. Republic vs. Fajardo, 104 Phil 443 (1958)2. Napocor vs. Gutierrez, 193 SCRA 1 (1991)3. U.S. vs. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946)4. PPI vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272 (1995)

     Priority in Expropriation

1. Fiscal International vs. CA, 284 SCRA 716 (1998)2. City of Mandaluyong vs. Francisco, G. R. No. 137152, January 29, 20013. Lagcao vs. Judge Labra, G. R. No. 155746, October 13, 20044. JIL vs. Municipality of Pasig, G. R. No. 152230, August 9, 2005

Public Use

1. Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220 (1983)2. Sumulong vs. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461 (1987)

26

3. Province of Camarines Sur vs. CA, 222 SCRA 170 (1993)4. Manosca vs. CA, 252 SCRA 412 (1996)5. Estate of Jimenez vs. PEZA, G. R. No. 137285, January 16, 2001

     Governmental Withdrawal

1. NHA vs. Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo, G. R. No. 154411, June 19, 20032. NPC & Pobre vs. CA, G. R. No. 106804, August 12, 2004

     Recovery of Expropriated Land

1. ATO vs. Gopuco, G. R. No. 158563, June 30, 20052. Republic vs. Lim, G. R. No. 161656, June 29, 2005

     Genuine Necessity

1. Municipality of Meycauyan vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 640 (1988)2. De Knecht vs. Bautista, 100 SCRA 660 (1980)3. Republic vs. De Knecht, G. R. No. 87351, February 12, 19904. De la Paz Masikip vs. Judge Legaspi, G. R. No. 136349, January 23, 2006

     Just Compensation     Defined

1. Eslaban vs. De Onorio, G. R. No. 146062, June 28, 20012. RP vs. IAC, et al., G. R. No. 71176, May 21, 1990

     Determination of Just Compensation

1. EPZA vs. Dulay, 149 SCRA 305 (1987)

     When Determined

1. Ansaldo vs. Tantuico, G. R. No. 50147, August 3, 19902. NAPOCOR vs. Tiangco, G. R. No. 170846, February 6, 20073. City of Cebu vs. Spouses Dedamo, G. R. No. 142971, May 7, 2002

     Manner of Payment

27

1. Association of Small Landowners vs. DAR, 175 SCRA 343 (1989)2. DAR vs. CA, 249 SCRA 149 (1995)

     Trial with Commissioners

1. Meralco vs. Pineda, 206 SCRA 196 (1992)2. NPC vs. Henson, G. R. No. 129998, December 29, 19983. NAPOCOR vs. Sps. De la Cruz, G. R. No. 156093, February 2, 20074. Leca Realty vs. Republic, G. R. No. 155605, September 27, 2006

Legal Interest for Expropriation Cases

1. NPC vs. Angas, 208 SCRA 542 (1992)2. Wycoco vs. Judge Caspillo, G. R. No. 146733, January 13, 2004

Writ of Possession

1. City of Manila vs. Oscar Serrano, G. R. No. 142304, June 20, 20012. Republic vs. Gingoyon, G. R. No. 166429, December 19, 2005

    Expropriation of Utilities, Landed Estates and Municipal PropertyArticle XII, Sec. 18Article XIII, Sec. 4Article XIII, Sec. 9

1. City of Baguio vs. Nawasa, 106 Phil 114 (1959)2. Zamboanga del Norte, vs. City of Zamboanga, 22 SCRA 1334 (1968)

III. TAXATION

    Definition and NaturePurpose

1. CIR vs. Algue, Inc., 158 SCRA 9 (1988)2. Commissioner vs. Makasiar, 177 SCRA 27 (1989)

28

    Scope (The power to tax is the power to destroy)    Who exercises the power?

Article VI, Sec. 28Article XIV, Sec. 4 (3)Article X, Sec. 5

    Tax Exemptions

1. YMCA vs. CIR, 33 Phil 217 (1916)2. Bishop of Nueva Segovia vs. Provincial Board, 51 Phil 352 (1927)3. Lladoc vs. CIR, 33 Phil 2174. Province of Abra vs. Hernando, 107 SCRA 104 (1981)5. Abra Valley College vs. Aquino, 162 SCRA 106 (1988)6. American Bible Society vs. City of Manila, 101 Phil 386 (1957)

    Double Taxation

1. Punzalan vs. Municipal Board of Manila, 95 Phil 46 (1954)

    License Fees

1. Physical Therapy Organization vs. Municipal Board, G. R. No. 10448, August 30, 1957

IV. DUE PROCESS

Article IIIArticle III, Sec. 14 (1)

    Definition, Nature and Scope    Purpose of the Guaranty

1. Hurtado vs. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)

    Meaning of Life, Liberty and Property    Substantive Due Process

1. Villegas vs. Hu Chong Tsai Pao Ho, 86 SCRA 275 (1978)2. Rubi vs. Prov. Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil 660 (1919)

29

    Void for Vagueness/Overbreadth

1. Ople vs. Torres, 292 SCRA 141 (1998)2. Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 148560, November 19, 20013. David vs. Arroyo, G. R. No. 171390, May 3, 20064. Ong vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 126858, September 16, 2005

    Procedurial Due Process    Publication Requirement

1. Tañada vs. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446 (1986)2. PITC vs. Angeles, 263 SCRA 421 (1996)3. Tejano vs. Ombudsman, G. R. No. 159190, June 30, 20054. Tumey vs. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1997)5. People vs. Court of Appeals, 262 SCRA 452 (1996)6. Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 332 (1997)

     Prejudicial Publicity

1. Sheppard vs. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966)2. Webb vs. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652 (1995)3. People vs. Sanchez, G. R. No. 121039, October 18, 2001

     Notice of Hearing

1. Summary Dismissal Board vs. Torcita, 330 SCRA 153 (2000)2. Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, G. R. No. 139466, October 17, 20003. People vs. Estrada, G. R. No. 130487, June 19, 20004. Lim vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 111397, August 12, 2002

     Opportunity to be Heard

1. Budiongan vs. De la Cruz, G. R. No. 170288, September 22, 20062. Roxas vs. Vasquez, G. R. No. 114944, June 21, 20013. Marohombsar vs. Judge Adiong, A. M. RTJ-02-1674, January 22, 2004

      Exceptions to notice and hearing requirements

1. Philcomsat vs. Alcuaz, 180 SCra 218 (1989)2. Suntay vs. People, 101 Phil 833 (1957)

30

3. De Bishop vs. Galang, 8 SCRA 244 (1963)4. Var Orient Shipping Co., vs. Achacoso, 161 SCRA 232 (1988)

      Administrative Due Process

1. Ang Tibay vs. CIR, 69 Phil 635 (1940)2. Montemayor vs. Araneta University Foundation, 77 SCRA 321 (1977)3. Meralco vs. PSC, 11 SCRA 317 (1964)4. Ateneo vs. CA, 145 SCRA 100 (1986)5. Alcuaz vs. PSBA, 161 SCRA 7 (1988)6. Non vs. Hon. Dames, G. R. No. 89317, May 30, 1990

III. EQUAL PROTECTIONPolitical, Economic, and Social Equality

Article XIII, Sec. 1 and 2 (social justice)Id., Sec. 3 (protection to labor)Article XII, Sec. 10 (nationalization of business)Id., Sec. 2, par. 2 ((reservation of marine resources)Article 2, Sec.11 (free access to the courts)Article VIII, Sec. 5 (5) (legal aid to poor)Article IX-C, Sec. 10 (protection of candidates)Article II, Sec. 26 (public service)Article II, Sec. 14 (equality of women and men)

Sexual Discrimination

1. Philippine Association of Service Exporters vs. Drillon, 163 SCRA 386 (1988)

Administration of Justice

1. People vs. Hernandez, 99 Phil 515 (1956)2. People vs. Isinain, 85 Phil 648 (1950)3. Chavez vs. PCGG, G. R. No. 130716, December 9, 19984. Nunez vs. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433 (1982)5. Gallardo vs. People, G. R. No. 142030, April 21, 2005

Public Policiy

1. Central Bank Employees Association vs. BSP, G. R. No. 148208, December 15, 20042. PNB vs. Palma, G. R. 157279, August 9, 20053. Unido vs. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 17 (1981)4. PJA vs. Prado, 227 SCRA 703 (1993)

31

5. Olivarez vs. Sandiganbayan, 248 SCRA 700 (1995)6. Tiu vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 127410, January 20, 19997. Coconut Oil Refiners vs. Torres, G. R. 132527, July 29, 20058. ISAE vs. Quisumbing, G. R. No. 128845, June 1, 20009. PHILRECA vs. DILG, G. R. No. 143076, June 10, 200310. Beltran vs. Secretary of Health, G. R. No. 133640, November 25, 2005

III. THE NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSEArticle III, Sec. 10PurposeWhen impairment occursWhen allowed

Emergency Powers

1. Rutter vs. Esteban, 93 Phil 68 (1953)

Zoning and Regulatory Ordinances

1. Villanueva vs. Castañeda, 154 SCRA 142 (1987)2. Sangalang vs. IAC, 168 SCRA 634 (1988)3. Ortigas & Co. vs. CA, G. R. No. 126102, December 4, 2000

Administrative Regulations

1. Tiro vs. Hontanosas, 125 SCRA 697 (1983)

Rental Laws

1. Caleon vs. Agus Development Corp., 207 SCRA 748 (1992)

Tax Exemptions

1. Meralco vs. Province of Laguna, 306 SCRA 750 (1999)

IV. ARRESTSArticle III, Sec. 2 and 3

Purpose and Importance of the Guaranty

32

1. Alvero vs. Dizon, 76 Phil 637 (1946)

To Whom Directed

1. People vs. Andre Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)

Who May Invoke the Right?

1. Bache and Co., vs. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 323 (1971)2. Stonehill vs. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967)3. Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978)4. Wilson vs. Layne, 98-0083, May 24, 1999

Conditions for a Valid WarrantExistence of Probable Cause

1. Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 (1984)2. Chandler vs. Miller, April 15, 1997, D-96-1263. People vs. Chu Ho San, 308 SCRA 432 (1999)4. People vs. Molina, G. R. No. 133917, February 19, 2001

Partially Valid Warrant

1. People vs. Salanguit, G. R. 133254, April 18, 20012. Microsoft Corp vs. Maxicorp., G. R. 140946, September 13, 2004

Personal Determination by Judge

1. Sta. Rosa Mining Co., vs. Fiscal Zabala, 153 SCRA 3672. Paderanga vs. Drillon, G. R. No. 96080, April 19, 19913. Pita vs. CA, 178 SCRA 362 (1987)4. Abdula vs. Guiani, 326 SCRA 1 (2000)5. People vs. Mamaril, G. R. No. 147607, January 22, 2004

Examination of Witnesses

1. Passion Vda. De Garcia vs. Locsin, 65 Phil 68 (1938)2. Yee Sue Kuy vs. Almeda, 70 Phil 141 (1940)3. Alvarez vs. CFI, 64 Phil 33 (1937)4. Mata vs. Bayona, 128 SCRA 388 (1984)

33

Particularity of Description

1. Olaes vs. People, 155 SCRA 486 (1987)2. Prudente vs. Judge Dayrit, 180 SCRA 69 (1989)3. Chia vs. Collector of Customs, 177 SCRA 755 (1989)4. 20TH Century Fox Film Corp. vs. CA, 164 SCRA 655 (1988)5. People vs. Choi, G. R. No. 152950, August 3, 20066. Nolasco vs. Cruz Pano, 132 SCRA 152 (1985)7. PICOP vs. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253 (1999)8. Yousef Al Ghoul vs. CA, G. R. No. 126859, September 4, 20019. Del Rosario vs. People, G. R. No. 142295, May 31, 2001

Objects of SeizureRule 126, Sec. 3, Rules of Court

1. Unilab vs. Isip, G. R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005

Warantless SearchesValid Waiver

1. People vs. Omaweng, 213 SCRA 462 (1992)2. People vs. Correa, 285 SCRA 679 (1998)3. People vs. Ramos, G. R. No. 85401-02, June 4, 19904. Veroy vs. Layague, 210 SCRA 97 (1992)5. People vs. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457 (1992)6. Lopez vs. Commissioner of Customs, 68 SCRA 320 (1975)7. Caballes vs. CA, G. R. No. 142531, October 15, 20028. People vs. Tudtud, et al, G. R. No. 144037, September 26, 2003

Incident to Lawful ArrestRule 126, Sec. 13, Rules of Court

1. Chimel vs. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1964)2. People vs. de la Cruz, G. R. No. 83988, April 18, 19903. People vs. Kalubiran, 196 SCRA 645 (1991)4. People vs. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401 (1991)5. Espano vs. CA, 288 SCRA 558 (1998)6. People vs. Tangliben, 184 SCRA 220, (1990)7. People vs. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592 (2000)8. People vs. Estrella, G. R. Nos. 138539-40, January 21, 20039. People vs. Libnao, et al, G. R. No. 136860, January 20, 2003

34

Plain View Doctrine

1. People vs. Musa, 217 SCRA 597 (1993)2. Padilla vs. CA, 269 SCRA 402 (1997)3. People vs. Valdez, G. R. No. 129296, September 25, 20004. Arizona vs. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987)5. People vs. Compacion, G. R. No. 124442, July 20, 20016. People vs. Huang Zhen Hua, G. R. No. 139301, September 29, 2004

Enforcement of fishing, customs, and immigration laws

1. Roldan vs. Area, 65 SCRA 320 (1975)2. People vs. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785 (1997)3. People, vs. Johnson, G. R. No. 138881, December 18, 20004. People vs. Suzuki, G. R. No. 12067, October 7, 19975. Malacat vs. CA, 283 SCRA 159 (1997)6. Florida vs. J. L. 98-1993, March 28, 2000

Search of Moving Vehicles

1. Papa vs. Mago, 22 SCRA 857 (1968)2. People vs. CFI of Rizal, 101 SCRA 86 (1980)3. Salvador vs. People, G. R. No. 146706, July 15, 20054. Whren vs. United States, 95-5841, January 10, 1996

Emergency Circumstances

1. People vs. De Gracia, 233 SCRA 716 (1994)

Checkpoints

1. Gen. De Villa vs. Valmonte, G. R. No. 83988, May 24, 19902. Aniag vs. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424 (1994)3. People vs. Usana, 323 SCRA 754 (2000)4. People vs. Vinecario, G. R. No. 141137, January 20, 2004

Inspection of Buildings

1. Camara vs. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967)

35

Warrantless arrestsRule 113, Sec. 5Article 125, Revised Penal Code

Rebellion as Continuing Offense

1. Umil vs. Ramos, G. R. No. 81567, July 9, 1990

Committed in the Presence of Police Officers

1. People vs. Sucro, 195 SCRA 388 (1991)2. People vs. Luisito Go, G. R. No. 116001, March 14, 2001

Personal Knowledge of the Offense

1. People vs. Gerente, 219 SCRA 756 (1993)2. People vs. Sinoc, 275 SCRA 357 (1997)3. People vs. Baula, G. R. No. 132671, November 15, 20004. People vs. Cubcubin, G. R. No. 136267, July 10, 2001

Time of Arrest

1. People vs. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791 (1992)2. Go vs. CA, 206 SCRA 586 (1992)3. People vs. Calimlim, G. R. No. 123980, August 30, 2001

Marked Money

1. People vs. Enrile, 222 SCRA 586 (1992)

Lack of Urgency

1. People vs. Pasudag, G. R. No. 128822, May 4, 20012. People vs. Aminnudin, 163 SCRA 402 (1988)

Effect of BailRule 114, Sec. 26

Effect of Entry of Plea

36

1. People vs. Conde, G. R. No. 113269, April 10, 2001

V. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION & CORRESPONDENCE

RA No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) (1965)Arts, 290, 291, 292, and 299, Revised Penal Code

