POLYTECHNICUNIVERSITYOFTHEPHILIPPINES

COLLEGEOFLAW
STA.MESA,MANILA

COURSEOUTLINE
IN
POLITICALLAW

By:

ATTY.GENERM.GITO,LL.M.
AssistantProfessorialLecturerII
I.

GENERALCONSIDERATIONS

A.
DefinitionofPoliticalLawisabranchofpubliclaw,whichdealswiththeorganizationand
operationsofthegovernmentalorgansofthestateanddefinestherelationsofthestatewiththeinhabitantsof
itsterritory.
B.
NecessityfortheStudyoneofthenecessitiesofthestudyistheinclusioninthecurriculumin
lawcourses;andeverycitizen,regardlessofthecallingmustunderstandthemechanicsandmotivationofhis
government.Thismustbebecauseofthesovereigntyresidesinthepeopleandthegovernmentauthority
emanatesfromthem.ItisupontheactiveinvolvementinthepublicandcivicaffairsofeveryFilipinothatthe
successoftheRepublicofthePhilippineswilldepend.
C.
BasisoftheStudythebasisofthestudyoftheConstitutionalLawisthepresentConstitution
ofthePhilippinesasadoptedonFebruary2,1987.
i.
ArticleII,Sec.1thePhilippinesisademocraticandrepublicanstate.Itssovereignty
residesinthepeopleandthegovernmentauthorityemanatesfromthem.
D.
BackgroundoftheStudy
Read:Cruz,PhilippinePoliticalLaw,2002ed.,pp.18
II.

CONSTITUTIONOFTHEPHILIPPINES

A.
Whatisaconstitutionconstitutionsisthebasicandparamountlawtowhichallotherlaws
mustconformandtowhichallpersons,includingthehighestofficialsoftheland,mustdefer.
B.
ClassificationsoftheConstitution(rigidandflexible/writtenandunwritten/evolvedand
enacted/normative,nominalandsemantic)
C.
QualitiesofagoodwrittenConstitutionbroad,briefanddefinite.
D.
EssentialpartsofagoodwrittenConstitutionconstitutionofliberty,constitutionof
governmentandconstitutionofsovereignty.
E.
BriefconstitutionalhistoryofthePhilippines
F.
InterpretationoftheConstitution
G.
PurposeoftheConstitutiontoprescribeapermanentframeworkofthesystemofgovernment,
toassigntotheseveraldepartmenttheirrespectivepowersanddutiesandtoestablishcertainfirstprinciplesto
whichthegovernmentisfounded.
Read:Nachura,OutlineReviewerinPoliticalLaw,200,pp.311
III.

CONCEPTOFTHESTATE

A.
DefinitionofStatecommunityofpersons,moreorlessnumerousoccupyingafixedterritory
andpossessedofanindependentgovernmentorganizedforpoliticalendstowhichgreatbodyofinhabitants
rendershabitualobedience.
B.
ElementsoftheState
i.
People
ii.
Territory
a.
Art.I,1987Constitution
b.
Archipelagicdoctrine
c.
Straightbaselinemethod
d.
RepublicActNo.9522
d.1.
Margallonavs.Ermita,G.RNo.187167,Aug.16,2011
e.
TerritorialJurisdiction
e.1.
Reaganvs.CIR,30SCRA968
iii.
Government
a.
Definition
b.
DefinitionofgovernmentofthePhilippines
c.
Functionsofgovernment
c.i.
constituent
c.ii.
ministrant
1.
RomualdezYapvs.CSC,225SCRA285
2.
Shipside,Inc.vs.CA,G.R.No.143377,Feb20,2001
3.
PVTAvs.CIR,65SCRA416
d.
DoctrineofParensPatria
d.i.
GovernmentofPIvs.Monte,35SCRA738
Facts:
1. Spain paid $400,000 into the treasury ofthe Philippine Islands for the relief of those damaged by an
earthquake.
2.UponthepetitionofMontedePiedad,aninstitutionunderthecontrolofthechurch,thePhilippineGovernment
directeditstreasurertogive$80,000oftherelieffundinFour(4)4installments.Asaresult,variouspetitions
werefiled,includingtheheirsofthoseentitledtotheallotments.AllprayedfortheStatetobringsuitagainst
MontedePiedad,andforittopaywithinterest.
3.TheDefendantappealedsinceallitsfundshavebeenexhaustedalreadyonvariousjewelryloans.
Issue:Whetherthegovernmentistheproperauthoritytothecauseofaction
YES.
ThePhilippinegovernment,asatrusteetowardsthefundscouldmaintaintheactionsincetherehasbeenno
changeofsovereignty.Thestate,asasovereign,istheparenspatriaeofthepeople.Theseprinciplesarebased
uponpublicpolicy.ThePhilippineGovernmentisnotamerenominalpartybecauseitwasexercisingits
sovereign functions or powers and was merely seeking to carry out a trust developed upon it when the
PhilippineIslandswascededtotheUnitedStates.Finally,ifsaidloanwasforecclesiasticalpiouswork,then
Spainwouldnotexerciseitscivilcapacities.
f.

ClassificationofGovernment
f.i.
Dejure(governmentoflaw)isanorganizedgovernmentofastatewhich
hasthegeneralsupportofthepeople.
f.ii
Defacto(governmentoffact)isagovernmentwhichactuallyexercises
powerorcontrolbutwithoutlegaltitle.

j.

iv.
sateisgoverned.

Kindsofdefactogovernment
Thatthegovernmentgetspossessionsandcontrol,orusurps,byforceor
bythevoiceofthemajorityandmaintainsitselfagainstthewillofthe
latter.
Thatestablishedasanindependentgovernmentbytheinhabitantofa
countrywhoriseininsurrectionagainsttheparentstate.
Thatwhichisestablishedandmaintainedbymilitaryforceswhoinvade
andoccupyaterritoryoftheenemyduringthecourseofwarandwhichis
denominatedasgovernmentofparamountforce.
Republicvs.Sandiganbayan,G.R.No.104768,July21,2003

j.i.
Sovereignty
a.
Definitionisthesupremeanduncontrollablepowerofthestatebywhichthe
b.

c.
exclusiveandcomprehensive
d.

Kindsofsovereigntylegalandpolitical
Legalsovereigntyistheauthorityofthestatetoissuefinalcommand
Politicalsovereigntyisthesumoftheinfluencebehindthepowerof
legalsovereignty
Characteristicsispermanent,absolute,indivisible,inalienable,imprescriptible,
Effectsofchangeinsovereigntysovereigntyisnotchangebybelligerent
occupation.Itisjustthepoliticallawsoftheterritory,whichweresuspendedby
theoccupants.Nonpoliticallawslikecivilandinsurancecoderemainedeffective
exceptwhentheywereamendedorsupersededbytheaffirmativeactofthe
occupants.
d.i.
Peoplevs.Perfecto,43Phil887libelisnolongerpunishable(contrary
to
penalcodeofSpain)whentheaccusedcommitteditsinceAmericahasalready
occupiedthePhilippinesandthelawsoftheformerdidnotstateanypunishment
tolibel.
d.ii. Macariolavs.Asuncion,114SCRA77respondentjudgehadboughta
parceloflandthatwassubjectedtohislitigation2yearsearlier.Hewasnotheld
liablesincethelandhadbeenboughtfromathirdpersonandthelitigationwas
already2yearspassedthetimeheboughtit.
Likewise,Article14oftheCodeofCommercethatprohibitsjudgesfrom
engagingincommerceis,asheretoforestated,deemedabrogatedautomatically
uponthetransferofsovereigntyfromSpaintoAmerica,becauseitispoliticalin
nature.thusengaginginabusinesswithhiswife.
d.iii. Vilasvs.CityofManila,229U.S.345creditorsfiledacomplaintsince
therewasachangeinsovereigntyfromSpanishtoUSaftertheTreatyofParis
hasbeensignedonDecember2,1898.Thoughtherewasachangeinthe
sovereignty,itwasnotheldthatobligationsfromdebtsmightbeescapedsinceit
wasnotexpresslystatedonthelegislativedeclarationofthecontrarypurpose.

e.