1. Gaanan vs. IAC, 145 SCRA 113 (1986)2. Katz vs. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967)3. Ramirez vs. CA, G. R. No. 93833, September 28, 19954. Salcedo –Ortanez vs. CA, 235 SCRA 111 (1994)5. Alejano vs. Cabuay, G. R. No. 160792, August 25, 2005

Privileged Communications

1. In Re Laureta, 148 SCRA 382 (1987)2. People vs. Albofera, 152 SCRA 123 (1987)3. Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 699 (1996)4. Deano vs. Godinez, 12 SCRA 483 (1964)5. Waterhouse Drug Corporation, vs. NLRC, G. R. No. 113271, October 16, 1997

Exclusionary RuleArticle III, Sec. 3 (2)

1. Silverthorne Lumber vs. U.S., 251 U.S. 385 (1920)2. People vs. Aruta, G. R. 120915, April 3, 19983. People vs. Rondero, G. R. 125687, December 9, 1999

Liability for damages

1. Aberca vs. Ver, 160 SCRA 590 (1989)

VI. RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

37

Article III, Sec. 12

1. Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Custodial Investigation

1. People vs. Lugod, G. R. No. 136253, February 21, 20012. People vs. Del Rosario, G. R. No. 127755, April 14, 19993. People vs. Bolanos, 211 SCRA 262 (1992)4. Rhode Island vs. Innis, 446 SCRA 291 (1980)5. People vs. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455 (1999)

Administrative Investigations

1. People vs. Judge Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)2. Office of the Court Administrator vs. Sumilang, 271 SCRA 316 (1997)3. People vs. Uy, G. R. No. 157399, November 17, 2005

Police Lineup

1. Gamboa vs. Cruz, 162 SCRA 642 (1988)2. United States vs. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967)3. People vs. Escordial, G. R. No. 138934, January 16, 20024. People vs. Piedad, et al, G. R. No. 131923, December 5, 2002

Cases before January 17, 1973 not applicable

1. Magtoto vs. Manguera, 63 SCRA 4 (1975)

Rule under the 1973 Constitution (Voluntary, knowing & intelligent waiver)

1. People vs. Caguia, 95 SCRA 2 (1980)2. People vs. Tampus, 90 SCRA 624 (1980)3. People vs. Sayaboc, G. R. No. 147201, January 15, 2004

38

The Galit Rule

1. People vs. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985)

Rule under the 1987 ConstitutionRequirement of Competent and Independent Counsel

1. People vs. Bandula, 232 SCRA  566 (1994)2. People vs. Quidato, G. R. No. 117401, October 1, 19983. People vs. Januario, 267 SCRA 608 (1997)4. People vs. Labtan, G. R. No. 12793, December 8, 19995. People vs. Samus, G. R. No. 135957-58, September 17, 20026. People vs. Tomaquin, G. R. No. 133138, July 23, 20047. People vs. Bagnate, G. R. No. 133685-86, May 20, 2004

Counsel of Choice

1. People vs. Gallardo, G. R. No. 113684, January 25, 20002. People vs. Barasina, 229 SCRA 450 (1994)

Counsel’s presence required in entire proceedings

1. People vs. Morial, G. R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001

Seized Articles

1. People vs. Castro, 274 SCRA 115 (1997)2. People vs. Wong Chuen Ming, 256 SCRA 182 (1996)3. Marcelo vs. Sandiganbayan, 302 SCRA 102 (1999)4. People vs. Macabalang, G. R. 168694, November 27m 2006

Confession to Newsmen

1. People vs. Andan, 269 SCRA 95 (1997)

39

2. People vs. Endino, G. R. No. 133026, February 20, 20013. People vs. Ordono, G. R. No. 132154, June 29, 20004. People vs. Guillermo, G. R. No. 147786, January 20, 20004

Other Confessions

1. People vs. Malngan, G. R. No. 170470, September 26, 20062. People vs. Gomez, 270 SCRA 432 (1997)3. Illinois vs. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990)4. People vs. Lugod, G. R. No. 136253, February 21, 2001

Re-enactment

1. People vs. Luvendino, 211 SCRA 36 (1992)

Exclusionary RuleArticle III, Sec. 12 (3)

Fruits of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

1. People vs. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 (1995)2. Harris vs. New York, 401 SCRA 222 (1971)3. New York vs. Quarles, 104 U.S. 2626 (1984)

VII. RIGHT TO BAIL

Article III, Sec. 13

Bail DefinedRule 114, Sec. 1, ROC

Kinds of BailRule 114, Sections 10, 11, 14 & 15

When right may be invoked

40

1. Herras Teehankee, vs. Rovira, 75 Phil 634 (1945)2. People vs. San Diego, 26 SCRA 522 (1968)3. Cortes vs. Judge Catral, A. M. No. RTJ-97-1387, September 10, 19974. Lavides vs. CA, G. R. No. 129670, February 1, 20005. Government vs. Judge Puruganan, G. R. No. 148571, December 17, 2002

Procedure for bail

1. Enrile vs. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217 (1990)2. People vs. Judge Donato, 198 SCRA 130 (1991)

Bail on appeal

1. People vs. Fortes, 223 SCR 619 (1993)2. Maguddatu vs. CA, G. R. No. 139599, February 23, 20003. Obosa vs. CA, G. R. No. 114350, January 16, 1997

Standards for fixing bailRule 114, Sec. 9

1. Villasenor vs. Abano, 21 SCRA 312 (1967)2. De la Camara vs. Enage, 41 SCRA 1 (1971)3. Almeda vs. Villaluz, 66 SCRA 38 (1975)4. Yap vs. CA, G. R. No. 141529, June 6, 20015. Cabañero vs. Cañon, AM No. MTJ-01-369, September 20, 20016. Victory Liner vs. Belosillo, G. R. No. 425 SCRA 79 (2004)

Bail and the Right to Travel Abroad

1. Manotoc vs. CA, 142 SCRA 149 (1980)

VIII. RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED

Article III, Sec. 14

41

Presumption of Innocence

Proof beyond reasonable doubt

1. People vs. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59 (1971)

Order of Trial

1. Alejandro vs. Pepito, 96 SCRA 322 (1988)(modified by Rule 119, Sec. 3 (e)

Presumption of Guilt

1. Dumlao vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392 (1980)2. People vs. Mingoa, 92 Phil 857 (1953)

Applicability to Juridical Persons

1. Feeder International Line vs. CA, CR 94262, May 31, 1991

Official Duty

1. People vs. Martos, 211 SCRA 805 (1992)

Equipoise Rule

1. Corpuz vs. People, 194 SCRA 73 (1991)2. Dizon Paminatuan vs. People, July 11, 1994

Right to be heard personally or by counselImportance of Counsel

1. People vs. Holgado, 85 Phil 7522. Delgado vs. CA, 145 SCRA 357 (1986)

42

Improvident Plea of Guilt

1. People vs. Baluyot, 75 SCRA 148 (1977)2. People vs. Magsi, 124 SCRA 69 (1983)3. People vs. Besonia, G. R. No. 151284-85, February 5, 20044. People vs. Murillo, G. R. No. 134583, July 14, 2004

Right to Lawyer of Choice

1. People vs. Malunsing, 63 SCRA 493 (1975)2. Libuit vs. People, G. R. No. 154363, September 13, 2005

Deprivation of Right to be Heard

1. Moslares vs. CA, 291 SCRA 440 (1998)

Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusationLack of Arraignment

1. Borja vs. Mendoza, 77 SCRA 422 (1977)2. People vs. Alcalde, G. R. No. 139225, May 29, 20023. People vs. Dy, G. R. No. 115236, January 29, 2002

Sufficiency of the Information

1. People vs. Sadiosa, 290 SCRA 82, (1998)2. People vs. Perez, G. R. No. 122764, September 24, 19983. People vs. Lozano, G. R. No. 125080, September 25, 19984. People vs. Ladrillo, G. R. No. 124342, December 8, 19995. People vs. Valdesancho, G. R. No. 137051, May 30, 20016. People vs. Alcaide, G. R. Nos. 139-225-28, May 29, 20027. People vs. Ostia, G. R. No. 131804, February 26, 20038. People vs. Flores Jr., G. R. No. 128823-24, December 27, 20029. People vs. Cachapero, G. R. No. 153008, May 20, 2004

43

Right to speedy, impartial and public trial

Speedy Trial

1. Acevedo vs. Sarmiento, 36 SCRA 247 (1970)2. People vs. Judge Laya, 161 SCRA 327 (1988)3. Conde vs. Rivera, 45 Phil 650 (1924)4. Dacanay vs. People, 240 SCRA 490 (1995)5. People vs. Rivera, G. R. No. 139180, July 31, 20016. Solar Team Entertainment vs. How, G. R. No. 140863, August 22, 20007. Valencia vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 165996, October 17, 20058. Domondon vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 166606, November 29, 2005

Public trial

1. Garcia vs. Domingo, 52 SCRA 143 (1970)2. Perez vs. Estrada, A. M. No. 01-4-03-SC, June 29, 2001

Impartial trial

1. Tumey vs. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)2. Soriano vs. Angeles, G. R. No. 109920, August 31, 2000

Right to confront witnesses

1. U.S. vs. Javier, 37 Phil 449 (1918)

Right to secure attendance of witnesses

1. U.S. vs. Garcia, 10 Phil 384 (1908)2. People vs. Sandal, 54 Phil 883 (1938)3. People vs. De Luna, 174 SCRA 204 (1989)

Right to be present during trial

44

Rule 115, Sec. 1 (c)

1. People vs. CA, G. R. No. 140285, September 27, 2006

When presence of the accused is a duty:Arraignment & pleaRule 116, Sec. 1 (b)

During trial for identification

1. Aquino vs. Military Commission No. 63 SCRA 546 (1975)2. People vs. Salas, 143 SCRA 163 (1986)

Promulgation of sentenceRule 120, Sec. 6Exception: Light offenses

IX. PRIVILEGES AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

Article III, Sec. 17

Scope covers compulsory testimonial incrimination

1. United States vs. Tan The, 23 Phil 145 (1912)2. United States vs. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil 735 (1917)3. People vs. Otadura, 86 Phil 244 (1950)4. Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil 62 (1920)5. Bermudez vs. Castillo, 64 Phil 485 (1937)6. Beltran vs. Samson, 53 Phil 570 (1929)7. People vs. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 (1994)8. South Dakota vs. Neville, 459, U.S. 553 (1983)9. Schemerber vs. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)

10. People vs. Rondero, G. R. No. 125687, December 9, 199911. People vs. Gallarde, G. R. No. 133025, February 17, 2000

     In what proceedings available

1. Pascual vs. Board of Medical Examiners, 28 SCRA 344 (1969)

45

2. Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274 (1985)

Use Immunity vs. Transactional ImmunityArticle XIII, Sec. 18 (8)RA No. 1379, Sec. 8Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274 (1985)Brown vs. Walker, 161 U.S. 591

     Exclusionary rule     Article II, Sec. 12 (3)

     Effect of denial of privilege by court

1. Chavez vs. CA, 24 SCRA 663 (1968)

IX. RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSTION OF CASES

     Article III, Sec. 16     Article VIII, Sec. 15     Article VII, Sec. 19, par. 3     Article IX, A, Sec. 17

1. Duterte vs. Sandiganbayan, 289 SCRA 721 (1998)2. Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, 159 SCRA 70 )1988)3. Licaros vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 145851, November 22, 20014. Dimayacyac vs. Judge Roxas, G. R. No. 136264, May 28, 20045. Bernat vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 158018, May 20, 2004

X. PUNISHMENTS

Excessive fines and cruel, degrading and inhuman punishments1. People vs. Dela Cruz, 92 Phil 906 (1953)2. People vs. Borja, 91 SCRA 340 (1978)3. People vs. Dacuycuy, 173 SCRA 90 (1989)4. Louisiana vs. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947)5. Ford vs. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986)6. Atkins vs. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)

46

The death penalty

1. Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, G. R. No. 132601, January 19, 1999

Involuntary servitudeArticle III, Sec. 18Aclaracion vs. Gatmaitan, 64 SCRA 131 (1979)

Imprisonment for debtArticle III, Sec. 20

1. Sura vs. Martime, 26 SCRA 286 (1969)2. People vs. Nitafan, 207 SCRA 726 (1992)3. In Re: Habeas Corpus of Benjamin Vergara, G. R. No. 154037, April 30, 2003

Ex post facto laws and bills of attainderArticle III, Sec. 22

1. Kay Villegas Kami, 35 SCRA 429 (1970)2. People vs. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)3. People vs. Sandiganbayan, 211 SCRA 241 (1992)4. Wright vs. CA, 235 SCRA 341 (1994)

Double JeopardyArticle III, Sec. 21Rule 117, Sec. 7Rule 120, Sec. 5

Elements

1. People vs. Obsania, 23 SCRA 1249 (1968)

Subsequent prosecution barred; Exceptions

1. Melo vs. People, 85 Phil 766 (1959)2. People vs. Yorac, 42 SCRA 230 (1971)(overruled)

47

3. PSB vs. Bermoy, G. R. No. 151912, September 26, 20054. Heirs of Rillorta vs. Firme, 157 SCRA 518 (1988)5. People vs. Miraflores, 115 SCRA 586 (1982)6. People vs. Judge Vergara, 221 SCRA 560 (1993)7. Tupaz vs. Ulep, G. R. No. 127777, October 1, 19998. Argel vs. Judge Pascua, A. M. No. RTJ-94-1131, August 20, 2001

Jurisdiction of Courts

1. People vs. Bocar, 138 SCRA 166 (1985)2. Galman vs. Sandiganbayan, 144 SCRA 43 (1986)3. People vs. Grospe, 157 SCRA 154 (1988)4. People vs. Judge Santiago, 174 SCRA 143 (1989)

Identity of Acts

1. People vs. Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)

Identity of Offenses

1. People vs. City Court, 154 SCRA 175 (1987)2. Nierras vs. Dacuycuy, 181 SCRA 1 (1990)

Military Court Proceedings

1. Cruz vs. Enrile, 160 SCRA 702 (1988)2. Tan vs. Barrios, October 18, 1990

Right to Speedy Trial

1. Que vs. Cosico, 177 SCRA 410 (1989)2. Caes vs. IAC, 179 SCRA 54 (1989)

Administrative & Criminal Proceedings

48

1. Icasiano vs. Sandiganbayan, 209 SCRA 377 (1992)2. Vincoy vs. CA, G. R. No. 156558, June 14, 20043. People vs. Larañaga, G. R. No. 138874, July 21, 2005

Plea of Guilty to Lesser Offense

1. People vs. Judge Villarama, 210 SCRA 246 (1992)

XI. PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Article II, Sec. 15Article VII, Sec. 18

1. Villavencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil 778 (1919)2. Moncupa vs. Ponce Enrile, 141 SCRA 223 (1986)3. Lansang vs. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448 (1971)4. Chavez vs. CA, 24 SCRA 663 (1968)5. Gumabon vs. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420 (1971)6. In Re: Abadilla, 156 SCRA 92 (1987)7. Norberto Feria vs. CA, et al, G. R. No. 122954, February 15, 20008. Illusorio vs. Bildner, G. R. No. 139789, May 12, 2000

XII. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Article III, Sec. 4Id., Sec. 18 (1)

Purpose

1. United States vs. Bustos, 37 Phil 731 (1918)2. Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 (1984)3. New York Times vs. Sullivan, 380 U.S. 51 (1964)

Restrictions

49

1. Gonzales vs. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835 (1969)2. Social Weather Station vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 147571, May 5, 2001

Balancing of Interest TestDangerous Tendency TestClear and Present Danger Test

1. Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, 170 SCRA 1 (1989)2. Sanidad vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 90878, January 29, 19903. Reno vs. ACLU, D-96-511, June 26, 19974. Miriam College vs. CA, G. R. No. 127930, December 15, 20005. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 133486, January 28, 20006. Chavez vs. COMELEC

Freedom of Expression, Libel and National Security

1. Babst vs. NIB, 132 SCRA 316 (1984)2. Espuelas vs. People, 90 Phil 524 (1951)3. Elizalde vs. CFI, 116 SCRA 93 (1982)4. Lopez vs. CA, 34 SCRA 116 (1970)5. PJI vs. Thoenen, G. R. No. 143372, December 13, 20056. Texas vs. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)7. Borjal vs. CA, 301 SCRA 1 (1999)8. Baguio Midland Courier vs. CA, G. R. No. 107566, November 25, 2004

Freedom of Expression and the Administration of Justice

1. Cabansag vs. Fernandez, 102 Phil 1522. People vs. Alarcon, 69 Phil 265 (1939)3. In Re: Ramon Tulfo, A. M. No. 90-4-1545-0, April 17, 19904. Nestle Philippines vs. Sanchez, 154 SCRA 542 (1987)5. In Re: Atty. Emil Jurado, A. M. 90-5-2373, July 12, 1990

Freedom of Expression, Movie Censorship, Obscenity, and the Right to Privacy

1. Gonzales vs. Kalaw Katikbak, 137 SCRA 356 (1985)2. Lagunzad vs. Sotto, Vda. De Gonzales, 92 SCRA 476 (1979)3. Ayer Productions vs. Judge Capulong, 160 SCRA 861 (1988)

50

4. KMU vs. Director General, G. R. No. 167798, April 19, 20065. MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN, G. R. No. 155282, January 17, 20056. Reno vs. ACLU, June 26, 1997, D-96-5117. Miller vs. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)8. Fernando vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 159751, December 6, 2006

Radio Broadcasts

1. Eastern Broadcasting Corp. (DYRE) vs. Dans, 137 SCRA 247 (1985)

XIII. FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY

1. B. P. Blg. 880 (Public Assembly Act of 1985)2. Primicias vs. Fugoso, 80 Phil 71 (1948)3. Navarro vs. Villegas, 31 SCRA 730 (1970)4. Ignacio vs. Ela, 99 Phil 346 (1956)5. J.B.I. Reyes vs. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553 (1983)6. Ruiz vs. Gordon, 126 SCRA 233 (1983)7. Malabanan vs. Ramento, 129 SCRA 359 (1984)8. Arreza vs. GAUF, 137 SCRA 94 (1985)9. German vs. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514 (1985)

10. Acosta vs. CA and CSC, G. R. No. 132088, June 28, 200011. Bayan vs. Ermita, G. R. No. 169848, April 25, 2006

XIV. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Article III, Sec. 7

1. Baldoza vs. Dimaano, 71 SCRA 14 (1976)2. Tañada vs. Tuvera, supra3. Valmonte vs. Belmonte, 170 SCRA 256 (1989)4. Legaspi vs. CSC, 150 SCRA 530 (1987)5. Garcia vs. BOI, 177 SCRA 374 (1989)

XV. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

51

Article III, Sec. 8Article IX, Sec. 2 (5)Article XIII, Sec. 3, par. 2

1. Occena vs. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 404 (1985)2. In Re: Edillon, 84 SCRA (1979)3. Rotary International vs. Rotary Club, 481 U.S. 537 (1987)

XVI. FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Article III, Sec. 5Non-establishment ClauseOperation of Sectarian SchoolsArticle XIV, Sec. 3 (3)Religious Instruction in Public SchoolsArticle XIV, Sec. 3 (3)Civil Code, Article 359 (1)

Anti-evolution laws

1. Epperson vs. Arkansas, 33 U.S. 27 (1968)

Prayer and Bible Reading in Public Schools

1. Engel vs. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)2. Abington Schools District vs. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1973)3. Stone vs. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Tax ExemptionArticle VI, Sec. 28 (3)

Public Aid to ReligionArticle VI, Sec. 29 (2)

1. Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201 (1937)2. Mueller vs. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983)3. Lemon vs. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)

52

4. Wallace vs. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)5. Islamic Da’wah Council vs. Executive Secretary, G. R. No. 153888, July 9, 2003

Intramural Religious Disputes

1. Fonacier vs. CA, 96 Phil 417 (1955)

Free Exercise Clause

1. Estrada vs. Escritor, A. M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006

Flag Salute

1. West Va Board of Education vs. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)2. Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent, March 1, 1993

Freedom to Propagate Religious Doctrines

1. American Bible Society vs. City of Manila, 181 Phil 386 (1957)2. Swaggart Ministries vs. Cal Board of Equalization, 493 U.S. 378 (1990)

Exemption from Union Shop

1. Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54 (1974)

Disqualification for Local Government Officials

1. Pamil vs. Teleron, 86 SCRA 413 (1978)

Religious Test

1. Tocarso vs. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

53

XVII. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL

Article III, Sec. 6

1. Salonga vs. Hermosa, 97 SCRA 121 (1989)2. Caunca vs. Salazar, 82 Phil 851 (19403. Manotok vs. CA, 142 SCRA 149 (1986)4. Marcos vs. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 (1989)5. Silverio vs. CA, G. R. No. 94284, April 8, 19916. Lorenzo vs. Director of Health, 50 Phil 595

PUBLIC CORPORATIONSI. Introduction

Article X, 1987 ConstitutionE. O. 392-1990(Metropolitan Manila Authority)E. O. 220-1987RA 7924 (Metropolitan Manila Development Authority)RA 6734 (Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao)RA 6766 (Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region) and RA 8438

Cases:1. Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, vs. Bel- Air Village Association, G. R. No.

134962, March 27, 2000

54

2. Alvarez, et al vs. Guingona, et al, G. R. No. 118303, January 31, 19963. Solicitor General vs. MMA, G. R. No. 102782, December 11, 19914. Metropolitan Traffic Command vs. Gonong, G. R. No. 91023, July 13, 19905. Cordillera Regional Assembly vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 93054, December 4, 19906. Cordillera Board Coalition vs. COA, G. R. Nos. 79956 & 82217, January 29, 19907. Abbas vs. COMELEC, G. R. Nos. 89651-89965, November 10, 19898. Limbona vs. Mangelin, G. R. No. 80391, February 28, 1989

II. General PrinciplesA. RA 7160 The Local Government Code: Policy and Application1. Effectivity (Sec. 536, LGC)2. Declaration of Policy (Sec. 2, LGC)3. Operative Principles of Decentralization (Sec. 3, LGC)

Cases:

1. San Juan vs. Civil Service Commission, G. R. No. 92299, April 19, 19912. Ganzon vs. CA, G. R. No. 93252, 93746 & 95245, August 5, 19913. Cordillera Board Coalition vs. COA, G. R. Nos. 79956 & 82217, January 29, 19904. De Leon vs. Esguerra, G. R. No. 78059, August 31, 1987

B. Scope of Application

(Sec. 4, LGC)RA 7227, Sec. 12 (i)

    Cases:

1. Chiongbian vs. Orbos, G. R. No. 96754, June 22, 19952. Badua vs. Cordillera Bodong Association, G. R. No. 92649, February 14, 19913. Cordillera Board Coalition vs. COA, G. R. No. 79956, January 29, 19904. Abbas vs. COMELEC, G. R. Nos. 89651-89965, November 10, 1989

C. Rules of Interpretation (Sec. 5, LGC)

Cases:

55

1. Tano vs. Socrates, G. R. No. 110249, August 21, 19972. Secretary of Health vs. CA, G. R. No. 112243, February 23, 19953. Greater Balanga Development Corp. vs. Balanga, G. R. No. 83987, December 27, 19944. Evardone vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 94010, December 2, 1991

D. Creation, Conversion and Abolition of Local Government Unites

1. Creation and Conversion

Sec. 6, LGC (RA 7160)Sec. 7, LGC (RA 7160)Sec. 10, Article X, 1987 ConstitutionRA 9009, Amending Sec. 450 of RA 7160

    Cases:

1. MMDA vs. Dante O. Garin, G. R. No. 130230, April 15, 20052. Sultan Osop B. Camid vs. Office of the President, et al, G. R. No. 161414, January 17,

20053. Padilla vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 105120, September 4, 19924. Grito vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 105120, September 4, 19925. Quezon vs. Mendez, G. R. No. 103702, December 6, 19946. Tan vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. L-73155, July 11, 19867. Lopez vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. L-56022 & L-56124, May 31, 19858. Malabang vs. Benito, G. R. No. L-28113, March 28, 19699. Pelaez vs. Auditor General, G. R. No. L-23825, December 24, 1965

10. League of Cities vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 176951, December 9,     2008

2. Division and Merger (Sec. 8, LGC)

3. Abolition of Local Government Units (Sec. 9, LGC)

56

4. Naming of Local Government Units and Public Places, Streets and Structures (Sec. 13, LGC)

E. Attributes of Local Government Units

Secs. 6-24, LGC1987 Constitution, Article X, Secs. 1, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16 and 19LGC, Secs. 6-10. 385-386, 441-442, 449-450, 460-461RA 8371RA 7878RA 4695

     Cases:

1. Alternative Center for Organizational Reforms and Development, Inc., et al vs. Ronaldo Zamora, et al, G. R. No. 144256, June 8, 2005

2. Jimenez vs. Baz, G. R. No. 105746, December 2, 19963. Alvarez vs. Guingona, G. R. No. 118303, January 31, 19964. Mariano vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 118577 & 118627, March 7, 19955. Candijay vs. CA, G. R. No. 116702, December 28, 19956. Municipality of San Narciso, Quezon vs. Mendez, G. R. No. 103702, December 6, 19947. Grito vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 105120, September 4, 19928. Tobias vs. Abalos, G. R. No. 114783, December 8, 19949. Torralba vs. Sibagat, G. R. No. L-59180, January 29, 1987

10. Malabang vs. Benito, G. R. No. L-28113, March 28, 196911. Pelaez vs. Auditor General, G. R. No. L-23825, December 24,     1965

F. Beginning of Corporate Existence (Sec. 14, LGC)

G. Political and Corporate Nature of LGUs (Sec. 15, LGC)

      Cases:

57

1. Macasiano vs. Diokno, G. R. No. 97764, August 10, 19922. City of Manila vs. IAC, G. R. No. 71159, November 15, 19893. Naga vs. CA, G. R. No. 37289, April 12, 19894. Cruz vs. CA, G. R. No. L-44178, August 21, 19875. Torio vs. Fontanilla, G. R. No. L-29993, October 23, 1978

A. General Powers of Local Government Units

1. Police Power

(Sec. 16, LGC)Secs. 16, 391, 447, 458, LGCRA 8369,Secs 8 and 11RA 8425,Sec. 12, RA 8435,Secs. 19 (2nd par.), 90, 99, 101

Cases:

1. City of Manila, et al., vs. Lagio, et al. , G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 20052. Tan, et al. vs. Pereta, G.R. No. 149743, February 18, 2005

Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA, G.R. No. 120865-71, December 7, 1995

3. Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA, G.R. No. 120865-71, December 7, 1995

4. Olivarez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 118533, October 4, 1995

5. Lim v. Pacquing, G.R. No. 115044, January 27, 1994

6. Patalinghug v. CA, G.R. No. 93654, May 6, 1992

7. Dacany v. Asistio, G.R. No.93654, May 6, 1992

58

8. Tatel v. Municipality of Virac, G.R. No. L-40243, March 11, 1992

9. Republic v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 45338, July 31, 1991

10. Technology Developers, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 94759, January21m 199111. Binay v. Domingo, G.R. No. 92389, September 11, 199112. Estate of Gregoria Fransisco v. CA 95279, July 26, 199113. Chua Huat v. CA, G.R. No. 53851, July 9, 199114. Sangalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. Nos. 71169,74376, 76394, 78182, 82281, 6072, August 25, 1989 15. Balacuit v. CFI, G.R. No. L-38429, June 30, 198816. Negros Oriental II Electric Cooperative Inc. v. Sangguniang 17. Panglungsod ng Dumaguete, G.R. No. L-72492, Nov. 5, 198718. Villanueva v. Castaneda, G.R. No. L-61311, September 21,198719. Phil. Gamefowl Commission v. Intermediate Appellate Court,G.R. No. 72969-7-, December 17, 198620. De la Cruz v. Paras, G.R. No. L-42571-72, July 25, 198321. Quezon City v. Ericta, G.R. No. L-34915, June 24, 198322. Ortigas v. Feati Bank, G.R. No. L-24670, December 4, 197923. Magtajs v. Pryce Properties, G.R> No. 111097, July 20, 199424. Tatel v. Mun. of Virac, G.R. No. L-40243, March 11, 199225. Solicitor General v. Metropolitan Manila Authority, G.R. No. 102782, December 11, 199126. Sangalang v. CFI of Agusan del Norte, G.R. No. L-38429, June 30, 198827. Villacorta v. Bernardo, G.R. No. L-38429, June 30, 198828. Matalin Coconut v. Mun. Council of Malabang, Lanao del Sur,G.R. No. L-28138, August 13, 198629. Terrado v. CA, G.R. No. L-58794 & L-64989, August 4, 198430. De la Cruz v. Paras, G.R. No. L-42571-72, July 25, 198331. Baguio Citizen’s Action v. City Council, G.R. No. L-247247,April 20, 198332. Velasco v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-24153, February 14, 198333. Citizens Surety v. Puno, G.R. No. L-34669, Decmber 15, 198234. Javellana v. Kintanar, G.R. No. L-33169, July 30, 198235. Ortigas and Co., Ltd. Partnership v. Feati Bank, G.R. No.L-24670, December 14, 197936. Primicias v. Mun. of Urdaneta, G.R. No. L-26702, October 23, 197437. U.S. v. Salaveria, G.R. No. 13678, November 12, 1918

Reclassification of Lands (Sec. 20, LGC)

59

RA 6657Administrative Order No. 363 (1997)RA 8435, Sec. 11RA 8550, Sec. 16

Cases:

Fortich v. Corona, G.R. No. 131457, April 24, 1998

2. Closure and Opening of Roads

(Sec. 21, LGC)

Cases:

1. Piliapil v. CA, G.R. No. 97619, November 26, 19922. Macasiano v.Diokno, G.R. No. 97764, August 10, 19923. Dacanay v. Asistio, G.R. No. 96654, May 6, 19924. Cabrera v. CA, G.R. No. 78673, March 18, 19915. Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. L-44178, August 21, 19876. Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. v. Berciles, G.R. No. L-40474, August 29, 19757. Favis v. City of Baguio, G.R. No. L-29910, April 25, 1969

A. Power to Tax and Raise Revenues

(Sec. 18, LGC)Sec. 130, RA 7160

Cases:

1. Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Marcos, G.R. No. 120082, September 11, 1986

2. Drilon v. Lim, G.R. No. 112479, August 4, 19943. Phil. Petrolium Corp. v. Mun. of Pililia, Rizal, G.R. No. 90776, June 3, 19914. Basco v. Pagcor, G.R. No. 91649, May 14, 19915. Estnislao v. C, Januuart Zotales, G.R. No. 96516, May 8, 19916. Mun. of San Fernando v. Sta. Romana, G.R. No. L-30159, March 31, 19877. City of Cebu v. Urot, G.R. No. 70684, October 10, 19868. Matalin Coconut v. Mun. Councul of Malabang, G.R. No. L-40296, November 21, 19849. Allied Thread Co. v. City Mayor of Manila, G.R. No. L-40296, November 21, 1984

60

10. Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association v. City ofManila, G.R. No. L-24693, July 31, 196711. Compania General de Tabacos v. City of Manila,