Effectsofbelligerentoccupation
e.i.
Peraltavs.DirectorofPrisons,75Phil.285"Thecriminaljurisdiction
establishedbytheinvaderintheoccupiedterritoryfindsitssourceneitherinthe
lawsoftheconqueringorconqueredstate,itisdrawnentirelyformthelaw

martialasdefinedintheusagesofnations.Thepunishmentofreclusionperpetua
forthecaseofrobberyhasbeenjustifiedinthiscasesinceitisinthebelligerency
oftheJapaneseArmy.Thelawwerepromulgatedfortheprotectionofthearmy
andcannotbesaidnorthinkthatitviolatesthepublicconscience.(Paramount
force).Howeverthoughvalidandgood,sincethebelligerencehasceasedtoexist,
thepenaltiesimposedalsoceased.
e.ii.
Alcantaravs.DirectorofPrisons,75Phil.749AnacletoAlcantara
wasconvictedbecauseofillegaldischargeoffirearmswithslightphysicalinjuries
andwasconvictedthereoffor4monthsand21daysofarrestomenorbutthe
penaltieshadbeenmodifiedbyCAofBaguiointo3yearsand6monthsof
prissioncorrectional.TheBelligerentoccupanthascreatedthepowerofCAto
modifyanditsotherjurisdictionduringtheJapaneseEraanditsenforceablesince
theydonthavecomplexitiesoractspunishedoutsidethescopeofmunicipallaw.
Belligerentoccupantlegislatureisbasedonlawmaritalandisintendedtoprotect
thearmysoasthepublicratherthantheprivatesecurity.
e.iii.

Ruffyvs.ChiefofStaff,75Phil.875

Read:Bernas,1987Constitution,ACommentary,2003,pp.3559
Cruz,PhilippinePoliticalLaw,2002,1430
Nachura,Outlinepp.2630
IV.

DOCTRINEOFSTATEIMMUNITY
A.

Basis
i.
Art.XVI,Sec.9
ii.
Republicvs.Villasor,54SCRA83defendantsoughtforthegarnishmentofthe
moneyoftheAFP.Thisisasuitagainstthestate.

B.
Applicationcasesofwhichtheclaimsweredismissedsincethesubjectofitwerethestate/
agentsofthestate.
i.
Garciavs.ChiefofStaff,16SCRA120plaintiffclaimsasumofmoneyafter
sustaininganinjurywhileontraininginAFP.Hence,hefiledacomplaintdirectlytothe
courtwithoututilizingthenecessarystepsoffilingitfirstthruthegeneralinauditor.
ii.

Sandersvs.Veridiano,162SCRA88PlaintiffsuedtheofficersoftheArmedof
ForcesoftheUSwhileasagentsofthestate.

iii.

USvs.Guinto,182SCRA644Officerscommittedtortsintheirpersonalcapacityand
notasactsofthestate.

iv.

TheHolySeevs.Rosario,238SCRA524petitionerhereinisanagentofastateof
Vaticanandtheiractsofsellingthelandisnotfortheirproprietaryactionbutbecauseof
theillegalsettlersonthelandwhodonotwanttovacate.

C.

Waiverofimmunity

D.

Formsofconsent
i.

Republicvs.Purisima,78SCRA470thewaivermadebythelawyerfortheRiseand
CornAdministration,washeldbytheSCnotlegallybindinguponthestate.

ii.

Amicablevs.Cuenca,43SCRA360portionofthelandhasbeenconvertedbythe

governmentforroa.,mbcvdwidening.Wherethegovernmenttakesawaypropertyfrom
aprivatelandownerforpublicusewithoutgoingthroughthelegalprocessof
expropriationornegotiatedsale,theaggrievedpartymayproperlymaintainasuitagainst
thegovernmentwithouttherebyviolatingthedoctrineofgovernmentalimmunityfrom
suitwithoutitsconsent.
ii.

Ministeriovs.CityofCebu,40SCRA464Wherethegovernmenttakesaway
propertyfromaprivatelandownerforpublicusewithoutgoingthroughthelegalprocess
ofexpropriationornegotiatedsale,theaggrievedpartymayproperlymaintainasuit
againstthegovernmentwithouttherebyviolatingthedoctrineofgovernmentalimmunity
fromsuitwithoutitsconsent.Thedoctrineofthestateimmunitycannotserveasan
instrumentforperpetratinginjusticetothecitizens.

iv.

Santiagovs.Republic,87SCRA294suitagainstthegovernmentagencytorecover
thelanddonationsgivenforfailureofthelattertoinstalllightingfacilitiesandparking
areasinaccordancewiththeagreement.Sincethisisnotasuitagainstthemoneyofthe
government,theSCruledthatsuitcouldprosper.Aswhattheplaintiffhereinwas
seekingwasthereturnofthepropertiesdonated,hedidnotevenneedtofilehisclaim
firstwiththeCOAundertheprovisionofCA327amendedbyRA1445.

v.

Froilanvs.PanOrientalShip.Co.,G.R.No.L6060,Sept.30,1950wherethe
governmentimpliedlyalloweditselftobesuedwhenitfiledacomplaintinintervention
fortheaffirmativereliefagainsttheplaintifftorecoverthevessel.

vi.

Limvs.Brownell,107SCRA345wherethePhilippinesasasuccessoroftheUnited
Statesforthepropertiesbeingclaimedfromthelatter,filedacomplaintininterventionto
jointhedefendantininvokingthedoctrineofthestateimmunitytosecurethedismissalof
theaction.AsthePhilippineGovernmentwasnotaskingforanyaffirmativereliedfrom
theplaintiffbuthadintervenedonlyforthepurposeodresistinghisclaimtheSCheldthat
noimpliedwaiverofimmunitycouldbeassumed.

vii.

Republicvs.Sandiganbayan,182SCRA911DisinihadacontractwiththePCGGthat
hewillbeimmunefromcivilandcriminalcasesbutnottotestifyagainstthosewhohave
acquiredillgottenwealthduringMarcosregimeasperEO1and2.Howeversincetheir
wasacontractbetweentheRPandDisini,theRPcannotrevokewhathasagreedupon
tobeimmunefromsuitswiththefactthatDisinihascompliedwithalltheagreements.
The Court should not allow respondent Republic, to put it bluntly, to double cross
petitioner Disini. The Immunity Agreement was the result of a long drawn out process of
negotiations with each party trying to get the best concessions out of it.
The Republic did not have to enter that agreement. It was free not to. But when it
did, it needs to fulfill its obligations honorably as Disini did. More than any one, the
government should be fair.

viii.

Lyonsvs.US,104Phil.593USNavalForcesenteredintoacontractwithaprivate
individualforsteverdoring.Plaintiffsubmittedacomplaintdirectlytothecourtnot
exhaustingallstepsprovidedbythestate.Itshouldbefiledwiththeauditorgeneralfirst
andnexttothesecretaryofthenavalforceforanyappeals.Inthisregard,thesuggestion
wasthatregardlessoftheformofthecontract,thegovernmentorstatewouldloseits
immunity.

ix.

U.S.vs.Ruiz,136SCRA487inthiscaseatbar,theimmunitywouldlostonlyifthe
contractenteredupontoisintheformofproprietarycapacity.*Governmentalcontracts

donotresultinimpliedwaiverofimmunityoftheStatefromsuit.Thestateenteredinto
acontractfortherepairofwharvesinSubicNavalForce.Theplaintifffiledacomplaint
fordamagesbuttheSCheldthatthewharvesareforstateprotectionofboththeUSand
RPstatecannotbesued.
Thussincetheinternationallawisnotpetrifiedandkeepsondevelopingang
evolving,itisnecessarytodistinguishwhetherthecontractisgovernmental(jureempirii)
andproprietary/private(juregestionis)andtheimmunityonlyextendstojureempirii.
E.
Suabilitybutnotautomaticliabilitywhenthestatewaiveditsimmunityfromsuit,itdoesnot
meanthatitwillconcedetotheliabilitytotheplaintiff.
i.

Republicvs.Villasor,54SCRA84sameasthebasisofthedoctrineofstate
immunity

ii.

PNBvs.Pabalan,83SCRA595On17Dec1970,JudgePabalanissuedawritof
executionfollowedthereafterbyanoticeofgarnishmentofthefundsofPhilippine
VirginiaTobaccoAdministrationinthesumofP12,724.66depositedwiththepetitioner
bank.PNBLaUnionfiledanadministrativecomplaintagainstPabalanforgraveabuseof
discretion,allegingthatthelatterfailedtorecognizethatthequestionedfundsareof
publiccharacterandthereforemaynotbegarnished,attachedorleviedupon.ThePNB
LaUnionBranchinvokedthedoctrineofnonsuability,puttingabaronthenoticeof
garnishment.
ISSUE:WhetherornotPNBmaybesued.
HELD:Fundsofpubliccorporationswhichcansueandbesuedarenotexemptfrom
garnishment. PVTA is also a public corporation with the same attributes, a similar
outcomeisattributed.Thegovernmenthasenteredwiththemintoacommercialbusiness
henceithasabandoneditssovereigncapacityandhassteppeddowntothelevelofa
corporation.Therefore,itissubjecttorulesgoverningordinarycorporationsandineffect
canbesued.Therefore,thepetitionofPNBLaUnionisdenied.
iii.
Merittvs.GovernmentofthePhil.,76SCRA47whetherornotthestateis
liablefothenegligenceoftisemployeewhowasdrivingtheambulancewhenithitthe
plaintiffcausingseriousphysicalinjuries.TheSCrulesthatitisforthestatetodecide
whetherornotitwillsubjectitselftobeliabletopaymoreforthedamagesitsemployee
caused.Whenthestateconsentedtobesued,itsimplywaivesitimmunityfromsuit.Itis
therebynotcontendingtobeliabletoplaintiff,orcauseanyactioninhisfavor,orextend
itsliabilitytoanycausenotpreviouslyrecognized.Itmerelygivesaremedytoenforcea
preexistingliabilitytointerposealawfuldefense.
Thestatecanonlybeliablewhenitsemployees,officials,agentsactedasspecial
agentsofthestatetowhomtheactsforthestateisexpressed.

F.

SuitagainstGovernmentAgencies
i.

Bermoyvs.PNC,G.R.No.L8670,May18,1956The complaints of the 20 employees

of the Philippine Normal College is meritorious, because Republic Act No. 416 endows the
Philippine Normal College with the "general powers set out" in Section 13 of the Corporation
Law; and one of the powers enumerated in the said section is the power "to sue and be sued in
any court."

ii.

Arcegavs.CA,66SCRA229Thepetitioner,AliciaOrtegaisdoingbusiness,
FairmontIceCreamCompanyfiledacomplaintagainstPNBforthetaxesincurredfor
thespecialexcisetaxof17%wantingarefund.PNBmovedtodismissthecomplainfor
thegroundsthatcourthasnojurisdictionsincePNBcannotbesued.HoweverSCruled
thatPNBscharterallowedPNBtosueandbesuedthereforedismissingthemotionof
PNBtodismiss.

iii.

NationalAirportsCorporationvs.Teodoro,91Phil.203theCivilAeronautics
CorporationcanbesuedsinceithasenteredintoacontractwithNAC.Thecomplaintis
allaboutthepaymentofthefeesforthelandingandparkingoftheplanesonthelandof
theNAC.ThecourtdeniedthepetitionofCACthatitcannotbesued.

iv.

BureauofPrintingvs.EmployeesAssociation,1,SCRA340TheBureauofPrinting
isanofficeoftheGovernmentcreatedbytheAdministrativeCodeof1916(ActNo.
2657).AssuchinstrumentalityoftheGovernment,itoperatesunderthedirect
supervisionoftheExecutiveSecretary,OfficeofthePresident,andis"chargedwiththe
executionofallprintingandbinding,includingworkincidentaltothoseprocesses,
requiredbytheNationalGovernmentandsuchotherworkofthesamecharacterassaid
Bureaumay,bylaworbyorderofthe(SecretaryofFinance)ExecutiveSecretary,be
authorizedtoundertake...."(See.1644,Rev.Adm.Code).Ithasnocorporateexistence,
anditsappropriationsareprovidedforintheGeneralAppropriationsAct.Designedto
meettheprintingneedsoftheGovernment,itisprimarilyaservicebureauandobviously,
notengagedinbusinessoroccupationforpecuniaryprofit.

v.

MobilPhilippinesExplorationvs.CustomsArrastre,18SCRA1120Theorderof
dismissalappealedfromisherebyaffirmed,withcostsagainstappellant.Regardlessof
themeritsoftheclaimagainstit,theState,forobviousreasonsofpublicpolicy,cannot
besuedwithoutitsconsent.PlaintiffshouldhavefileditspresentclaimtotheGeneral
AuditingOffice,itbeingformoneyundertheprovisionsofCommonwealthAct327,
whichstatetheconditionsunderwhichmoneyclaimsagainsttheGovernmentmaybe
filed.
Accordingtothecourt,BureauofCustoms,actingaspartofthemachineryofthe
nationalgovernmentintheoperationofthearrastreservice,pursuanttoexpress
legislativemandateandasanecessaryincidentofitsprimegovernmentalfunction,is
immunefromsuit,therebeingnostatutetothecontrary.

G.

SuabilityagainstPublicOfficers

i.
Sandersvs.Veridiano,162SCRA88
ii.
Shaulfvs.CA,191SCRA713ShaufwasaFilipinoandappliedforaguidance
counselorbutwasnotgiventhepositionsallegedlybecauseofdiscriminationdietoherraceandgender.Before
filingacasetherespondentsofferedthepetitioneratemporarypositionthatwithin180days,whentheposition
beingprayedforvacatedorbecomeavailable,shewillbecalledtooccupythesaidpositionbutitdidnot
happen.ThepetitionerthenfiledacomplaintandseekforresolutionintodifferentvenuessuchasCA,CSC,
AppealReviewBoardetc.CAdismissedthecomplaintsinceaccordingtoittherespondentsareimmunefrom
suitsbecausetheyareofficialsoftheUS.HoweverSCrulesthattheyarenotimmune.Itisawellsettled
principleoflawthatapublicofficialmaybeliableinhispersonalprivatecapacityforwhateverdamagehemay
havecausedbyhisactdonewithmaliceandinbadfaith,orbeyondthescopeofhisauthorityorjurisdiction.

iii.
Wylievs.Rarang,209SCRA357TheimputationoftheftcontainedinthePOD
datedFebruary3,1978isadefamationagainstthecharacterandreputationoftheprivaterespondent.Petitioner
WyliehimselfadmittedthattheOfficeoftheProvostMarshalexplicitlyrecommendedthedeletionofthename
Auringifthearticlewerepublished.Thepetitioners,however,werenegligentbecauseundertheirdirectionthey
issuedthepublicationwithoutdeletingthename"Auring."Suchactoromissionisultraviresandcannotbepart
ofofficialduty.Itwasatortiousactwhichridiculedtheprivaterespondent.Asaresultofthepetitioners'act,
theprivaterespondent,accordingtotherecord,sufferedbesmirchedreputation,seriousanxiety,wounded
feelingsandsocialhumiliation,speciallyso,sincethearticlewasbaselessandfalse.Thepetitioners,alone,in
theirpersonalcapacitiesareliableforthedamagestheycausedtheprivaterespondent.
Read:Cruz,PhilippinePoliticalLaw,2002,3149
Nachura,Outlinepp.2630
V.

FUNDAMENTALPRINCIPLESANDPOLICIES
A.
B.