G.R. No. L-16619, June 29, 196312. Marcoin Co. Ltd. V. City of Manila, G.R. No. L-15351,

January 28, 196113. Physical Thyerapy Org. of the Phil. V. Mun. Board of Manila,

G.R. No. L-10448, August 30, 1957

1. Local Government Taxation

Art. X, Secs. 3, 5, 6, and 7, 1987 ConstitutionSec. 128, local Government Code(R.A. No. 7160)RA 7643, Sec. 2RA 7716, Secs. 11 and 17RA 8241RA 7942, Sec. 82

Cases:

1. Alvarez v. Guingona, G.R. No. 118303, January 31, 19962. Tuzon & Mapagu v. CA, G.R. No. 90107, August 21m 19923. Floro Cement v. Gorospe, G.R. No. 46787, August 12, 19914. Basco v. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 921649, May 14, 19915. Estanislao v. Costales, G.R. No. 96516, May 8, 1991

2. Real Property Taxation

(Secs. 197-283, LGC)

Cases:

1. Antonio Taslusan and Celia Talusan v. Hermiligildo Tayag, et al, G.R. No. 1336798, April 4, 2001

2. Callanta v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 115253-74, January 30, 19983. NAPOCOR v. Lanao del Sur, G.R. No.  96700, November 19, 1996 4. MCIA v. Marcos, G.R. No. 120082, September 11, 1996

61

5. Ty v. Trampe, G.R. No. 117577, December 1, 19956. Province of Tarlac v. ALcantara, G.R. No. 65230, December 23, 19927. Benguet Corp. v. Central Bank of Assessment Appealsv 100959, June 29, 19928. NationL Dev. Corp. v. Cebu City, G.R. No. 52593, November 5, 19919. Phil. Petroleum Corp. v. Pililia, G.R. No. 90776, June 3, 1991

3. Collection of taxes (Sec. 165, LGC)

4. Taxpayer’s Remedies

5. Shares of LGU’s in the Prodeeds of National Taxes

Secs. 284-288, Local Government CodeRA 8245

Cases:

1. Alternative Center for Organizational Reforms and Dev’t, Inc. v. Ronaldo Zamora, G.R. No. 144256, June 8, 2005

C.  Power of Eminent Domain(Sec. 19, LGC and Rule 67, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Cases:

1. Paranaque v. V.M. Realty Corp. , G.R. No. 127820, July 20, 19982. Filstream International Inc. v. CA, G.R. No.  125218, Jan 23, 19983. Velarma v. CA, G.R. No.  113615, January 25, 19964. Province of Camarines Sur v. CA, G.R. No.  103125, May 17, 19935. Mun. of Meycauayan v. IAC , G.R. No.  72126, January 29, 19886. Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-60549, October 26, 19837. City Government of Quezon City v. Ericta, G.R. No. L-34915, June 24, 19838. Republic v. Castelvi, G.R. No. L-20620, October 26, 19839. City of Manila v. Arellano Colleges, G.R. No.L-2929, February 28, 1950

10. City of Manila v. Chinese Community,

62

G.R. No. October 31, 1919

A. Corporate Powers

(Sec 22, LGC)

Cases:

1. City of Manila v. IAC, G.R. No.71159, November 15, 19892. Villanueva v. Castaneda, G.R. No.L-61311, September 21, 19873. Rabuco v. Villegas, G.R. No.L-24661 & L-24915-16, Feb 28, 19744. Salas v. Jarencio, G.R. No.L-29788, Aug 30, 19725. Province of Zamboanga v. City of Zamboanga, G.R. No.L-24440, March 28, 19686. Legaspi v. A.L. Ammen Transportation, G.R. No.L-22377, Nov 29, 19687. NAWASA v. Dator, G.R. No.L-21911, Sep 29, 19678. Mun. Board v. CTA, G.R. No.L-18946, Dec 12, 26, 1964

1. To Sue and to be Sued

Cases:

1. Mun. of Pililia, Rizal v. CA, G.R. No.105909, June 28, 1994

2. City Council of Cebu v. Cuizon, G.R. No.L-28972, Oct 31, 1972

2. To Acquire and Convey Real or Personal Property

Cases:

1. Macasiano v. Diokno, G.R. No. 97764, Aug 10, 19922. Dacanay v, Asistio, G.R. No. 936594, May 6, 19923. Villanueva v. Castaneda, G.R. No.L-61311, September 21, 19874. Rabuco v. Villegas, G.R. No.L-24661 & L-24915-16, Feb 28, 19745. Salas v. Jarencio, G.R. No. L-29788, Aug 30, 19726. City of Naga v. CA, G.R. No. L-24954, Aug 30, 19727. Espiritu v. Mun. Council of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, G.R. No.L-11014, Jan 21, 1958

63

3. To Enter Contracts

Cases:

1. City of Manila v. IAC, G.R. No. 71159, Nov 15, 19892. Sangalang v. IAC, G.R. No.71169, Aug 25, 19893. Ortigas v. Feati Bank, G.R. No.L-24670, Dec 14, 1979

4. Manantan v. Mun. of Luna (La Union) , G.R. No. L-2337, Feb 36,1949

4. To Negotiate and Secure Grants

(Sec. 23, LGC)Liabilities of Local Government Units

A. Liability for Damages (Sec. 24, LGC)

Article 2189, Civil CodeArticle 2180 (6), Civil CodeArticle 34, Civil Code

Cases:

1. Tuzon v. MAPAGU, G.R. No. 90107, Aug 2, 19922. Fernando v. CA, G.R. No. 92087, May 8, 19923. San Fernando v. Firme, G.R. No. 52179, April 8, 19914. Guilatco v. City of Dagupan, G.R. No. 61516, March 21, 19895. Jimenez v. City of Manila, G.R. No.71049, May 29, 19876. Pilar v. SangguniNG Bayan of Dasol, Pangasinan, G.R. No. L-63216, march 12, 19847. Torio v. Fontanilla, G.R. No.L-29993, October 23, 19788. City of Manila v. Teotico, G.R. No.L-23052, Jan 29, 19689. Guillergan v. Ganzon, G.R. No. L20818, May 25, 1986

10. Blue Bar Coconut Co. v. City of Zamboanga, G.R. No.L-20425,Dec 4, 1965

64

11. Gabutas v. Castellanes, G.R. No.L-17323, June 23, 196512. Urgelio v. Osmeta, Jr. , G.R. No. L-14908, Feb 28, 196413. Arcel v. Osmeta, Jr. , G.R. No. L-14956, Feb 27, 196114. San Diego v. Mun of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, G.R. No.L-9920, Feb 29, 196015. Meritt v. Gov’t of P.I. , G.R. No. 11154, March 21, 191616. Mendoza v. De Leon , G.R. No.9596, Feb 11, 1916

B. Liability for Torts

Cases:

1. Mun. of San Fernando, La Union v. Firme, G.R. No. 52179, April 8, 19912. Palma v. Graciano, G.R. No.L-7240, May 16, 19563. Mednoza v. De Leon , G.R. No.9596, Feb 11, 19164. Torio v. Fontanilla, G.R. No.L-29993, October 23, 19785. City of Manila v. IAC, G.R. No.71159, NOV 15, 19896. San Luis v. CA, G.R. No. 80160, June 26, 19897. Laganapan v. Asedillo, G.R. No. L-28353, Sep 30, 19878. Rama v. CAv L- 44484, March 16, 19879. Pilar v. Sangguniang Bayan of Dasol, pangasinan, G.R. No. L-63216, March 12m, 1984

10. Correa v. CFI of Bulacan , G.R. No. L-46096, July 30, 197912. Salcedo v. CA, G.R. No. L-40846, Jan 31, 197813. Enciso v. Remo, G.R. No. L-23670, Sep 30, 196914. Nemenzo v. Sabillano, G.R. No. L-20977, Sep 7, 19681 5. City of Cebu v. Judge Piccio, G.R. No. L-13102, & 14876, Dec 31, 196016. Palma v. Graciano, G.R. No. L-7240, May 16, 1956

C. Liability for Violation of Law

Cases:

1. Moday v. CA, G.R. No. 107916, March 31, 19952. City of Manila v. IAC, G.R. No. 71159, Nov 15, 19893. Racho v. Mun. of Iligan, isabela, G.R. No. L-23542, Kan 2, 19684. Abella v. Mun. of Naga, G.R. No. L-3738, Nov 20, 1951

65

D. Liability for Contracts

Cases:

1. City of Manila v. IAC, G.R. No. 71159, Nov 15, 19892. Mun. of Pililia, Rizal v. CA , G.R. No. 105909, June 28, 19943. Laganapan v. Asedillo, G.R. No. L-28353, Sep 30, 19874. Prov. Of Cebu v. IAC 72841, Jan 29, 19875. Correa v. CFI of Bulacan, G.R. No. L-46096, July 30, 19786. Salcedo v. CA, G.R. No.L-40846, Jan 31, 19787. De Guia v. Auditor General, G.R. No.8. Nemenzo v. Sabillano, G.R. No. L-20977, Sep 7, 19689. San Diego v. Mun. of Naujan, oriental Mindoro, G.R. No. L-9920, Feb 29, 1960

Intergovernmental Relations

1. Executive Supervision over Local Government Units2. (Secs. 25-27, LGC)

1987 Constitution, Art. X, Secs. 2 and 41987 Constitution, Art. XVIII, Sec. 25

Cases:

1. Ty v. Trampe, G.R. No. 117577, Dec 1, 1992. Drilon v. Lim, G.R. No. 112497, Aug 4, 19943. Ganzon v. CA, G.R. No. 93252, Aug 5, 19914. San Juan v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 92299, April 19, 19915. Hebron v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-9124, July 28, 19586. Mondano v. Silvosa, G.R. No. L-7708, may 30, 1995

B. Relations with the Philippine National Police

66

(Sec. 28, LGC)RZ 6975, as amended by RA 8551

Cases:

1. Cabada v. Aluman, G.R. No. 119645, Aug 22, 19962. Carpio v. Executive Sec, G.R. No. 96409, Feb 14, 1992

C. Inter-Local Government Relations (Secs. 29-33, LGC)

D. Realtions with People and Non- Governmental Organizations

(Secs. 34-36, LGC)

Local Government Units

A. Barangay

(Secs. 384-439, LGC)RA7808RA 8044

Cases:

1. People v. Sion, G.R. No. 109617, Aug 11, 19972. David v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127116 & 128039, June 8, 19973. Garvida v. Sales, G.R. No. 124893, June 31, 19974. Alunan III v. Mirasol, G.R. No. 108399, July 31, 19975. Diu v. CA, G.R. No. 115213, Dec 19, 19956. Mercado v. Board, G.R. No. 109713, June 6, 19957. Associated Labor Unions v. Letrondo-Montejo, G.R. No.111988, Oct 14, 19948. Miguel v. CA, G.R. No. 111749, Feb 23, 19949. Uy v. Contreras, G.R. No. 111416-17, Sep 26, 1994

10. Morata v. Go, G.R. No. L-62339, Oct 27, 1983

67

B. Municipality

(Secs. 440-447, LGC)

Cases:

1. Municipality of La Liberitad, Negros Oriental v. Judith Penaflor, G.R. No. 155477, march 18, 2005

2. Mun. of Jimenez v. Baz, G.R. No. 105746, Dec 2, 19963. Olivarez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 118533, Oct 4, 19954. The Mun. of Candijay, Bohol v. CA, G.R. No. 116702, Dec 28, 19955. Alinsug vs. RTC, G.R. No. 108232, Aug 23, 1993

C. City

Cases:

1. Alavarez, et al., v. Guingona, et al., , G.R. No. Jan 21, 19962. Gordon v. Veridiano II, G.R. No. L-55230, Nov 8, 19883. Negros Oriental II Electronix Cooperative Inc. v. Sangguniang Panlungsod ng

Dumaguete, G.R. No. L-72492, Nov 5, 1987

D. Province

(Secs. 459-468, LGC)

Cases:

1. Caram v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 105214, Aug 30, 19332. Grito v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 105210, Sep 4, 1992

Elective Officials

68

(Secs. 39-75, LGC)RA 8553

1. Galido v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 95346, Jan 18, 1991

A. Qualifications

(Sec. 39, LGC)

Cases:

1. Grego v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 1259955, June 19, 19972. Frivaldo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 19963. Labo v. COMELEC, and Ortega, G.R. No. 105111 & 105384, July 3, 19924. Labo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 86564, Aug 1, 19895. Frivaldo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 87193, June 23, 1989

RA 8295

B. Disqualifications (Sec. 40, LGC)

Cases:

1. Gayo v. Verceles, G.R. No. 150477, Feb 28, 20052. Nolasco v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 122250 & 122258, June 21, 19973. Rodriguez v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120099, July 24, 19964. De la Torre v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 121592, July 5, 19965. Malinao v. Reyes, G.R. No. 117618, march 29, 19966. Reyes v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120905, March 7, 19967. Marquez  v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 112889, Apr 18, 1995

C. Manner of Election

69

(Sec. 41, LGC)

D. Date of Election

(Sec. 42, LGC)

E. Term of Office

(Sec. 43, LGC)RA 6679RA 85421987 Constitution, Art. X, Sec. 8

Cases:

1. Socrates v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154512, Nov 12, 20022. Benjamin U. Borja v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133495, Sep 3, 19983. David v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127116 & 128039, April 8, 19974. Osmeta v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 100318, July 30, 19915. Labo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 86564, Aug 1, 1989

F. Vacancies and Succession

Cases:

1. Docena v. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Eastern Samar, G.R. No. 96817, June 25, 19912. Menzon v. Petilla, G.R. No. 90762, may 20, 19913. Labo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 86564, Aug 1, 1989

1. Permanent Vacancies

70

(Secs. 44-45, LGC)

Cases:

1. Faritas, et al. v. Barba, et al., , G.R. No. 116763, APRIL 19, 19962. Victoria v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 109005, Jan 10, 19943. Menzon v. Petilla, G.R. No. 90762, May 20, 1991

2. Temporary Vacancies

(Sec. 46, LGC)Local Legislation

Secs. 48-59, LGC

A. The Sanggunians

Cases:Romeo Gamboa v. Marcelo Aguire, G.R. No. 134213, July 20, 1999De los Reyes v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 121215, Nov 13, 1997Moday v. CA, G.R. No. 107916, March 31, 1995Magtajas v. Pryce, G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994Tatel v. Virac, G.R. No.L-40243,  March 7, 199Solocitor Genral v. Metroplitan Manila Authority, G.R. No. 102782, Dec 11, 199Casito v. CA, G.R. No. 91192, Dec 2, 1991Ortiz v. Posadas, G.R. No. 33885, March 3, 1931

B. Local Initiative And Referendum

(Secs. 120-127, LGC)RA 6735

Cases:

1.Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325,   March 19, 19972. Subic bay Metropolitan Authority v. COMELEC, et al. ,

71

G.R. No. 125416, Sep 26, 19963. Garcia v. COMELEC , G.R. No. 111230, Sep 30, 1994

Disciplinary ActionsRA 6770

Cases:

1. Salalima v. Guingona, G.R. No. 117589=92, May 22, 1996

2. Aguinaldo v. Santos, G.R. No. 94115, Aug 21, 19923. Espiritu v. Melgar, G.R. No. 100874, Feb 13, 19924. Ganzon v. CA, G.R. No. 93252, Nov 8, 19915. Ganzon v. CA, G.R. No. 93252, 93746, 45245, Aug 5, 19916. Docena v. Sanggunian, G.R. No. 96817, June 25, 19917. Layno v. Sandignabayan, G.R. No. L-65848, May 24, 1985

A. Grounds for Disciplinary Action

Sec. 60 LGC

Cases:

1. Regidor v. Chiongbian, G.R. No. 85815, May 19, 1989

Form and Filing of Administrative Complaints (Sec. 61, LGC)Notice of Hearing (Sec. 62, LGC)Preventive Suspension (Sec. 63, LGC)Salary of Respondent Pending Suspension (Sec. 64, LGC)Rights of Respondent (Sec. 65, LGC)Form and Notice of Decision (Sec. 66, LGC)

Cases:

1. Malinao v. Reyes, et al. , G.R. No. 117618, March 29, 1996Administrative Appeals (Sec. 67, LGC)Execution Pending Appeal (Sec. 68, LGC)

Recall

72

Secs. 69-75, LGCRA No. 9244 (Elimination of Preparatory Recall Assembly as

Mode of Instituting Recall)

Cases:

1. Socrates v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154512, Nov 12, 20022. Jovito O. Claudio v. COMELEC, G.R. No. May 4, 20003. Jariol v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127456, March 20, 19974. Malonzo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127066, March 11, 19975. Angobung v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 126576, Nov 5, 19976. Paras v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 123169, Nov 4, 19967. Garcia v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 111511, Oct 5, 19938. Bince v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 106291, Feb 9, 19939. Evardone c. COMELEC, G.R. No. 94010, Dec 2, 199110. Morfe v. MUTUC, G.R. No. L-20387, Jan 31, 1968

By Whom Exercised(Sec. 69, LGC)Initiation of the Recall Process (Sec. 70, LGC)Election on Recall (Sec. 71, LGC)Effetcivity of Recall (Sec. 72, LGC)Prohibition from Resignation (Sec. 73, LGC)Limitations on Recall (Sec. 74, LGC)Expenses Incident to Recall Ekections (Sec. 75, LGC)Human Resources and Development

(Secs. 76-97, LGC)RA 6713

Cases:

1. Ramos v. CA, G.R. No. 99425, March 3, 1997

2. Drilon v. Lim, G.R. No.  112497, Aug 4, 1997

3. Pililia v. CA, G.R. No. 105909, June 28, 1994

4. Bunye v. Escareal, G.R. No. 110216, Sep 10, 1993

5. Alinsug v. RTC, G.R. No. 108232, Aug 23, 1993

6. Javellana v. DILG, G.R. No. 102549, Aug 10, 1993

7. Flores v. Drilon , G.R. No. 104732, JUNE 22, 1993

8. Javellana v. DILG, G.R. No. 102549, August 10, 1992

73

9. Macalincag v. CHang, G.R. No. 96058, May 6, 1992

10. Espiritu v. Melgar, G.R. No. 100874, Feb 13, 199211. Mendez v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 95575,

Dec 23, 199112. Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr. , G.R. No. 96859, Oct 15, 199113. Ganzon v. Ca, G.R. No.L-48757, May 30, 198814. Ramos v. CA, G.R. No.L-53766, Oct 30, 1981

Additional Cases:

1. LTO v. City of Butuan, G.R. No. 13152, Jan 20,20002. Acebedo Optical Co., Inc. , G.R. No. Court of Appeals,

G.R. No. 100152, March 31, 20003. Pimentel, Jr., v Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, July 19, 20004. Thelma Gaminde v. Commission on Audit , G.R. No. 140335,

Dec 13, 20005. Alexis canonizado, et al., v Hon. Alexander Aguirre, et al,

G.R. No. 133132, Jan 25, 20006. Gloria v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131012, April 21, 19997. Alvin Garcia v. Hon. Arturo Mih=jica, et al. , G.R. No. 139043,

April 29, 1999

8. Malonzo v. Zamora, G.R. No. 137718, July 27, 1999

9. Lonzanida v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 135150, July 28, 1999

10. Gamboa v. Aguirre, Jr. , G.R. No. 134213, July 20, 199911. Ramon Alquizola, Sr. v. Gallardo Ocol, G.R. No. 132413,

G.R. No. Aug 27, 199912. Llorente v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 122166,

March 11, 199813. Segovia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 124067,

March 27, 199814. Constantino v. Desierto, G.R. No. 127457, April 13, 199815. Parañaque v. V.M. Realy Corp. , G.R. No. 127820, July 20, 1998

74

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

General PrinciplesArt II, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution-Gonzales v. Hechanova, G.R. No. L-21897, Oct 22, 1963-Ichong v, Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957-Kuroda v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1948-Co Kim Cham v. VCaldez Tan Keh, G.R. No. L-5, Sep 17, 1945-Republic of Indonesia v. Viznzon, G.R. No. 154705, June 26, 2003- Sison v. Board of Accountancy, 85 Phil 276(1949)-Bank of America v. American Realty Corp., 321 SCRA 659(1999)

75

Sources of International Law-United Nations Charter of 1945-Sec. 2, Art. II, 1987 InstitutionSec. 4(2), Sec. 5 (2) (b), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution-Guerrero Transport System v. Blaylock, 71 SCRA 621(1976)-Firdausi Abbas v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 89651, 89965, Nov 10, 1989-Mijares v. Ranada, 455SCRA 397(2005)-Hilton v. Guyot, 159 US 213-Yao Kee v. Sy-Gonzales, 167 SCRA 736(1988)-The Paquete Habana, 175 US 677-Gonzales v. Hechanova, G.R. No. L-21897, Oct 22, 1963-Ichong v, Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957-Kuroda v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1948-Co Kim Cham v. VCaldez Tan Keh, G.R. No. L-5, Sep 17, 1945

The International Community-The united Nations Charter, June 25, 1945

The Concept of the State-People v. Pefecto, G.R. No. 18463, Oct 4, 1922-Dismangcop v. Datumanong, 444 SCRA 203 (2004)-People v. Lol-lo, 43 Phil 19(1922)-Republic v. Cibrario, 235 NY 255-Haw Pia v. China Banking Corp., 80 Phil 604(1948)

Recognition-Republic vs. SandiganbayN, G.R. No. 104768, Jukly 21, 2003-Co Kim Chua v. Valdez Tan Keh, G.R. No. L-5, Nov 16, 1945-Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 US 250(1897)-Alcantara v. Director of Prisons 75Phil 494(1995)-Etorma v. Ravelo, 78 Phil 145(1947)

Rights of States-U.N. Charter-Int’l. Catholic Migration Commission v. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 85750, Sep 28, 1990-Southeast Asia Fisheries Dev’t. Center v. NLRC, G.R. No. 82631, Feb 23, 1995-United States v. Guinto, G.R. No. 76607, Feb 26, 1990-Com. Of Int’l. Revenue v. Gotanco & Sons Inc. & CA, G.R. No. L-31092, Feb 27, 1987-United States v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-35645, May 22, 1985-Jose B.L. Reyes v. Ramon Bagatsing, G.R. No. L-65366, Nov 9, 1983-Baer v. Tizon, G.R. No. L-24294, May 3, 1974-World Health Organization v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-35131, nov 29, 1972-Reagan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 30SCRA968(1969)-People v. GOZO, 53 SCRA 476(1973)-Laurel v. Misa, G.R. No. 77 Phil 856(1947)

76

-People v. GOZO, 53 SCRA 476(1973)-Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 15 (1997)-Wright v. Court of Appeals, 235 SCRA 341(1994)-U.S. v. Puruganan, 389 SCRA 623(2002)-Santos v. Court of Appeals, 210 SCRA 256(1992)-Holy See v. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524(1994)-Oh Hek How v. Republic, 29 SCRA94-Zapanta v. Local Civil Registrar, 237 SCRA 25(1994)

Act of State Doctrine-Oejten v. Central Leather-Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino-Underhill v. Hernandez, supra

Territory and Jurisdiction-1935 Constitution-Art. I, 1973 Constitution-Art. I, 1987 Constitution-Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies of the UN-Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations-Convention on the Territorical Sea and the Contyguous Zone-RD 1596-RA 3246-RA 5446-Treaty of Paris, Dec. 10, 1898-Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space-UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, April 32, 1982, ratified by the Phils. In Aug 19:3-Southeast Asian Fisheries Dev’t Centur v. NLRC-People v. GOZO, 53 SCRA 476(1973)G. R. No. 82631, Feb 23, 1995-World Health Organizationv. Aquino, G.R. No. L-35131, Nov 29, 1972-Time, inc. v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-28882, May 31, 1971-People v. Wong Cheng, G.R. No. L-18924, Oct 19, 1922-Dizon v. Ryubus Command, 81 Phil 286(1948)-Asaali v. Commissioner of Customs, 26 SCRA 382(1968)-Calme v. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 285(1996)

The Right of Legation-RP-US Treaty on Gen Relations, July 4 , 194-Parreno v. Mcgrannery,  L-4263, March 12, 1959-Republic vs. Sandoval, 220 SCRA 124(1993)-Us v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644(1990)-Holy See v. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524(1994)-USA v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487(1987)-De Permo-Santos v. Macaraig, G.R. No. 94070, April 10, 1992-Int’l Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, G.R. No. 87750

77

-Int’l Catholic MIgrsation Commission v. Calleja, G.R. No. 87750, Sep 28, 1990-Miucher v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90314, Nov 27,19y0-Syquia v. lopez, G.R. No. L-1648, Aug 17, 1949-USA v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-35645, May 22, 1985-World Health Organizationv. Aquino, G.R. No. L-35131, Nov 29, 1972-Roniklijke\uchtvaart Maatshappij (KLM) v. CA and Mendoza, G.R. No. L-31150, July 22, 1975-Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120334 & 120337, Jan 20, 1998-Chinese Flour Importers Assoc. v. Price Stabilization Board, G.R. No. L-4465, July 12, 1951-US v. Reyes, 219 SCRA 192(1993)-Shauf v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 713(1990)-Baer vs. Tizon, G.R. No. L-24924, May 3, 1974-Lansang v. CA, G.R. No. 326 SCRA 259(2000)-Director of Telecom v. Aligaen 33 SCRA 368(1970)-Commissioner of Public HIgways v. Calleja 190 SCRA 130 (1990)-Seafdec v. NLRC, 241 SCRA 598(1995)-Laza v. UN 242 SCRA 681(1995)-Department of Foreign Affairs v. NLRC 262 SCRA 39(1996)

Treaties-Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, Oct 10, 2000-Jeffrey Liang v. People, G.R. No. 125865, March 26, 2001-Cuevas v. Munoz, G.R. No. 140520, Dec 18, 2000-CIR vs Court of Ap[peals & SC Johnson & Sons, Inc. , G.R. No. 127q0S, June 25, 1999-Santos vs. Northwest Orient Airlines, G. R. No. 127905, June 25, 1999-La Chemise vs. Fernandez, G. R. Nos. L-63796-97, May 21, 1984-Agustin vs. Edu, G. R. No. L-49112, February 2, 1979-Guerrero’s Transport Services Inc. vs. Blaylock Transport Services Employees Association Kilusan, G. R. No. L-41518, June 30, 1976-Commissioner of Customs vs. Eastern Sea Trading, G. R. No. L-14279-In Re: Arturo Efren Garcia, UNAV, August 15, 1961-People vs. Hernandez, G. R. No. 86564, August 1, 1989-Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration, G. R. No. L-21289, October 4, 1971

Treatment of Aliens-Extradition Treaty with Indonesia (1976)-Extradition Treaty with Australia (1988)-Sec. 12, Rule 24 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines-Borovsky vs. Commissioner of Immigration, G. R. No. L-4352, September 28, 1951-Secretary of Justice, vs. Hon. Ralph Lantion, G. R. No. 139465, January, 18, 2000-Government of United States of America vs. Hon. Purganan, G. R. No. 148571, September 24, 2002

Settlement of International Disputs-U.N. Charter

War

78

-Geneva Convention-Charter of the United Nations, Article 2-Arellano vs. Domingo, G. R. No. L-8671, July 26, 1957-Kare vs. Imperial, G. R. No. L-7906, October 22, 1957-Banaag vs. Qingson Encarnacion, G. R. No. L-493, April 19, 1949-Brownell vs. Bautista, G. R. No. 6801, September 28, 1954-Fernandez vs. Fernandez, G. R. No. L-9141, September 25, 1956-Filipinas Compania de Seguros vs. Christern Huenfield, G. R. No. L-2294, May 25, 1951-Haw Pia vs. China Banking Corporation, G. R. No. L-554, April 1948-Hilado vs. De la Costa, G. R. No. L-409, January 20, 1947-Navarre vs. Barredo, G. R. No. L-8860, May 21, 1956-Ognir vs. Director of Prisons, G. R. No. L-49, November 12, 1945-Republic vs. Lara, G. R. No. L-508, November 29, 1954-Yamashita vs. Styer, G. R. No. L-129, December 19, 1945-Co Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh, G. R. No. L-5, September 17, 1945

79

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

I.  General Principles1. E. O. No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987)2. Two-Fold Functions of the Government:

a. Constituent.- such constituent functions are exercised by the State as attributes of sovereignty, such as  those relating to the maintenance of peace and the prevention of crime, those regulating property and property rights, those relating to the administration of justice and the determination of political duties of citizens, and those relating to national defense and foreign relations.

b. Ministrant. - are exercised by the State to promote the welfare, progress and prosperity of the people.

3. In Bacani vs. NACOCO, the issue of whether or not a GOCC (NACOCO) is a government entity within the purview of Sec. 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court held that GOCC is not a government entity for the simple reason that they do not come under the classification of municipal or public corporation.  While NACOCO was organized with the purpose of "adjusting the coconut industry to a position independent of trade preferences in the United States" and of providing "Facilities for the better curing of copra products and the proper utilization of coconut by-products", a function which our government has chosen to exercise to promote the coconut industry, however, it was given a corporate power separate and distinct from our government, for it was made subject to the provisions of our Corporation Law in so far as its corporate existence and the powers that it may exercise are concerned (sections 2 and 4, Commonwealth Act No. 518). It may sue and be sued in the same manner as any other private corporations, and in this sense it is an entity different from our government. (Bacani vs. NACOCO, G. R. No. L-9657, November 29, 1956).

4. In Central Bank vs. CA, it was held that the term "National Government" may not be deemed to include the Central Bank. Under the Administrative Code itself, the term "National Government" refers only to the central government, consisting of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the government, as distinguished from local governments and other governmental entities and is not synonymous, therefore, with the terms "The Government of the Republic of the Philippines" or

80

"Philippine Government", which are the expressions broad enough to include not only the central government but also the provincial and municipal governments, chartered cities and other government-controlled corporations or agencies, like the Central Bank. (I, Martin, Administrative Code, p. 15.).

The contention, therefore, of Central Bank that a certification of availability of funds by the Auditor General as embodied under Section 607 of the Revised Administrative Code is required for the perfection of contract entered into in any projects or undertakings has not basis. To be sure, the Central Bank is a government instrumentality. But it was created as an autonomous body corporate to be inverned by the provisions of its charter, R.A. 265, “to administer the monetary and banking system of the Republic.”  As such, it is authorized "to adopt, alter and use a corporate seal which shall be judicially noticed; to make contracts; to lease or own real and personal property, and to sell or otherwise dispose of the same; to sue and be sued; and otherwise to do and perform any and all things that may be necessary or proper to carry out the purposes of this Act. The Central Bank may acquire and hold such assets and incur such liabilities as result directly from operations authorized by the provisions of this Act, or as are essential to the proper conduct of such operations." It has a capital of its own and operates under a budget prepared by its own Monetary Board and otherwise appropriates money for its operations and other expenditures independently of the national budget. It does not depend on the National Government for the financing of its operations; it is the National Government that occasionally resorts to it for needed budget monetary accommodations.  For these reasons, the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code invoked by the Bank do not apply to it (Central Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-33022, April 22, 1975).