Preamble
RepublicanismandDemocracy
i.
Section1,Art.IIthePhilippinesisademocraticandrepublicanstate.Thesovereign
residesinthepeopleandthegovernmentauthorityemanatesfromthem.
C.
IncorporationClause
i.
Sec.2,Art.IIThePhilippinesrenounceswarasaninstrumentofinternationalpolicy
andadoptsthegenerallyacceptedprinciplesofinternationallawaspartofthelawsoftheland.Itadoptsand
adherestothepolicyofpeace,equality,justice,cooperationandamitywithallnations.
ii.
Sec.7,Art.IIThestatepursuesanindependentforeignpolicy.Initsrelationswith
othernations,theparamountconsiderationshallbenationalsovereignty,territorialintegrity,nationalinterest
andtherighttoselfdetermination.
iii.
Kurudavs.Jalandoni,42O.G.4282Article68thattriedandconvenedKurodadueto
notperforminghisdutiesasanofficeroftheJapaneseArmywhichcausedtocommitcrimesand
asagainsttheconstitutionschallengedthevalidityofit.ThoughPhilippinesisnotasignatoryof
theHagueConvention,thelawsappliedarestillvalidsincetheyareadoptedfromgenerally
acceptedprinciplesoftheinternationallawandformspartofourlaw.
iv.
CoKimChanvs.ValdezTanKehDouglasMcArthurhadaproclamation
invalidatingallthejudicialproceedingsandjudgmentsofthecourtsofthePhilippinesExecutive
CommitteeandtheRPestablishedduringtheJapaneseMilitaryOccupation.Respondents
claimedevenfurtherthatcourtshavenojurisdiction.
1.Internationallawsaystheactsofadefactogovernmentarevalidandcivillaws
continueevenduringoccupationunlessrepealed.
2.MacArthurannulledproceedingsofothergovernments,butthiscannotbeappliedon
judicialproceedingsbecausesuchaconstructionwouldviolatethelawofnations.
3.Sincethelawsremainvalid,thecourtmustcontinuehearingthecasependingbeforeit.
***3kindsofdefactogovernment:oneestablishedthroughrebellion(govtgets
possessionandcontrolthroughforceorthevoiceofthemajorityandmaintainsitself
againstthewilloftherightfulgovernment),throughoccupation(establishedand
maintainedbymilitaryforceswhoinvadeandoccupyaterritoryoftheenemyinthe
courseofwar;denotedasagovernmentofparamountforce),throughinsurrection
(establishedasanindependentgovernmentbytheinhabitantsofacountrywhorisein
insurrectionagainsttheparentstate)

v.

Ichongvs.Hernandez,101Phil.1155Lao Ichong vs Jaime Hernandez

TreatiesMayBeSupersededbyMunicipalLawsintheExerciseofPolicePower

LaoIchongisaChinesebusinessmanwhoenteredthecountrytotakeadvantageof
businessopportunitieshereinabound(then)particularlyintheretailbusiness.Forsome
timeheandhisfellowChinesebusinessmenenjoyeda3monopoly inthelocalmarketin
Pasay.UntilinJune1954whenCongresspassedtheRA1180ortheRetailTrade
NationalizationActthepurposeofwhichistoreservetoFilipinostherighttoengagein
theretailbusiness.IchongthenpetitionedforthenullificationofthesaidActonthe
groundthatitcontravenedseveraltreatiesconcludedbytheRPwhich,accordingtohim,
violatestheequalprotectionclause(pactasundservanda).HesaidthatasaChinese
businessmanengagedinthebusinesshereinthecountrywhohelpsintheincome
generationofthecountryheshouldbegivenequalopportunity.
ISSUE:Whetherornotalawmayinvalidateorsupersedetreatiesorgenerallyaccepted
principles.
HELD:Yes,alawmaysupersedeatreatyoragenerallyacceptedprinciple.Inthiscase,
thereisnoconflictatallbetweentheraisedgenerallyacceptedprincipleandwithRA
1180.Theequalprotectionofthelawclause3doesnotdemandabsoluteequalityamongst
residents;itmerelyrequiresthatallpersonsshallbetreatedalike,underlike
circumstancesandconditionsbothastoprivilegesconferredandliabilitiesenforced ;
and,thattheequalprotectionclause3isnotinfringedbylegislationwhichappliesonlyto
thosepersonsfallingwithinaspecifiedclass,ifitappliesaliketoallpersonswithinsuch
class,andreasonablegroundsexistformakingadistinctionbetweenthosewhofall
withinsuchclassandthosewhodonot.
Forthesakeofargument,evenifitwouldbeassumedthatatreatywouldbeinconflict
withastatutethenthestatutemustbeupheldbecauseitrepresentedanexerciseofthe
policepowerwhich,beinginherentcouldnotbebargainedawayorsurrenderedthrough
themediumofatreaty.Hence,Ichongcannolongerasserthisrighttooperatehismarket
stallsinthePasaycitymarket.Thateventherewereinconsistenciesbetweenthenational
lawandstatute,thestatutebeingthepolicepowerexercisedshallprevail.

D.

vi.

Gonzalesvs.Hechanovapetitioner,assailsthevalidityoftheorderoftheExecutive
Secretarytoimportricefromforeigncountry.Philippineshavealreadyhadacontract
betweenVietnamandBurmahoweverwealreadyhavestatutesdisallowingthe
importationofforeignrice.TheExecutiveSecretary,thereforeactedinexcessof
jurisdictionwhenheallowedtheimportationoftheforeignrice.Wheneverthereis
conflictwithinternationallaw/agreementitshouldbethestaturewherethepolicepower
isbasedshouldprevailtoharmonizetheconflicts.

vii.

Agustinvs.Edu,88SCRA195PresidentMarcosissuedaexecutiveorderthatthere
shouldbeatleastoneEWD(earlywarningdevice)foreveryvehicleanowner,driver
has.Thepetitionerassailsthatitsunconstitutionalsinceitviolatesthelibertyinproperty.
TheSCruledthatthepolicepowercansupersedethelibertyofpersonalpropertyto
ensureorpromotesafetyforthewelfareofthepublic.ItisalsostatedintheVienna
conventiontowhichthePhilippinesisasignatorythateverydriver/ownerofavehicle
mustberequiredtohaveEWDbutnotrequiredtobuysincetheycancreatetheirown.

Civilianauthoritysupremeoverthemilitary
i.
Sec.3,Art.IIThecivilauthorityis,atalltimessupremeoverthemilitary.TheAFPis
theprotectorofthepeopleandthestate.ItsgoalistomaintainthesovereigntyoftheStateandtheintegrityof
theterritory.
E.
DefenseoftheState
i.
Sec.4,Art.IITheprimedutyofthegovernmentistoserveandprotectthepeopleand
thestate.ThegovernmentmaycalluponthepeopletodefendtheState,andinfulfillmentthereof,allcitizens
mayberequired,asprescribedbylaw,torenderpersonal,civilormilitaryservice.

ii.

Sec.4,Art.XVI

iii.
Peoplevs.Lagman;Peoplevs.Zosa,38O.G.1676wereconvictedbecausethey
refrainedtoberegisteredtorendermilitaryservice.Thegovernmentmaycallonthepeopletodefendthestate,
andinthefulfillmentthereof,allcitizensasprescribedbythelawtorenderpersonal,militaryorcivilservice.
Thecompulsorymilitaryserviceisjustifiedbythedefenseofstate.
F.

Independentforeignpolicy

i.
Sec.7,Art.IIThestatepursuesanindependentforeignpolicy.Initsrelationswith
othernations,theparamountconsiderationshallbenationalsovereignty,territorialintegrity,nationalinterest
andtherighttoselfdetermination.
G.

Freedomfromnuclearweapons
i.
Sec.8,Art.IIThePhilippines,consistentwithnationalinterestadoptsandpursues
policiesoffreedomfromnuclearweaponinitsterritories.
H.
SocialOrderandSocialJustice
i.
Sec.9,Art.IITheStateshallpromoteajustanddynamicsocialordertoensure
prosperityandindependenceofthenationandfreethepeoplefrompovertybymeansofpublicpoliciesthatwill
renderadequatesocialservices,promotefullemployment,arisinginstandardofthelivingandanimproved
qualityoflifeforall.
ii.
Sec.10,id.TheStatepromotessocialjusticeinallphasesofnationaldevelopment.
iii.
Sec.11,id.TheStatevaluesthedignityofeveryhumanpersonandensuresfullrespect
ofhumanrights.
iv.
Sec.18,id.Thestateaffirmslaborasanationaleconomicforce.Itshallprotectthe
rightsoftheworkersandpromotetheirwelfare.
v.
Sec.21,id.Thestateshallpromotecomprehensiveruraldevelopmentandagrarian
reform.
vi.
TondoMed.CenterEmlys.vs.CA,G.R.No.167324,July17,2007denyingthe
petitiontoannulthehealthreformagenda.
vii.