5.  In Ople vs. Torres, the SC invalidated Administrative Order No. 308 entitled “Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System” on two important constitutional grounds, viz.: one, it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate, and two, it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry’s protected zone of privacy.

Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs. It enables the President to fix a uniform standard of administrative efficiency and check the official conduct of his agents. To this end, he can issue administrative orders, rules and regulations. Prescending from this precepts, the SC hold that A.O. 308 involves a subject that is not appropriate to be covered by an administrative order.  An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of government. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy.

The SC further rejected the argument that A.O. No. 308 implements the legislative policy of the Administrative Code of 1987. The Code is a general law and “incorporates in a unified document the major structural, functional and procedural principles of

81

governance” and “embodies changes in administrative structures and procedures designed to serve the people.” [Ople vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 141(1998)].

B. Delegation of Powers to Administrative Agencies

1. An Act of the Philippine Legislature giving to the Board of Public Utility Commissioners power to require every public utility "to furnish annually a detailed report of finances and operations, in such form and containing such matters as the board may f rom time to time by order prescribe" is invalid for the reason that it is a delegation of legislative power to the Board of Public Utility Commissioners and is in violation of the Act of July 1, 1902. [Cia. Gral. de Tabacos vs. Board of Public Utility., 34 Phil. 136(1916)].

2. The Legislature cannot delegate legislative power to enact any law. If Act No. 2868 is a law unto itself and within itself, and it does nothing mor£ than to authorize the Governor-General to make rules and regulations to carry it into effect, then the Legislature created the law. There is no delegation of power and it is valid. On the other hand, if the act within itself does not define a crime and is not complete, and some legislative act remains to be done to make it a law or a crime, the doing of which is vested in the Governor-Geheral, the act is a delegation of legislative power, is unconstitutional and void. [United States vs. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil. 1(1922)]

3. Section 1788 of the Administrative Code, as amended, which provides for the general requirement as to grading and certification of fibers, is nothing more than a delegation of administrative power in the Fiber Board to carry out the purpose and intent of the law, and is not a delegation of legislative power. [Alegre vs. Collector of Customs, 53 Phil. 394(1929)].

4. The provisions of section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 548 do not confer legislative power upon the Director of Public Works and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. The authority therein conferred upon them and under which they promulgated the rules and regulations now complained of is not to determine what public policy demands but merely to carry out the legislative policy laid down by the National Assembly in said Act, to wit, "to promote safe transit upon, and avoid obstructions on, roads and streets designated as national roads by acts of the National Assembly or by executive orders of the President of the Philippines" and to close them temporarily to any or all classes of traffic "whenever the condition of the road or the traffic thereon makes such action necessary or advisable in the public convenience and interest." The delegated power, if at all, therefore, is not the determination of what the law shall be, but [Calalang vs. Williams et al., 70 Phil., 726(1940)].

5. The rule is that so long as the Legislature "lays down a policy and a standard is established by the statute" there is no undue delegation. (11 Am. Jur. 957). Republic Act No. 51, in authorizing the President of the Philippines to make reforms and changes in government-controlled corporations, lays down a standard and policy that the purpose shall be to meet the exigencies attendant upon the establishment of the free and independent Government of the Philippines and to promote simplicity, economy and efficiency in their operations. The standard was set and the policy fixed. The President had to carry out the mandate, and this he did by promulgating Executive Order (No. 93) in accordance with Republic Act No. 51,

82

which, tested by the said rule, does not constitute an undue delegation of legislative power. [Cervantes vs. Auditor General, 91 Phil. 359(1952)].

6. Section 8 of Article XIII of the Constitution provides, among other things, that no franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be "for a longer period than fifty years," and when it was ordained, in section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 454, that the Public Service Commission may prescribe as a condition for the issuance of a certificate that it "shall be valid only for a definite period of time" and, in section 16 that "no such certificates shall be issued for a period of more than fifty years," the National Assembly meant to give effect to the aforesaid constitutional mandate. More than this, it has thereby also declared its will that the period to be fixed by the Public Service Commission shall not be longer than fifty years. All that has been delegated to the commission, therefore, is the administrative function, involving the use of discretion, to carry out the will of the National Assembly having in view, in addi -tion, the promotion of "public interests in a proper and suitable manner." The fact that the National Assembly may itself exercise the function and authority thus conferred upon the Public Service Commission does not make the provision in question constitutionally objectionable. [Pangasinan Trans. Co. vs. Public Service Commission, 70 Phil., 221(1940)].7. Republic Act No. 2056 does not constitute an unlawful delegation of judicial powers to the Secretary of Public Works. Although the exercise of the Secretary’s power under the Act necessarily involves the determination of some questions of fact, yet these functions, whether judicial or quasi-judicial, are merely incidental to the exercise of the power granted by law and are validly conferable upon executive officials provided the party affected is given opportunity to be heard, as is expressly required by Republic Act No. 2056, Section 2. [Lovina vs. Moreno, 9 SCRA 557(1963)].

8. Although Congress may delegate to another branch of the government the power to fill in the details in the execution, enforcement or administration of a law, it is essential that said law: (a) be complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate; and (b) fix a standard—the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable—to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. [Pelaez vs. Auditor General, 15 SCRA 569(1965)].

C. Separation of Powers

1. The Supreme Court cannot perform functions which are administrative administrative or quasi-judicial in nature.  The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands represents one of the three divisions of power in our government. It is judicial power and judicial power only which is exercised by the Supreme Court. Just as the Supreme Court, as the guardian of constitutional rights, should not sanction usurpations by any other department of the government, so should it as strictly confine its own sphere of influence to the powers expressly or by implication conferred on it by the Organic Act. 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 (Meralco vs. Pasay Transport Co., G. R. No. 37878, November 25, 1932).

83

 2. If Congress had really intended to include in the general grant of “privileges” or “rank and privileges of Judges of the Court of First Instance” the right to be investigated only by the Supreme Court and to be suspended or removed upon its recommendation, then such grant of privileges would be unconstitutional, since it would violate the fundamental doctrine of separation of powers, by charging this court with the administrative function of supervisory control over executive officials, and simultaneously reducing pro tanto the control of the Chief Executive over such officials. In this spirit, it has been held that the Supreme Court of the Philippines and its members should not and cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the administration of judicial function. [Noblejas vs. Teehankee, 23 SCRA 405(1968)].

  3.  The Supreme Court does not look with favor at the practice of long standing, to be sure of judges being detailed in the Department of Justice to assist the Secretary even if it were only in connection with his work of exercising administrative authority over the courts. The line between what a judge may do and what he may not do in collaborating or working with other offices or officers under the other great departments of the government must always be kept clear and jealously observed, lest the principle of separation of powers on which our government rests by mandate of the people thru the Constitution be gradually eroded by practices purportedly motivated by good intentions in the interest of public service. [Garcia vs. Macaraig, Jr., 39 SCRA 106(1971)].

  4.  The provision of the Code of Commerce incapacitating judges and justices and other public officers from engaging in business is part of Political Law. Although the aforestated provision is incorporated in the Code of Commerce which is part of the commercial laws of the Philippines, it, however, partakes of the nature of a political law as it regulates the relationship between the government and certain public officers and employees, like justices and judges [Macariola vs. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77(1982)].

5.  The Constitution, the members of the Supreme Court and other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions (Sections 12, Art. VIII, Constitution). Considering that membership of Judge Manzano in the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice, which discharges administrative functions, will be in violation of the Constitution, the Court is constrained to deny his request. Former Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando in his concurring opinion in the case of Garcia vs. Macaraig (39 SCRA 106) ably sets forth: While the doctrine of separation of powers is a relative theory not to be enforced with pedantic rigor, the practical demands of government precluding its doctrinaire application, it cannot justify a member of the judiciary being required to assume a position or perform a duty non-judicial in character. That is implicit in the principle. Otherwise there is a plain departure from its command. The essence of the trust reposed in him is to decide. Only a higher court, as was emphasized by Justice Barredo, can pass on his actuation. He is not a subordinate of an executive or legislative official, however eminent. It is indispensable that there be no exception to the rigidity of such a norm if he is, as expected, to be confined to the task of adjudication. Fidelity to his sworn responsibility no less than the maintenance of respect for the judiciary can be satisfied with nothing less.” [In Re: Rodolfo U. Manzano, 166 SCRA 246(1988)].

84

II. Powers and Functions of Administrative Bodies

A1. Rule-making Power

    1. The Supreme Court has the exclusive and constitutional power with respect to admission to the practice of law in the Philippines1 and to any member of the Philippine Bar in good standing may practice law anywhere and before any entity, whether judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative, in the Philippines. Naturally, the question arises as to whether or not appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the prosecution of patent applications, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law. Thus, the Director of the Patent Office cannot regulate lawyers from appearing in the Patent Office nor require lawyers to any examination to practice their profession in said office (Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, G. R. No. L-12426, February 16, 1959).

2.  Section 74, Republic Act No. 265, authorizes the Monetary Board, with the approval of the President, to temporarily suspend or restrict sales of exchange and to subject all transactions in gold and foreign exchange to license during an exchange crisis in order to protect the international reserve and to give the Monetary Board and the Government time in which to take constructive measures to combat such a crisis. Circular No. 44 prohibiting the release by the Commissioner of Customs of any item of import without the presentation of a release certificate issued by the Central Bank or any authorized agent bank in a form prescribed by the Monetary Board, and Circular No. 45 requiring "any person or entity who intends to import or receive goods from any foreign country for which no foreign exchange is required or will be required of the banks, to apply for a license f rom the Monetary Board to authorize such import" are measures taken to check the unregulated flow of foreign exchange from the country and are within the powers of the Monetary Board. [Pascual vs. The Commissioner of Customs, 105 Phil. 1039(1959)].

2.  The power of administrative officials to promulgate rules in the implementation of the statute is necessarily limited to what is provided for in the legislative enactment. It cannot be otherwise as the Constitution limits the authority of the President, in whom all executive power resides, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. No lesser administrative executive office or agency then can, contrary to the express language of the Constitution, assert for itself a more extensive prerogative. An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress. [Teoxon vs. Members of the Board of Administrators, 33 SCRA 585(1970)].

3.  An administrative order cannot supplant the plain and explicit command of the statute. This is explained in Teoxon v. Member of the Board of Administrators, L-25619, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 585.

4.  It is an axiom in administrative law that administrative authorities should not act arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of rules and regulations. To be valid, such rules and regulations must be reasonable and fairly adapted to secure the end in view. If shown to bear no reasonable relation to the purposes for which they are authorized to be issued, then they must be held to be invalid. [Lupangco vs. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 848(1988)].

85

5.  The Civil Service Commission was expressly empowered to declare positions in the Civil Service as may properly be classified as primarily confidential under Section 12, Chapter 3, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 which signifies that the enumeration found in Section 6, Article IV of the Civil Service Decree (Presidential Decree 807), which defines the non-career service, is not an exclusive list.—In the present case, there is no clear and persuasive showing that respondent grossly abused its discretion or exceeded its powers when it issued the assailed circular. On the contrary, respondent was expressly empowered to declare positions in the Civil Service as may properly be classified as primarily confidential under Section 12, Chapter 3, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987. To our mind, this signifies that the enumeration found in Section 6, Article IV of the Civil Service Decree, which defines the non-career service, is not an exclusive list. Respondent could supplement the enumeration, as it did when it issued Memorandum Circular No. 22, s. of 1991, by specifying positions in the civil service, which are considered primarily confidential and therefore their occupants are co-terminous with the official they serve. [Montecillo vs. Civil Service Commission, 360 SCRA 99(2001)].

6.  Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative or rule-making powers and quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory powers. Quasi-legislative or rule-making power is the power to make rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers. The rules and regulations that administrative agencies promulgate, which are the product of a delegated legislative power to create new and additional legal provisions that have the effect of law, should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to the administrative agency. [Smart Communications, Inc. (SMART) vs. National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), 408 SCRA 678(2003)].

A2.  Internal Rules

-Maglunob vs. NAFCO, G. R. No. L-6203, February 26, 1954-Interprovincial Autobus Co., Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, G. R. No. L-6741, January 31, 1956

2. Penal Regulations

-United States vs. Barrias, G. R. No. 4349, September 24, 1908-United States vs. Tupasi Molina, G. R. No. 9878, December 24, 1914-People vs. Maceren, G. R. No. L-32166, October 18, 1977

Interpretative Rules

-Hilado vs. Collector, G. R. No. L-9408, October 31, 1956-Victorias Milling Co., Inc. vs. Social Security Systems, G. R. No. L-1674, March 17, 1962-Philippine Blooming Mills vs. SSS, G. R. No. L-21223, August 31, 1966

86

B. Quasi-judicial Functions

1. Inspection, Investigation and Adjudication

-Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial Relations, G. R. No. 46496, February 27, 1940-Carmelo vs. Ramos, G. R. No. L-17778, November 30, 1962-Vivo vs. Montesa, G. R. No. L-24576, July 29, 1968-PLDT vs. PSC, G. R. No. L- 26762, L-26765, L-26779 & L-26799, August 31, 1970-Evangelista vs. Jarencio, G. R. No. L-29274, November 27, 1975-Civil Aeronautics Board vs. Philippine Air Lines,, G. R. No. L-40245, April 30, 1975-Antipolo Realty Corp. vs. National Housing Authority, G. R. No. L-50444, August 31, 1987-RCPI vs. NLRC, G. R. No. 135945, March 7, 2001

2. Determination of Sufficiency of Standards

-People vs. Rosental, G. R. No. 46076 & 46077, June 12, 1939-International Hardwood & Veneer Co. vs. Pangil Federation of Labor, G. R. No. 47178, November 25, 1940-Cervantes vs. Auditor General, G. R. No. L-4043, May 26, 1952-PACU vs. Secretary of Education, G. R. No. L-5279, October 31, 1955

C. Executive and Administrative Functions

1. Issuance or Revocation of Licenses, Permits and Leases

-Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. vs. Torres, G. R. No. 101279, August 6, 1992-Gonzalo Sy Trading vs. CBP, G. R. No. L-41480, April 30, 1976-Pantranco South Express, Inc. vs. Board of Transportation, G. R. No. 49664,67, November22, 1990-Cohon vs. CA, G. R. No. 83542, August 20, 1990

2. Fixing of Rates, Wages and Prices

-Ychausti Co. vs. Public Utility Commissioner, G. R. No. 17665, January 9, 1922-Panay Autobus Co. vs. Philippine Railway Co., G. R. No. L-16005, April 28m 1962-Meralco vs. Public Service Commission, G. R. No. L-19850, January 30,1964-Bautista vs. Board of Energy, G. R. No. 75016, January 13, 1989-Philippine Communications Satellite Corp. vs. Alcuaz, G. R. No. 84818, December 18, 1989-Maceda vs. Energy Regulatory Board, G. R. No. 95203-05 & 95119-21, December 18, 1990

D. Governmental or Proprietary Functions

-Blaquera vs. Alcala, G. R. No. 109406, September 11, 1998

Administrative Adjudication

87

A. Constitutional Provisions

1. Cardinal Primary Rights

-Ang Tibay vs. CIR, G. R. No. 46496, February 27, 1940-Danan vs. Aspillera, G. R. No. L-17305, November 28, 1962-Air Manila vs. Balatbat, G. R. No. L-29064, April 29, 1971-Villa vs. Lazaro, G. R. No. 69871, August 24, 1990-Lupo vs. Administrative Action Board, G. R. No. 89687, September 26, 1990

B. Notice and Hearing1. When required

-Vigan Electric vs. Public Service Com., G. R. No. L-19850, January 30, 1964-Macabuhay vs. Manuel, G. R. No. L-40872, December 15, 1978-Ricamara vs. Subido, G. R. No. L-28801, June 25, 1980-Mabuhay Textile Mills, Corp. vs. Ongpin, G.R. No. L-67784, February 28, 1986