DefinitionofSocialJustice

I.

Rearingofyouth
i.
Sec.12,Art.IITheStaterecognizedthesanctityoffamilylifeandshallprotectand
strengthenfamilyasthebasicautonomoussocialinstitution.Itshallprotectequallythelifeofthemotherand
thelifeoftheunbornfromconception.Theprimaryandnaturalrightsanddutyoftheparentsintherearingof
theyouthforcivicefficiencyandthedevelopmentofmoralcharactershallreceivethesupportofthe
government.
ii.

DepartmentofEducationvs.SanDiego,180SCRA533

J.

Righttobalanceecology
i.
Sec.15,Art.IITheStateprotectsandpromotestherighttohealthofthepeopleand
shallinstillhealthconsciousnessamongthem.
ii.
Sec.16,idTheStatepromotesandadvancetherightofthepeopletoabalancedand
healthfulecologyinaccordwiththerhythmandharmonyofnature.
iii.

Oposavs.Factoran,101083,July30,1993

iv.

LLDAvs.CA,G.R.No.110120,March16,1994

H.

NationalEconomy
i.
Sec.19,Art.IITheStateshalldevelopaselfreliantandindependentnationaleconomy
effectivelycontrolledbyFilipinos.
ii.

Garciavs.BOI,G.R.No.92024,November9,1990

Read:Cruz,PhilippinePoliticalLaw,2002,5072
Bernas,1987Constitution,ACommentary,2003,pp.35100
VI.

SEPARATIONOFPOWERS
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

F.

VII.

Purposes
Blendingofpowers
ChecksandBalances
RoleJudiciary
i.
Angaravs.ElectoralCommission,63Phil.139
Justiciableandpoliticalquestion
i.
Inresotto,82Phil.595
ii.
Casibangvs.Aquino,92SCRA642
iii.
Taadavs.Cuenco,100Phil.1101
iv.
Sanidadvs.Comelec,73SCRA333
v.
Dazavs.Singson,180SCRA496
vi.
Taadavs.Angara,G.R.No.118295,May2,1997
vii.
Franciscovs.HouseofRepresentatives,460Phil.830
viii. Gutierrezvs.House,643SCRA198
Politicalquestionunderthe1987Constitution

Read:Cruz,PhilippinePoliticalLaw,2002,7390

DELEGATIONOFPOWERS
A.
B.

C.

Rule
i.
Jaworskivs.PAGCOR,G.R.No.144463,January14,2004
ii.
Limvs.Pacquing,240SCRA649
Permissibledelegation
i.
Tariffspowerstothepresident(Sec.28(2),Art.VI)
a.
Garciavs.ExecutiveSec.,211SCRA219
b.
Phil.InterIslandAss.vs.CA,G.R.No.100481,Jan.22,1997
ii.
Emergencypowerstothepresident(Sec.23(2),Art.VI)
a.
Aranetavs.Dinglasan,84Phil.368
b.
Rodriguezvs.Gella,92Phil.603
iii.
Delegationtothepeople(Sec.32,Art.VI;Sec.10,Art.X;Sec.2,Art.
XVII)
a.
R.A.6735
iv.
Delegationtolocalgovernments
a.
R.A.7160
b.
Peoplevs.Vera,65Phil.56
v.
Delegationtoadministrativebodies
a.
ConferenceofMaritimeManningAgenciesvs.POEA,243
SCRA666
b.
EasternShippingvs.POEA,166SCRA533
c.
Pelaezvs.AuditorGeneral,15SCRA569
d.
MunicipalityofSanNarcisovs.Mendez,239SCRA11
Testofvaliddelegation

i.
ii.

Completenesstest
a.
U.S.vs.AngTangHo,43Phil.1
Sufficientstandardtest
a.
Ynotvs.IAC,148SCRA659
b.
Peoplevs.Vera,supra
c.
Tatadvs.SecretaryofEnergy,G.R.124360November5,1997
d.
DelaLlanavs.Alba,112SCRA294

Read:Cruz,PhilippinePoliticalLaw,2002,7390
Nachura,Outlinepp.6770
Bernas,1987Constitution,ACommentary,2003,pp.655673
VIII.

LEGISLATIVEDEPARTMENT
A.

B.

C.
D.

TheSenate
i.
Sec.1,Art.VI
ii.
Composition(Sec.2,Art.VI)
iii.
Qualification(Sec.3,Art.VI;Sec.2,Art.IV)
a.
SocialJusticeSocietyvs.DDB,G.R.161658,Nov.3,2008
iv.
TermofOffice(Sec.4,Art.VI)
a.
Limitationonthetermofoffice
TheHouseofRepresentatives
i.
Sec.1,Art.VI
ii.
Composition(Sec.5,Art.VI)
a.
DistrictRepresentatives
b.
PartyListRepresentatives
b.i
VeteransFederationPartyvs.Comelec,G.R.136781,
Oct.6,2000
b.ii
AngBagongBayanivs.Comelec,G.R.147589,June
26,2001
b.iii AngBagongBayaniOFWLaborPartyvs.Comelec,
June25,2003
b.iv Banatvs.Comelec,G.R.179295,April21,2009
c.
Apportionment
c.i
Tobiasvs.Abalos,G.R,114783,Dec.8,1994
c.ii
Marianovs.Comelec,G.R.118577,March7,1995
c.iii Montejovs.Comelec,G.R.118702,March16,1995
c.iv
Baguyaovs.Comelec,G.R.176970,December8,2008
iii.
Qualification(Sec.6,Art.VI)
a.
districtrepresentatives
a.i
RomuladezMarcosvs.Comelec,GR119976,Sept.18,
1995
a.ii
Aquinovs.Comelec,GR120265,Sept.18,1995
a.iii Domingovs.Comelec,GR134015,July19,1999
a.iv. Co.vs.HRET,GR9219192,July30,1991
a.v
Benzonvs.Cruz,GR142840,May7,2001
a.vi
Vallesvs.Comelec,GR137000,August9,2000
b.
partylistrepresentatives
iv.
TermofOffice(Sec.7,Art.VI)
a.
Dimaporovs.Mitra,GR96859,October15,1991
b.
Fariasvs.ES,GR147387,December10,2003
Election(Sec.9,Art.VI)
i.
Tolentinovs.Comelec,GR148334,January21,2004
Salaries(Sec.10,Art.VI)

E.

F.
G.
H.
I.
J.

K.
L.

M.
N.

O.

P.