2. When not Required-Suntay vs. People, G. R. No. L-9430, june 29, 1957-De Bisschop vs. Galang, G. R. No. L-18365, may 31, 1963-Assistant Executive Secretary vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 7671, January 9, 1989

3.  Rules of Procedure-Goseco vs. Court of Industrial Relations, G. R. No. 46673, September 13, 1939-Phil. Lawyer’s Ass’n. vs. Agrava, G. R. No. L-12426, Februrary 16, 1959-Maribojoc vs. Pastor de Guzman, G. R. No. L-14724, October 26, 1960

4.Form of Judgement-Tacloban Electric vs. Medina, G. R. No. L-24362, February 26, 1968-Serrano vs. Public Service Commission, G. R. No.L-24165, August 30, 1968-Gracilla vs. Court of Industrial Relations, G. R. No. L-24489, September 28, 1968

5. Board to deliberate collectively not individually-Arocha vs. Vivo, G. R. No. L-24844 & L-24853, October 26, 1967

6. Promulgation of Judgment-Neria vs. Commissioner of Immigration,, G. R. No. L-24800, May 27, 1968-Lianga Bay Logging CO. vs. Lopez Enage, G. R. No. L-30637, July 16. 1987

7. Evidence must be substantial-Police Commission vs. Lood, G. R. No. L-34367, February 24, 1984-Meralco vs. National Labor Commission, G. R. No. L=60054, July 2, 1991-Banco Filipino vs. Monetary Board, Central Bank, G. R. No. 70054, December 11, 1991

8. Decision Making-Zambales Chromite Mining Co., vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-49711-De Leon vs. Heirs of Reyes, G. R. No. L-74687, November 12, 1987

88

-Mison vs. Commission on Audit, G. R. No. 91429, July 13, 1990-Aquino-Sarmiento vs. Morato, G. R. No. 92541, November 13, 1991, November 7, 1979

9. Administrative Appeals-Administrative Code of 1987, Chapter 4, Book 7, Secs. 19-24-Meris vs. Cuesta, G. R. No. L-28780, February 18, 1970-Mendez vs. Civil Service Commission, G. R. No. 95575, December 23, 1991-Fabian vs. Desierto, G. R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998-Miralles vs. Go, G. R. No. 139943, January18, 2001

B. Jurisdiction and Competence-RCPI vs. Board of Communications, G. R. No. L-43653 & L-45378, November-Guerzon vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-77707, August 8, 1988-Gordon vs. Veridiano II, G. R. No. L-55230, November 8, 1988-Tejada vs. Homestead Property Corporation, G. R. No. 79622, September 29, 1989-Albano vs. Reyes, G. R. No. 83551, July 11, 1989-Lao Gi vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 81798, December 29, 1989

C. Objectivity and Impartiality-Nuclear Free Philippines vs. National Power Corp., G. R. Nos. L-68474 & L-70632, February 11, 1986

D. Administrative and judicial proceedings arising from the same facts-Office of the Court Administrator vs. Enriquez, Adm. Matter No. P-89-290, January 29, 1993

E. Rules of Evidence-Halili vs. Floro, G. R. No. L-3465, October 25, 1951-Buan vs. Pampanga Bus Co., G. R. No. L-7996-99, May 31, 1956-Rizal Light & Ice Co., Inc vs. Mun. of Morong, Rizal, G. R. No. L-20993 & L-21221, September 28, 1968

F. Fes judicata-DOJ Opinion No. 143-60-DOJ Opinion No. 23-52-DOJ Opinion No. 91-58-Ipekdjian Merchandising Co. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, G. R. No. L-15430-Ong Se Lun vs. Board of Immigration, G. R. No. L-6017, September 16, 1954-Commissioner of Immigration vs. Fernandez, G. R. No. L-22696, May 29, 1964-Meris vs. Cuesta, G. R. No. L-28780, February 18, 1970-San Luis vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 80160, June 26, 1989

G. Constitutional Prohibition-Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution, Sec. 14

H. Administrative settlement of dispute between government offices

89

-Phil. Veterans Investment Development Corporation vs. Velez, G. R. No. 84295, July 18, 1991

Administrative Enforcement and Sanctions

A. Methods of Enforcement

a. Investigation

-PD 1296, Sec. 185(i)-PD 902-A, Sec. 6(e), Sec. 6(b)-PD 442, as amended, Arts. 218(b), (d), 229-Public Service Act (CA 146), as amended, Sec. 39-RA 1267, Sec. 8-Guevarra vs. Comelec, G. R. No. L-12596, July 31, 1958-Masangkay vs. Comelec, G. R. No. L-13827, September 28, 1962-Carmelo vs. Armando Ramos, G. R. No. L-17778, November 30, 1962-Cabal vs. Kapunan, Jr., G. R. No. L-19052, December 29, 1962-Pascual Jr. vs. Board of Medical Examiners, G. R. No. L-25018, May 26, 1969-Matute vs. CA, G. R. Nos. L-26751, L-26085 & L-26106, January 31, 1969-Central Bank vs. Cloribel, G. R. No. L-26971, April 11, 1972-Evangelista vs. Jarencio, G. R. No. L-29274, November 27, 1975

b. Summary Powers-Churchill vs. Rafferty, G. R. No. 10572, December 21, 1915

c. Administrative Sanctions

-CA 146, Sec. 21, 16 (a), 16 (n)-CA 466, as amended-CA 613-RA 1937-Civil Aeronautics Board vs. Philippine Air Lines, G. R. No. L-40245, April 30, 1975

d. Judicial Action

-CA 83, Sec. 31 (e)-Act 3428-RA 2382, Sec. 29, Medical Act of 1959-Pastoral vs. WCC, G. R. No. L-12903, July 31, 1961-Fuentes vs. Binamira, G. R. No. L-14965, August 31, 1961

A. Constitutional Provisions

-Sec. 1, Article III, 1987 Constitution-1987 Administrative Code

90

1. Finality of Administrative Action

-King Integrated Security Services, Inc., et al vs. Galo S. Gatan, G. R. No. 143813, July 7, 2003-Cosmos Bottling Corp. vs. NLRC, et al, G. R. No. 146397, July 1, 2003-Republic of the Philippines Represented by Energy Regulatory Board vs. Meralco, G. R. Nos 141314 & 141369, April 9, 2003-Manuel vs. Villena, G. R. No. L-28128, February 27, 1971-San Miguel vs. Secretary of Labor, G. R. No. L-39195, May 16, 1975-Roberto Dollar Cp. vs. Tuvera, G. R. No. L-58910, July 5, 1983

2. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

-PHIC vs. Chinese General Hospital, et al, G. R. No. 163123, April 15, 2005-DAR vs. Apex Investment and Financing Corp., G. R. No. 149422, April 10, 2003-Wenonah L. Marquez-Azarcon vs. Charito Bunagan, et al, G. R. No. 124611, March 20, 2003-Gualberto Castro vs. Ricardo Gloria, G. R. No. 132174, August 20, 2001-Joel Biton-Onon vs. Judge Nelia Yap Fernandez, G. R. 139813, January 31, 2001-Heirs of Pedro Atega vs. Ernesto Garilao, G. R. No. 133806, April 20, 2001-Gonzales vs. CA, G. R. No. 106028, May 9, 2001-Cuevas vs. Bacal, G. R. No. 139382, December 6, 2000-Paat vs. CA, G. R. No. 111107, January 10, 1997-Carale vs. Abarintos, G. R. No. 120704, March 3, 1997-Villaflor vs. CA, G. R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997

B. Modes of Judicial Review

1. Statutory

-Sec. 11, Article XII, 1987 Constitution-Sec. 2 (2), Article XII, 1987 Constitution-RA 1267 as amended by RA 1409, Sec. 13-CA 146, Sec. 36, as amended-CA 83, Sec. 35-Rule 43, Sec. 4, Rules of Court-RA 165, Secs. 33, 61-62-RA 1125, Secs. 11, 18-Sotto vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. L-329, April 16, 1946

2. Non-statutory Methods

-Lao Tang Bun vs. Fabre, G. R. No. L-1673, October 22, 1948-Alejo vs. Garchtorena, G. R. No. L-2326, May 31, 1949-Cornelio vs. CA, G. R. No. L-24334, September 30, 1969

91

3. Collateral Methods

-Article VIII, Sec. 5, 1987 Constitution-Article IX-A, Sec. 7, 1987 Constitution-SC Circular 1-91, February 27, 1991-Revised Rules of Court-Lina vs. Carino, G. R. No. 100127, April 23, 1993-Asset Privatization Trust vs. CA, G. R. No. 95336, July 12, 1991-Rivera vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 95336, July 12, 1991-Board of Commissioners (CID) vs. Dela Rosa, G. R. Nos. 95122-23, May 31, 1991-Allied Broadcasting Center, Inc. vs. Republic of the Philippines, G. R. No. 91500, October 18, 1990-Floreza vs. Ongpin, G. R. No. 81356, February 26, 1990-Binamira vs. Garrucho, Jr., G. R. No. 92008, July 30, 1990-Medrana vs. Office of the President, G. R. No. 85904, August 21, 1990-Tesorero vs. Mathay, G. R. No. 69592, May 8, 1990-Luz Farms vs. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, G. R. No. 86889, December 4, 1990-Marcos vs. Manglapus, G. R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989-Valmonte vs. Belmonte, Jr., G. R. No. 74930, February 13, 1989-Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago, G. R. No. 83882, January 24, 1989-Almine vs. CA, G. R. No. 80719, September 26, 1989-Antonio vs. Taneo, Jr., G. R. No. L-38135, July 25, 1975-Assistant Executive Secretary, CA, G. R. No. 76761, January 9, 1989-Board of Medical Education vs. Alfonso, G. R. No. 88259, August 10, 1989-Datiles and Company vs. Sucaldito, G. R. No. 42380, June 22, 1990-Dionisio vs. Paterno, G. R. No. L-49654, July 23, 1980-Filipinas Marble Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G. R. No. L-68010, May 30, 1986-Garcia vs. The Board of Investments, Department of Trade and Industries, G. R. No. 92024, November 9, 1990-Laurel vs. Garcia, G. R. No. 92013, July 25, 1990

C. Scope of Judicial Review

-Dauan vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, G. R. No. L-19547, January 31, 1997-Lovina vs. Moreno, G. R. No. L-17821, November 23, 1963-Ang Tibay vs. CIR, G. R. No. 46496, February 27, 1940

1. Question of Law

-Ortua vs. Singson Encarnacion, G. R. No. 39919, January 30, 1934, 59 Phil 440-Lorenzo vs. McCoy, G. R. No. 5525, March 21, 1910

2. Question of Fact

92

-RA 602, Sec. 7 (a)-CA 141, Sec. 4-CA 103, Sec. 15-CA 146, Sec. 35-Benguet Exploration, Inc. Department of Agriculture, G. R. No. L-29534, February 28, 1977-Insular Life Employees Association-NATU vs. Insular Life, G. R. No. L-25291, January 30, 1971-Manuel vs. Villena, G. R. No. L-28218, February 27, 1971-Rico vs. CA, G. R. No. L-25757, December 28, 1970-Lim vs. Secretary of Agriculture, G. R. No. L-26990, August 31, 1970

3. Substantial Evidence Rule

-RA 602, Sec. 7 (a)-RA 1267, Sec. 13, as amended by RA 1409-Seven-up Bottling vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, G. R. No. L-31284, June 11, 1975

Additional Cases:

-Mollaneda vs. Umacob, G. R. No. 140128, June 6, 2001-Kenneth Neeland vs. Ildefonso Villanueva, A. M. No. P-99-1316, August 31, 2001-Estelito Remolona vs. Civil Service Commission, G. R. No. 137473, August 2, 2001-Ofelia Artuz vs. CA, Civil Service Commission and Rene Bornales, G. R. No. 142444, September 13, 2001-Lacsasa M. Adiong vs. CA, G. R. 136480, December 4, 2001-Summary Dismissal Board of the Regional Appellate Board, PNP, Region VI, Iloilo City vs. C/Insp. Lazaro Tarcita, G. R. No. 130442, April 6, 2000-Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators vs. Philippine Coconut Authority, G. R. No. 110526, February 10, 1998-David B. Corpuz vs. CA, G. R. No. 123989, January 26, 1998-Tomas Cosep vs. People of the Philippines, G. R. No. 110353, May 21, 1998-Zosimo Dimaandal vs. COA, G. R. No. 122197, June 26, 1998-Eduardo Nonato Joson vs. Ruben D. Torres, G. R. No. 131255, May 20, 1998-Sangguniang Bayan of San Andres vs. CA, G. R. No. 118883, January 16, 1998-Sergio V. Eamiguel vs. Edilberto Ho, A. M. No. 98-1263-P, March 6, 1998-Philippine Bank of Communication vs. Torio, A. M. No. P-98-1260, January 14, 1998-Felix P. Uy vs. CA, G. R. No. 126337, February 12, 1998-Vinta  Maritime vs. NLRC, G. R. No. 113911, January 23, 1998

93

ELECTION LAWS

I. Introductory Concepts

a. Elections and the Right to Vote

a.1. Constitutional and Philosophical BasesArticle II, Section 1, 1987 Constitution1. People vs. San Juan, 22 SCRA 5052. Puno’s Separate Opinion, Macalintal vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 157013,

           July 10, 2003; Read also Carpio’s Separate Opinion   3. Puno’s Dissenting Opinion, Tolentino vs. COMELEC, G. R. No.

           148334, January 21, 2004

94

a.2. Who May ExerciseArticle V, Sections 1 and 2, 1987 Constitution

a.3. Electoral SystemArticle IX, (c) (6), Section 6, 1987 Constitution

b. Definition of Terms

b.1. Plebisciteb.2. Initiativeb.3. Referendumb.4. Amendmentb.5. Revision

RA 67351. Lambino vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 174153, October 25, 20062. Puno’s Dissenting Opinion, Tolentino vs. COMELEC, supra

c. Governing Laws

1. International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Sec. 252. Omnibus Election Code, as amended among others by RA 8189, RA

           8436, RA 9369, RA 6646, RA 7166, RA 90063. RA 9189 (Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, Macalintal vs.

           COMELEC, supra

II. Election Process and/or Proceedings

a. Registration of Voters

1. RA 8189 (Voters Registration Act of 1996)2. COMELEC Resolution Number 8514 (12 November 2008   Kabataan Party List vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 189868, December 15,

            2009

a.1. Who may register (Sections 9 and 14); Who may not register (Section 11) a.2. Challenges to the right to register; Exclusion and Inclusion Cases

       (Sections 18, 32, 34)

a.2.1. Jurisdiction, Section 33a.2.2. Rules, Section 32a.2.3. Nature and Effect of Proceedings, Domino vs. COMELEC, G. R. No.