ParliamentaryImmunities(Sec.11,Art.VI)
i.
Immunityfromarrest
a.
Peoplevs.Jalosjos,GR132875,Feb.3,2000
ii.
PrivilegeofSpeechandDebate
a.
Jimenesvs.Cabangbang,17SCRA876
b.
Pobrevs.DefensorSantiago,A.C.No.7399,Aug.25,2009
ConflictofInterest(Sec.12,Art.VI)
IncompatibleandForbiddenOffice(Sec.13,Art.VI)
Inhibitionsanddisqualifications(Sec.14,Art.VI)
i.
Puyatvs.DeGuzman,113SCRA33
Session(Sec.15,Art.VI)
Officers(Sec.16(1),Art.VI)
i.
Avelinovs.Cuenco,83Phil.17
ii.
Santiagovs.Guingona,GR134577,November18,1998
iii.
Arroyovs.DeVenecia,GR127255,August14,1997
InternalDiscipline(Sec.16(3),Art.VI)
i.
Osmeavs.Pendantun,109Phil.863
ii.
Paredesvs.Sandiganbayan,GR118364,August10,1996
Journals(Sec.16(4),Art.VI)
i.
U.S.vs.Pons,34Phil.729
ii.
Cascovs.PhilippineChemicalCo.vs.Gimenez,7SCRA347
iii.
Astorgavs.Villegas,56SCRA714
iv.
Tolentinovs.SecretaryofFinance,235SCRA630
v.
PhilippineJusgesAssociationvs.Prado,227SCRA703
Adjournment(Sec.16(5),Art.VI)
ElectoralTribunals(Sec.17,Art.VI)
i.
Angaravs.ElectoralCommission,63Phil.134
ii.
Abbasvs.Senate,166SCRA651
iii.
Bondocvs.Pineda,201SCRA792
iv.
Guerrerovs.Comelec,GR137004,July26,2000
v.
Pimentelvs.HRET,GR141489,November29,2002
vi.
Limkaichongvs.Comelec,GR17883132,April1,2009
CommissiononAppointment(Sec.18,Art.VI)
i.
Dazavs.Singson,180SCRA496
ii.
Cosetengvs.Mitra,187SCRA377
iii.
Guingonavs.Gonzales,GR106971,October20,1992
Organization(Sec.19,Art.VI)

Read:Cruz,supra,pp.109150
Bernas,supra,pp.653792
IX.

POWERSOFCONGRESS
A.
B.
C.
D.

E.

LegislativePowerinGeneral
Procedure(Howdoesabillbecomealaw?)
Originofthebills
(Sec.24,Art.VI)
i.
Tolentinovs.SecretaryofFinance,235SCRA630
ProhibitedMeasures
i.
Sec.31,Art.VI
ii.
Sec.30,Art.VI
ii.a.
Fabianvs.Desierto,GR129742,September16,1998
SubjectandTitlesoftheBills(Sec.26,Art.VI)
i.
Lidasanvs.Comelec,21SCRA496
ii.
Philconsavs.Gimenez,15SCRA479

iii.
Tiovs.VideogramRegulatoryBoard,151SCRA208
iv.
Phil.JudgesAss.vs.Prado,GR105371,Nov.11,1993
v.
Tolentinovs.SecretaryofFinance,235SCRA630
F.
ApprovalofBills(Sec.27,Art.VI)
i.
ItemVeto
i.a.
CIRvsCTA,185SCRA329
i.b.
Philconsavs.Enriquez,GR113105,August,19,1994
i.C.
Gonzalesvs.Macaraig,GR87636,Nov.19,1990
G.
PowerofAppropriation(Sec.29,Art.VI)
i.
Definition
ii.
Impliedlimitations
ii.a.
Pascualvs.SecretaryofPublicWorks,110Phil.331
iii.
ConstitutionalLimitations
iii.a. Sec.25(6),Art.VI
iii.b. Sec.25(4),Art.VI
iii.c. Sec.25(1),Art.VI
iii.d. Sec.29(1),Art.VI
iii.e. Sec.26(1),Art.VI
iii.f. Garciavs.Mata,65SCRA520
iii.g. Sec.25(5),Art.VI
iii.h. Demetriovs.Alba,148SCRA208
iv.
AppropriationforSectarianPurposes(Sec.29(2),Art.VI)
v.
AutomaticReappropriation(Sec.25(7),Art.VI)
vi.
SpecialFunds(Sec.29(3),Art.VI)
Osmeavs.Orbos,GR99886,March31,1993
vii.
Cases
vii.a. Guingonavs.Carague,GR94571,April22,1991
vii.b. Demetriavs.Alba,148SCRA208
H.
PowerofTaxation(Sec.29,Art.VI)
i.
Gerochivs.DepartmentofEnergy,GR159796,July17,2007
ii.
Lladocvs.CIR,14SCRA292
iii.
Garciavs.ExecutiveSecretary,GR101273,July3,1992
iv.
SystemsPlusComputerCollegevs.Caloocancity,GR146382,
August7,2003
v.
CentralMindanaoUniversityvs.DAR,GR100091,Oct.,22,1992
vi.
CommissionerofBIRvs.CA,GR124043,Oct.14,1998
vii.
CommissionerofInternalRevenuevs.Santos,GR119252,
August18,1997
viii. JohnhayPeoplesAlternativeCoalitionvs.Lim,GR119775,
October24,2003
I.
PowerofConcurrence
J.
TheWarPowers(Sec.23(1),Art.VI)
K.
LegislativeInquiries(Sec.21,Art.VI)
i.
Bengzonvs.BlueRibbon,GRL89914,November20,1991
ii.
Sabiovs.Gordon,GR174177,October17,2006
iii.
StandardCharteredBankvs.SenateCommittee,
GR167173,Dec.27,2007
iv.
SenateBlueRibbonvs.JudgeMajaducon,GR136760,July29,2003
L.
ExecutivePrivilege(Sec.22,Art.VI)
i.
Senatevs.Ermita,GR169777,April20,2006
ii.
Nerivs.Senate,GR180643,September4,2008
Read:Cruz,supra,pp.151181
Bernas,supra,pp.653792

X.

EXECUTIVEDEPARTMENT
A.
B.
C.

D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.

J.
K.

ExecutivePower(Sec.1,Art.VII)
i.
Marcosvs.Manglapus,177SCRA668
Qualifications(Sec.2,Art.VII)
i.
Tecsonvs.Comelec,GR161434,March3,2004
ElectionandProclamation(Sec.4,Art.VII)
i.
Macalintalvs.Comelec,GR157013,July10,2003
ii.
Pimentelvs.JointCanvassingCommittee,June22,2004
iii.
FernandoPoe,Jr.,vs.GMA,March29,2005
TermofOffice(Sec.4,Art.VII)
TheVicePresident(Secs.3and4,Art.VII)
PresidentialSuccession(Secs.7and8,Art.VII)
i.
Estradavs.GloriaMacapagalArroyo,G.R.146738,March2,2001
ii.
Estradavs.Desierto,GR14671015,March2,2001
VicePresidentialSuccession(Secs.9and10,Art.VII)
OathofOffice(Sec.5,Art.VII)
PerquisitesandInhibitions(Sec.6and13,Art.VII)
i.
CivilLibertiesUnionvs.TheExecutiveSecretary,194SCRA317
ii.
Doromalvs.Sandiganbayan
iii.
Bitonio,Jr.vs.COA,GR147392,March12,2004
iv.
PublicInterestCentervs.Elma,GR138965,June30,2006
PresidentialImmunity
i.
Estradavs.Desierto,supra.
TemporaryDisability(Sec.11,Art.VII)
i.
Estradavs.Desierto,supra.

Read:Cruz,supra,pp.182199
Bernas,supra,pp.793913
XI.

POWERSOFTHEPRESIDENT
A.

B.

C.
D.

TheAppointingPower(Sec.16,Art.VI)
i.
Governmentvs.Springer,50Phil.259
ii.
Bermudezvs.ExecutiveSecretary,GRNo.131429,August4,1999
iii.
Floresvs.DrilonandGordon,GR104732,June22,1993
iv.
Sarmientovs.Mison,156SCRA549
v.
Calderonvs.Carale,GR91639,April23,1992
vi.
Matibagvs.Benipayo,GR149036,April2,2002
vii.
Rufinovs.Endriga,G.R.139565,July21,2006
LimitationonthePowerofAppointment(Secs.14and15,Art.VII)
i.
InreAppointmentsofValenzuela,A.M.No.98501SC,
November9,1998
ii.
DeCastrovs.JBC
ii.
DeLaRamavs.CA,GR131136,Feb.28,2001
TheRemovalPower
i.
Alajarvs.Alba,100Phil.683
PowerofControl(Sec.17,Art.VII)
i.
Drilonvs.Lim,235SCRA135
ii.
Villenavs.SecretaryofInterior,67Phil.451
iii.
Aranetavs.Gatmaitan,101Phil.328
iv.
Gasconvs.Arroyo,178SCRA582
v.
LacsonMagallanesvs.Pao,21SCRA895

E.
F.

G.

H.
I.

J.
K.
J.

vi.
AngAngcovs.Castillo,9SCRA619
vii.
Namarcovs.Arca,29SCRA648
viii. Deleonvs.Carpio,178SCRA457
ix.
Blaqueravs.Alcasid,GR109406,September11,1998
x.
Dadolevs.COA,GR125350,December3,2002
xi.
DENRvs.DENREmployees,GR149724,August19,2003
TheTakeCareClause
TheMilitaryPower(Sec.18,Art.VII)
i.
CommanderInChief
ii.
HabeasCorpus
iii.
MartialLaw
iv.
LimitationsonMilitaryPower
v.
Cases
a.
IBPvs.Zamora,GR141284,August15,2000
b.
Lacsonvs.Perez,GR147780,May10,2001
c.
Sanlakasvs.Exec.Secretary,GR159085,February3,2004
d.
Davidvs.Arroyo,GR171396,May3,2009
PardoningPower(Sec.19,Art.VII)
i.
Definition
ii.
Limitations
a.
Peoplevs.Salle,250SCRA582
b.
Llamasvs.Orbos,GR99031,October15,1991
c.
Echegarayvs.SecretaryofJustice,GR132601,Jan.19,1999
iii.
KindsofPardon
a.
Culanagvs.DirectorofPrisons,20SCRA1123
b.
Espuelasvs.ProvincialWardenofBohol,108Phil.353
iv.
EffectsofPardon
a.
Monsantovs.Factoran,Jr.,170SCRA190
b.
Torresvs.Gonzales,152SCRA272
c.
InRe:Torresvs.DirectorofBureauofPrisons,GR122338,
December29,1995
d.
Drilonvs.CourtofAppeals,GR91626,October25,1989
v.
Amnesty
a.
Barrioquintovs.Fernandez,85Phil.642
BarrowingPower(Sec.20,Art.VII)
DiplomaticPower(Sec.21,Art.VII)
i.
Internationalagreements
ii.
Deportationofaliens
iii.
Cases
a.
Pimentelvs.Ermita,GR158088,July6,2005
b.
Limvs.ExecutiveSecretary,GR151445,April11,2002
c.
Bayanvs.ExecutiveSecretary,GR138570,October10,2000
d.
SecretaryofJusticevs.JudgeLantion,GR139465,
October17,2000
BudgetaryPower(Sec.22,Art.VII)
InformingPower(Sec.23,Art.VII)
OtherPowers

Read: Cruz,supra,pp.200242
Bernas,supra,pp.653792
XII.

JUDICIALDEPARTMENT
A.

IndependenceoftheJudiciary

B.

C.
D.
E.
F.
G.

H.

I.

J.

K.

L.

a.
Sec.4(1),Art.VIII
b.
Sec.2,Art.IX
c.
Sec.2,Art.VIII
d.
Sec.30,Art.VI
e.
Sec.9,Art.VIII
f.
Sec.6,Art.VIII
g.
Sec.11,Art.VIII
JudicialPower(Sec.1,Art.VIII)
a.
Santiagovs.Bautista,32SCRA188
b.
Marcosvs.Manglapus,177SCRA668
c.
Echegarayvs.SecretaryofJustice,GR132601,January19,1999
d.
UnitedStatesvs.Nixon,418U.S.683
e.
InfotechFoundationvs.Comelec,GR159139
CongressandJudicialPower(Sec.2,Art.VIII)
a.
Malagavs.Penachos,GR86695,September3,1992
FiscalAutonomy(Sec.3,Art.VIII)
a.
Radiowealthvs.Agregado,86Phil.429
b.
Bengzonvs.Drilon,GR103524,April15,1992
CompositionoftheSupremeCourt(Sec.4(1),Art.VIII)
EnbancCases(Sec.4(2),Art.VIII)
DivisionCases(Sec.4(3),Art.VIII)
a.
Fortichvs.Corona,GR131457,August19,1999
b.
Peoplevs.Dy,GR11523637,January16,2003
c.
Peoplevs.Ebio,GR147750,September29,2004
Appointments(Sec.9,Art.VIII)
a.
Qualifications(Sec.7,Art.VIII)
i.
InRe:JBCvs.JudgeQuitain,JBCNo.013,August22,2007
ii.
Kilosbayanvs.Ermita,GR177721,July3,2007
b.
JudicialandBarCouncil(Sec.8,Art.VIII)
PowerofJudicialReview
a.
Marburyvs.Madison,1Cranch137
b.
Angaravs.ElectoralCommission,63Phil.139
c.
Tolentinovs.SecretaryofFinance,GR115455,August25,1994
RequisitesofaJudicialInquiry
a.
ActualCaseorcontroversy
i.
AetnaLifeIns.Co.Haworth,300U.S.227
ii.
PACUvs.SecretaryofEducation,97Phil.806
iii.
Philconsavs.Villareal,52SCRA477
b.
PropertyParty
i.
Joyavs.PCGG,GR96541,August24,1993
ii.
Macasianovs.NHA,GR107921,July1,1993
iii.
Mariano,Jr.vs.Comelec,GR118577,March7,1995
iv.
Oposavs.Factoran,GR101083,July30,1993
v.
Kilosbayanvs.Guingona,GR113375,May5,1994
c.
EarliestOpportunity
d.
NecessityofDecidingConstitutionalQuestion
i.
Laurelvs.Garcia,187SCRA797
ii.
Zanduetavs.DelaCosta,66Phil.115
EffectsofaDeclarationofUnconstitutionality
i.
Nortonvs.Shelby,118U.S.425
ii.
Springervs.GovernmentofPhil.Islands,297U.S.553
iii.
ManilaMotorsCo.,vs.Flores,99Phil738
PartialUnconstitutionality
i.
InreCunanan,94Phil.534

M.

N.

O.
P.
Q.

R.

S.
T.

XIII.

ii.
Floresvs.Comelec,184SCRA484
PoweroftheSupremeCourt(Sec.5,Art.VIII)
a.
OriginalJurisdiction(Sec.5(1),Art.VIII)
b.
AppellateJurisdiction(Sec.5(2),Art.VIII)
c.
TemporaryassignmentofJudges(Sec.5(3),Art.VIII)
d.
ChangeofVenueorPlaceofTrial(Sec.5(4),Art.VIII)
e.
RuleMakingPower(Sec.5(5),Art.VIII)
i.
InReEdillon,84SCRA554
ii.
Primiciasvs.Ocampo,93Phil.451
iii.
Bustosvs.Lucero,81Phil.648
iv.
Javellamavs.DILG,GR102549,August10,1992
v.
InRe:PetitiontoDisqualifyAtty.DeVera,A.CNo.6052,
December11,2003
f.
AppointmentofCourtPersonnel(Sec.5(6),Art.VIII)
g.
AdministrativeSupervisionofCourts(Sec.6,Art.VIII)
i.
Macedavs.Vasquez,GR102781,April22,1993
ii.
Peoplevs.Gacot,GR116049,July13,1995
iii.
JudgeCaoiles,jr.vs.Ombudsman,GR132177,July19,2001
TenureofJudges(Sec.11,Art.VIII)
i.
Ocampovs.SecretaryofJustice,January18,1955
ii.
Zanduetavs.DelaCosta
iii.
Vargasvs.Rilloraza,80Phil297
iv.
DeLaLlanavs.Alba,112SCRA294
ProhibitionofAppointment(Sec.12,Art.VIII)
i.
InRe:JudgeManzano,166SCRA246
ConsultationofCourt(Sec.n13,Art.VIII)
DecisionsofCourt(Sec.14,Art.VIII)
i.
AirFrancevs.Carrascoso,18SCRA155
ii.
Valdezvs.CourtofAppeals,GR85082,February25,1991
iii.
Peoplevs.Lizada,GR143468,January24,2003
iv.
Velardevs.SocialJusticeSociety,GR159357,April8,2004
PeriodsofDecision(Sec.15,Art.VIII)
i.
Re:ProblemofDelaysinCasesBeforetheSandiganbayan,
A.M.No.00805SC,November28,2001
ii.
CourtAdministratorvs.Quiola,October,20,1999
SalariesofJudges(Sec.10,Art.VIII)
AnnualReport(Sec.16,Art.VIII)

Read:Cruz,supra,pp.200242
Bernas,supra,pp.9141000
CONSTITUTIONALCOMMISSIONS
A.