134015, July 19, 1999a.2.4. Annulment of Book of Voters (Section 39)

95

b. Certificates of Candidacy

 COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 (6 October 2009)   COMELEC Resolution No. 8692 (5 November 2009)

b.1. Who may file

1. “Residence”, construed: Gayo vs. Verceles, G. R. No. 150477, February           28, 2005

2. Tecson vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 161434, March 3, 20043. Tess Dumpit-Michelena vs. Boado, G. R. No. 1631619-20, November

           17, 20054. Limbano vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 186006, October 16, 2009 (en banc)5. Social Justice, vs. PDEA, G. R. No. 157870, November 3, 2008

b.2. When and where filed

Sec. 7, RA 7166Sec. 11, RA 8436, Sec. 13, RA 9369

b.3. Effect of filing

Sec. 66, BP 881Sec. 67, BP 881Sec. 14, RA 90061. Quinto vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 189698, December 1, 2009, Read

            Dissents of CJ Puno, J. Carpio, J. Carpio-Morales2. Quinto vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 189698, February 22, 2010, Read

            Dissent of J. Nachura

b.4. Disqualification

Sec. 68, BP 8811. Trinidad vs. COMELEC, 315 SCRA 175, G. R. No. 135716

b.4.1. Ministerial Duty to receive COC

Sec. 76, BP 881

b.4.2. Petition to deny due course or cancel certificate of candidacy

Sec. 79, 80, 95-97, 262, 264, 269, BP 881; Secs. 5 & 7, RA 66461. Salcedo II vs. COMELEC, 312 SCRA 447COMELEC Resolution No. 8696 (11 November 2009)1. Panliqui vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 188671, February 24, 2010

96

b.5. Nuisance Candidate

b.5.1. Definition

Sec. 69, BP 881RA 66461. Pamatong vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004

b.5.2. Who may file

1. Tecson vs. COMELEC, supra

b.5.3. Procedure

Sec. 5, RA 6646COMELEC Resolution No. 8696, (November 11, 2009)

b.6. Substitution

Sec. 77, BP 881

b.7. Withdrawal of Certificate of Candidacy

1. Monsale vs. Nico, G. R. No. L- 2539, May 28, 1949

b.8. Multiple certificates of candidacy

Sec. 73, BP 881

b.9. Lone Candidate law

RA 8295

c. Campaign and Election Propaganda

Sec. 3, BP 881, as amended by Sec. 5, RA 7166Sec. 3, RA 90061. National Press Club vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 102653, March 5, 1992

c.1. “Election Campaign”, defined

Sec. 79, BP 881Sec. 13, RA 9369

97

1. Lanot vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 164858, November 16, 20062. Penera vs. COMELEC and Andanar, G. R. No. 181613, September 11,

2009 (en banc); G. R. No. 181613, November 25, 2009

c.2. Prohibited Forms

Sec. 85 of BP 881

c.3. Surveys and Exit Polls

1. SWS vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 147571, May 5, 20012. ABS-CBN vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 133486, January 28, 2000

d. Conduct of Elections

RA 8346RA 93691. Information Technology vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 159139, January 13,

           20042. Roque vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 188456, September 10, 20093. COMELEC Resolution No. 8739 (December 29, 2009)4. COMELEC Resolution 8786 (March 4, 2010)

d.1. Board of Election Inspectorsd.2. Casting of Votesd.3. Counting of Ballotsd.4. Election Disputes

1. COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 (March 22, 2010)

d.4.1 Failure of Elections

d.4.1.1. GroundsSec. 6, BP 881Sec. 4, RA 7161. Canicosa vs. COMELEC, 282 SCRA 5122. Batabor vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 160248, July 21, 20043. Carlos vs. Angeles, 346 SCRA 571 (2000)4. Dibaratun vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 170365, February 2, 2010

d.4.2 Pre-Proclamation Cases

a. Definition of Pre-proclamation casesPart II, COMELEC Resolution No. 8804Compare with Secs. 241, 243, BP 881; Sec. 15, RA 71661. Belac vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 145802, April 4, 2001

98

2. June Sebastian vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 159369, March 3, 20043. Bandala vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 136282, February 15, 20004. Dagloc vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 154442-47, December 10, 2003Sec. 15, RA 7166But exception to exception: Sandoval vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 133842,

        January 26, 2000

b. Distinguished from other remedies1. Ampatuan vs. Comelec, G. R. No.149803, Jan. 31, 20022. Sarangani vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 1555560,-62, Nov. 11, 20033. Lucman vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 166229, June 29, 20054. Trinidad vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 134657, December 15, 1999

c. Procedure for raising objectionsSec. 20, RA 7166

d. Jurisdiction over per-proclamtion cases1. Milla vs. Balmores- Laxa, G. R. No. 151216, July 18, 2003

d.4.3 Election contestsPart III. Comelec Resolution 8804

a. Original and Exclusive JurisdictionPresident and Vice- President- Supreme CourtSenator- SETCongressman- HRETRegional/ Provincial/ City Offices- COMELECMunicipal Offices- RTCBarangay Offices- MTC1. Barbers vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 165691, June 22, 2005

b. Appellate JurisdictionFrom MTC/ RTC- to COMELECNature of COMELEC’s decision final and executorySec. 22, RA 71661. Rivera vs. Comelec, 199 SCRA 178

From COMELEC- to Supreme CourtRules 64 and 65, Rules of Civil Procedure

From Electoral Tribunal- to Supreme CourtRule 65, Rules of Civil Procedure

c.1 ProcedureSec. 254, BP 881

99

1. Miro vs. Comelec Resolution 8804

c.2 Effect of Death1. De Castro vs. Comelec, 267 SCRA 806

e. Criminal Offenses1.1 Vote buying1.2 Transfer of government employees1.3 Unauthorized entry into polling place1.4 Conspiracy to bribe voters

III. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

a. Composition and QualificationsArt. IX, C, Sec 1(1)Art. VII, Sec. 13, par. 21. Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210

b. Appointment and term of office of commissionersArt. IX, C, Sec. 1(2)b.1 Disqualifications

Art. IX, A, Sec. 4b.2 Salary

Art. XVIII, Sec. 17Art. IX, A, Sec. 3

b.3 Appointment of personnelArt. IX, A, Sec. 4

b.4 RemovalArt. XI, Sec. 2

c. Functions1. Baytan vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 153945, February 4, 20032. Taule vs. Santos, G. R. No. 90336, August 12, 1991

c.1 Enforce election lawsArt, IX (c), Sec. 2(1), Section 10

c.2 Describe administrative questions pertaining to elections, except the right to voteArt. IX (c), Sec. 2(3)

c.3 Petition for inclusion or exclusion of votersArt. IX (c), Sec. 2(6)

c. 4 Prosecute election law violatorsArt. IX (c), Sec. 2(6)BP Blg. 881, Sec. 265EO 134, Sec. 11, Feb. 27, 19871. De Jesus vs. People, 120 SCRA 7602. Comelec vs. Tagle, G. R. No. 148948, Feb 17, 2003

100

3. People vs. Basilla, G. R. No. 83938-40, November 6, 19894. People vs. Inting, G. R. No. 88919, July 25, 19905. People vs. Delgado, G. R. No. 93419-32, September 18, 1990

c.5 Recommend pardon, amnesty, parole or suspension of sentence of election law violators

Art. IX (c), Sec. 2(5)

c.6 Deputize law enforcement agents and recommend their removal for violation of its orders

Art. IX (c), Sec. 2(4); (8)1. People vs. Basilla, G. R. No. 83938-40, November 6, 1989

c.7 Registration of political parties, organizations and coalitions and accreditation of citizen’s arms

Art. IX (c), Sec. 2(5)Art. IX (c), Sec. 6,7,8Art. VI, Sec 5(2)1. Veterans Federation Party vs. Comelec, 342 SCRA 2442. Bagong Bayani- OFW vs. Comelec 147589, June 26, 2001

In the matter of Petition for the Registration of “Ang Ladlad LGBR Party for the Party- List System” SPP Case No. 09-228(PI), November 11, 2009

3. Ang Ladlad LGBT vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 190582, February 16, 2010

c.8 Regulation of public utilities and media of informationArt. IX (c), Sec. 4; Sec. 91. NPC vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 102653, March 5, 1992 2. SWS vs.

Comelec, G. R. No.147571, May 5, 2001

c.9 Rule- makingArt. IX A, Sec. 61. Aruelo, Jr. vs. CA 227 SCRA 3112. Lokin vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 179431-32, June 22, 2010

c.10 AdjudicatoryArt. IX c, Sec. 2(2) and (3)1. Javier vs.Comelec, 144 SCRA 1942. Canicosa vs. Comelec, 282 SCRA 512 (1997)3. Lazatin vs. Comelec, G. R. No. L-80007, January 25, 19884. Lazatin vs. HRET, G. R. No. 84297, December 8, 1988  Motion for reconsideration, In division: Roces vs. HRET.5. Mendoza vs. Comelec, G. R. No.188308, October 15, 2009

101

c.11 Review of DiscussionsArt. IX, C, Sec. 2(2)Art. IX A, Sec. 71. Flores vs. Comelec, 184 SCRA 4842. Garces vs. 259 SCRA 99

d. Fiscal AutonomyArt. IX, A, Sec. 5

IV. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE

a. People’s choice as fundamental consideration, 2nd Placer Rule1. Geronimo vs. Ramos, 136 SCRA 435, 446, (1985)2. Labo vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 86564, August 1, 19893. Domino vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 134015, July 19, 19994. Ocampo vs. Crespo, G. R. No. 158466, June 15, 2004

PART IILAWS ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

I. INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS

a. Public office and public officersArt. XI, 1987 ConstitutionSec. 2b, RA 3019Art. 203, Revised Penal Code1. Concerned Citizens of Laoag City vs. Arzaga, AMO No. P. 94-1067, Jan 30, 19972. Laurel vs. Desierto, G. R. No. 145368, April 12, 20023. Segovia vs. Noel, 47 Phil. 5434. Cornejo vs. Gabriel, 41 Phil. 188, 19205. Abeja vs. Tanada, G. R. No. 110272, August 30, 1994

b. Kinds of public officersDe JureDe Facto1. Sampayan vs. Daza, G. R. No. 103903, September 11, 19922. General Manager of PPA vs. Monserate, G. R. No. 129616, April 17, 2002

c. Who may be public officers: Eligibility and Qualificationsc.1 Who may prescribe qualificationsc.2 Time of possession of qualifications

1. Frivaldo vs. Comelec, 257 SCRA 731c.3 Usual Qualifications

Art. VI, Secs. 2 and 6, 1987 ConstitutionArt. VII, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution

102

Art. IX(b), (c), Section 1(1), 1987 ConstitutionSection 22, Book V, EO 292Art. III, Section 5, 1987 Constitution1. Maquera vs. Borra, G. R. No. L-24761, Sep 7, 19652. Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs, G. R. No. 157870, Nov 3, 2008

c.4 Disqualificationsc.4.1 Under the Constitutionc.4.2 Under Local Government Codec.4.3 Other Laws

c.5 Effect of pardonArt. 36, Revise dPenal Code1. Monsanto vs. Factoran, G. R. No. 78239, Feb 9, 19892. Garcia vs. Chairman of Commission on Audit, G. R. No. 75025, Sep 14, 1993

d. Formation of Relationsd.1 By electiond.2 By appointment1. Central Bank of the Philippines vs. Civil Service Commission, G. R. No.80455-56, April 10, 1989

d.2.1 Appointment and distinguished from designation1. Santiago vs. COA, G. R. No. 92284, July 12, 19912. Sevilla vs. Santos, G. R. No. 884948, June 9, 1992

d.3 Next- in- rank rule1. Santiago, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission, G. R. No. L-69137, Aug 5, 1986

d.4 Discretion of Appointing Authority1. Lapinid vs. CSC, G. R. No. 96298, May 14, 19912. Luego vs. Civil Service Commission, G. R. No. L-69137, Aug 5, 1986

e. Assumption and Term of Office1. Borromeo vs. Mariano, 41 Phil. 322

e.1 Doctrine of Hold-over

f. Code of Conduct RA 6713

II. POWERS, DUTIES, PRIVILIGES AND PROHIBITIONS

a. Source of powerArt. II, Sec. 1, 1987 Conatitution

b. Scope of authority

103

b.1 Doctrine of necessary implication1. Lo Cham vs. Ocampo, 77 Phil 636, 638(1948)

c. Kinds of authorityc.1 Discretionary Misniterial1. Aprueba vs. Ganzon, 18 SCRA 8(1966)-(22) G. R. No. 138570, October 10, 20002. First Phil Holdings Corporation vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 88345, February 1, 1996

d. Right sand Priviligesd.1 Right to officed.2 Right to compensation

Art. VI, Sec 10, 1987 ConstitutionArt. VII, Section 6Art. VIII, Section 8Art. IX-B, Section 8

d.3 Presidential Immunity from Suitd.4 Doctrine of Offical Immunity

1. Farolan vs. Solmac Marketing, G. R. No. 83589, March 13, 19912. Tuzon vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 90107, August 21, 1992

d.5 Preference in Promotiond.6 Leave of absenced.7 Retirement Pay

e. ProhibitionsSections 5(3), 8, Art. IX-B, 1987 Constitution

III. LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

a. Presumption of Good Faith and Regulatory in the Performance of DutiesSections 38 and 39, Administrative Code1. Farolan vs. Solmac Marketing, G. R. No. 83589, March 13, 19912. Tuazon vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 90107, August 21, 19923. Philippine Racing Club, et al, vs Arsenio Bonifacio, et al., G. R. No. L-11910, August 31, 1960

b. Kinds of Liabilityb.1 Nonfeasanceb.2 Misfeasanceb.3 Malfeasance

c. Three-Fold Liability Rule1. San Luis vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 80160, june 26, 19892. Chavez vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 91391, January 24, 1991

104

3. Domingo vs. Rayala, G. R. No. 155831, February 18, 2008

d. Liability of Superior Officers for Acts of Subordinates1. Cesa vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G. R. No. 166658, April 30, 20082. Arias vs, Sandiganbayan, 180 SCRA 309

IV. TERMINATION OF RELATIONS

a. Modes of Termination Generalb. End of Term

1. Fernandez vs. Ledesma, G. R. No. L-18878, March 30, 19632. Hernandez vs. Villegas, G. R. No. L-17287, june 30, 1965

c. Retirement1. Beronilla vs. GSIS, G. R. No. L-21723, November 26, 1970

d. Abolition Office1. Busacay vs. Buenaventura, 94 Phil 10332. Manalang vs. Quitoriano, G. R. No. L-6898, April 30, 19543. Facundo vs. Pabalan, G. R. No. L-17746, January 31, 19624. Cruz vs. Primicas, 23 SCRA 998

e. Reorganization1. Dario vs. Mison, G. R. No. 81954, August 8, 19892. Dela Llana vs, Alba, 112 SCRA 294Section 11, Art VIII, 1987 Constitution

f. Abandonment1. Summers vs. Ozaeta, G. R. No. L-1534, October 25, 1948

g. Incompatible Officeh. Resignationi. Removalj. Others

j.1 Recallj.2 Prescription

1. Unabia vs. City Mayor, 99 Phil 253j.3 Failure to Assume Office

Section 11, BP 881

V. ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINE

a. Over Presidential Appointeesa.1 Exceptions1. Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 4642. Dolalas vs. Ombudsman- Mindanao, G. R. No. 118808, December 24, 1996

b. Over Non-Presidential AppointeesSection 46, Book V, EO 292

105

c. Over Elective Officialsc.1 Article XI, 1987 Constitutionc.2 Sections 60-69, local Government Code

d. The Ombudsmand.1 Jurisdiction

1. OMB vs. CA, G. R. No. 160675, June 16, 20062. Remolana vs. CSC, 362 SCRA 8043. Acop vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 248 SCRA 5664. Camanag vs. Guerrero, G. R. No. 121017, February 17, 1997

d.2 Power to Investigate Administrative Chargesd.2.1 Concurrent with the Office of the President

1. Hagad vs. Dadole, 241 SCRA 242d.2.2 Concurrent with DOJ

1. Honasan vs. DOJ Panel of Investigating Prosecutors, G. R. No. 159747, April 13, 2004

d.2.3 Power to investigate cases of ill-gotten wealth after Feb. 25, 1986

1. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, September 24, 1994d.2.4 Ombudsman for the Military

1. Agbay vs. Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, G. R. No. 134503, July 2, 1999

d.3 Preventive Suspension1. Lastimosa vs.Vasquez, G. R. No. 116801, April 6, 1995

106