B.
C.
D.

E.

IndependentCommissions(Secs.1,4,and5Art.IX,)
i.
Macalintalvs.Comelec,GR157013,July10,2003
ii.
CivilServicevs.DepartmentofBudget,GR158791,July22,2005
iii.
CivilServicevs.DBM,GR158791,February.10,2006
Salary(Sec.3,Art.IX)
Disqualification(Sec.3,Art.IX)
Reappointment
i.
NationalistaPartyvs.DeVera,35Phil.126
ii.
Republicvs.Imperial,96Phil.770
iii.
Brillantesvs.Yorac,192SCRA358
PowertomakeRules(Sec.6,Art.IX)
i.
Aruelovs.CourtofAppeals,GRNo.107852,October20,1993

F.

ii.
Antoniovs.Comelec,GR135869,September22,1999
Proceedings
i.
Cuavs.Comelec,156SCRA582
ii.
Misonvs.COA,187SCRA445
iii.
Mateovs.CourtofAppeals,GR113219,August14,1995
iv.
Ambilvs.Comelec,GR143398,October25,2000
v.
Dumayas,Jr.,vs.Comelec,GR14195253,April3,2001

Read:Cruz,supra,pp.298307
Bernas,supra,pp.10011008
XIV. CIVILSERVICECOMMISSION
A.
B.

C.
D.

E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.

OrganizationoftheCommission
i.
Gamindevs.COA,GR140330,December13,2000
ScopeofCivilService
i.
NHAvs.Juco,134SCRA172
ii.
NationalServiceCorporationvs.NLRC,168SCRA122
iii.
EIIBvs.CourtofAppeals,GR129133,Nov.25,1998
Appointments(Sec.2(2),Art.IXB)
SecurityofTenure(Sec.2(3),Art.IXB)
i.
Dariovs.Mison,175SCRA84
ii.
Mendozavs.Quisumbing,186SCRA108
iii.
Canonizadovs.Aguirre,GR133132,January25,2000
iv.
SecretaryGloriavs.CourtofAppeals,GR119903,August15,2000
v.
BuklodngKawanianngEIIBvsE.S.,GR142801802,July10,2001
vi.
Dimayugavs.BenedictoII,GRNo.144153,January16,2002
vii.
Seneresvs.ComelecandRobles,GR178678,April16,2009
PartisanPoliticalActivity(Sec.2(4),Art.IXB)
SelfOrganization(Sec.2(5),Art.IXB)
i.
SSSEAvs.CourtofAppeals,175SCRA686
ii.
MPSTAvs.Laguio,200SCRA323
TemporaryEmployees
ObjectivesofCivilService(Sec.3.Art.IXB)
i.
Nazareno,et.al.,vs.CityofDumaguete,GR181559,October2,2009
OathofOffice(Sec.4,Art.IXB)
Disqualification(Sec.6,Art.IXB)
i.
Peoplevs.Sandiganbayan,GR164185
SalaryStandardization(Sec.5,Art.IXB)
IncompatibleOffice(Sec.7,Art.IXB)
i.
Floresvs.Drilon,GR104732,June22,1993
DoubleCompensation(Sec.8,Art.IXB)
i.
Quimzonvs.Ozaeta,98Phil.705
ii.
Santosvs.CourtofAppeals,GR139792,November22,2000
iii.
BenguetStateUniversityvs.COA,GR169637,June8,2007

Read:Cruz,supra,pp.308326
Bernas,supra,pp.10081035
XV.

COMMISSIONONELECTION
A.

CompositionandQualifications(Sec.1,Art.IXC)

B.

C.
D.
E.
F.

i.
Brillantesvs.Yorac,GR93867,December18,1990
ii.
Cayetanovs.Monsod,GR100113,September3,1991
PowersandFunctions(Sec.2,Art.IXC)
i.
EnforcementofElectionLaws(Sec.2(1),Art.IXC)
ii.
DecisionofElectionContest(Sec.2(3),Art.IXC)
iii.
DecisionofAdministrativeQuestions(Sec.2(3),Art.IXC)
iv.
PowertoDeputize(Sec.2(4),Art.IXC)
v.
RegistrationofPoliticalParties(Sec.2(5),Art.IXC)
vi.
ImprovementofElections(Sec.2(6),Art.IXC)
ElectionPeriod(Sec.9,Art.IXC)
PartySystem(Secs.6,7,and8,Art.IXC)
Funds(Sec.11,Art.IXC)
JudicialReview

Read:Cruz,supra,pp.327344
Bernas,supra,pp.10351063
XVI. COMMISSIONONAUDIT
A.
B.

C.
D.

CompositionandQualification(Sec.1,Art.IXD)
PowersandFunctions(Sec.2,Art.IXD)
i.
Matutevs.Hernandez,66Phil.68
ii.
Dingcongvs.Guingona,Jr.,162SCRA782
iii.
DanvilleMaritime,Inc.,vs.COA,175SCRA701
iv.
Mamarilvs.Domingo,GR100284,October13,1993
v.
Sambelivs.ProvinceofIsabela,GRNo.92279,June18,1992
vi.
Pollosovs.Gangan&COA,GR140563,July14,2000
vii.
Perreovs.COA,GR162224,June7,2007
ProhibitedExemptions(Sec.3,Art.3,IXD)
Report(Sec.4,Art.IXD)

Read:Cruz,supra,pp.344354
Bernas,supra,pp.10351063
XVII. ACCOUNTABILITYOFPUBLICOFFICERS
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
D.

PublicOfficeisaPublicTrust(Sec.1,Art.XI)
i.
Hipolitovs.Mergas,A.M.No.P90412,March11,1991
Impeachment(Sec.2,Art.XI)
i.
Romulovs.Yiguez,141SCRA263
ii.
InReGonzales,160SCRA771
ImpeachableOfficers
GroundsforImpeachment
Procedure(Sec.3,Art.IXD)
i.
Francisco,et.al.vs.HouseSpeaker,GR160261,November10,2003
ii.
Gutierrezvs.House
Sandiganbayan(Sec.4,Art.IXD)
i.
Nuezvs.Sandiganbayan,111SCRA433
ii.
MayorLecarozvs.Sandiganbayan,128SCRA324
Ombudsman(Secs.5and6,Art.XI)
i.
Composition
ii.
QualificationandAppointment
iii.
Term

E.

F.
G.
H.
I.
J.

iv.
PowersandFunctions
v.
Salary
Cases
i.
Ombudsmanvs.CSC,GR162215,July30,2007
ii.
Zaldivarvs.Sandiganbayan,160SCRA843
iii.
BIRvs.Ombudsman,GR115103,April11,2002
iv.
Laurelvs.Desierto,GR145368,April12,2002
SpecialProsecutor
IllgottenWealth
Loans
AssetsandLiabilities
ChangeofCitizenship

Read:Cruz,supra,pp.355372
Bernas,supra,pp.10631073
XVIII. AMENDMENTANDREVISION
A.
B.

C.

AmendmentbyinitiativeandReferendum(Secs.1and2,Art.XVII)
i.
Santiagovs.Comelec,GR127325,March19,1997
ii.
Lambinovs.Comelc,GR174153,October25,2006
Amendment,Revision,Revolution(Sec.3,Art.XVII)
i.
Tolentinovs.Comelc,41SCRA702
ii.
DelRosariovs.Comelec,35SCRA367
iii.
Imbongvs.Comelec,35SCRA28
iv.
Tolentinovs.Comelec,41SCRA702
Ratification(Sec.4,Art.XVII)
i.
Planasvs.Comelec,49SCRA105
ii.
Javellanavs.ExecutiveSecretary,GR361142,March31,1973

Read:Cruz,supra,pp.373386
Bernas,supra,pp.12931331