Sei sulla pagina 1di 24



I. The Philippine Constitution

1. Definition, nature, concept and purpose of Constitution

2. Classification
3. Qualities of a good written constitution
4. Essential Parts of a written constitution
5. Effectivity of the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Art. XVIII, Sec. 27)
a. De Leon vs. Esguerra, 153 SCRA 602, No. L·78059, 31 August 1987
b. Laws and international agreements prior to the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution -
Art. XVIII, Secs. 3 and 4
6. Amendments and revision (Art. XVII, Secs. 1 to 4)
a. Difference
i. Lambino vs. COMELEC, GR No. 17 4153, October 25, 2006
1. The Two-Part Test
2. Provisions that needed to be changed to effect change from unitary
to federal form of government, and from presidential to
parliamentary form of government
b. Procedure
i. Proposal
1. By Congress
2. By a Constitutional Convention
a. lmbong v. COMELEC, 35 SCRA 28, (1970)
3. By People's Initiative; Requirements and limitations
a. Defensor-Santiago vs. COMELEC, GR No. 127325 19 March 1997
b. Resolution on the MR filed in Lambino vs. COMELEC dated
November 21, 2006
ii. Ratification
1. Doctrine of Proper Submission
a. Tolentino vs. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702
c. Judicial review of amendments
i. Javellana vs. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 30

II. The Philippines as a State

1. National Territory (Art. I)

a. Territorial waters
b. Archipelagic Doctrine
2. Doctrine of State Immunity (Art. XVI, Section 3)
a. Entitlement of immunity, justiciable or political question?
i. The Holy See v. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524, Dec. 1, 1994
ii. Liang vs. People, GR No. 125865, 28 January 2000
b. When a suit is against a state and when it is not
i. Arigo vs. Swift, G.R. No. 206501, 16 September 2014
c. Immunity of International Organizations and Agencies
i. SEAFDEC vs. NLRC, 241 SCRA 580
ii. Callado vs. IRRI, 244 SCRA 210
iii. DFA vs. NLRC, 18 September 1996
d. Immunity of government agencies
i. Incorporated
1. Fontanilla vs. Maliaman, 194 SCRA 486
ii. Unincorporated
1. Governmental function
a. Farolan vs. CTA, 217 SCRA 298
2. Proprietary function
a. China National Machinery and Equipment Corp. (Group) vs.
Judge Santamaria, GR No. 185572, 7 February 2012
b. Civil Aeronautics Administration vs. CA, GR No. L-51806, 8
November 1968
e. Suability not outright liability
i. Merritt vs. Gov't. Of the Phil. Islands, 34 Phil 311, No. 11154, 21 March 1916
f. Waiver of state immunity
i. Express consent (Suit against the Philippine government)
Republic vs. Feliciano, 148 SCRA 424
1. General Law
a. Act No. 3083 in relation with CA 327, as amended by Secs. 49-
50, PD 1445
i. Procedure to collect money claims arising from
ii. UP vs. Dizon, GR No. 171182, Au9ust 23, 2012
2. Special Law
a. Arts. 2180 and 2189 of the New Civil Code
i. Manila vs. Teotico, G.R. No. L-23052, 29 January 1968
b. How to claim?
ii. Implied consent
1. By entering into a business contract (Suit against foreign
a. Restrictive Doctrine of State Immunity
b. USA vs. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487
2. By commencing a suit (Suit against private individual)
a. Froilan vs. Pan Oriental Shipping, GR No. L-6060, 30
September 1950
g. Consent to be sued does not include consent to execution
i. Municipality of San Miguel vs. Fernandez, 130 SCRA 56
ii. Municipality of Makati vs. CA, 190 SCRA 206
h. Suit against public officers
i. Arigo vs. Swift, G.R. No. 206501, 16 September 2014
i. Immunity cannot be used to perpetrate an injustice on a citizen
i. Wylie vs. Rarang, 209 SCRA 357

III. The Fundamental Powers of the State

1. Similarities and differences - (Purpose, Delegation, Persons affected, Effects of the

exercise, Benefits of the persons affected, Amount of imposition, and Constitutional
A. Police Power
a. Requisites for valid exercise
i. Cases
1. MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc., 328 SCRA 836, March 27,
2. PASEI v. Drilon, 163 SCRA 386 (1988)
3. Tio v. VRB, 151 SCRA 208 (1987)
4. Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. v.1;A,’329 SCRA 314 ( 000)
5. Taxicab Operators of MM v. BOT, 117 SCRA 597 (1982)
6. Del Mar v. PAGCOR, 346 SCRA 485 (2000)
7. Taxation or Police Power?
a. Angeles University Foundation vs. City of Angeles, et. al. G.R.
189999, June 27 2012
8. Eminent Domain or Police Power? Southern Luzon Drug Corporation
vs. DSWD, G.R. No. 199669, 25 April 2017
B. Eminent Domain (Section 9, Article Ill)
a. Requisites for valid exercise
i. Cases
1. Republic v. Salem Investment Corporation, G.R. No. 137569, June
23, 2000
2. Estate of Salud Jimenez v. PEZA. 349 SCRA 240, Jan. 16, 2001
3. Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Lozada, Jr., February
25, 2010
4. Republic vs. Lim, GR No. 161656, June 29. 2005
5. Heirs of Alberto Suguitan v. City of Mandaluyong, 328 SCRA 137,
March 14, 2000
6. SMI Development Corporation v. Republic, 323 SCRA 862, Jan. 28,
7. PPI v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119694, May 22, 1995
8. TELEBAP, Inc. v, COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337, April 21, 1998
9. Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220 (1983)
10. The Office of the Solicitor General vs. Ayala Land Incorporated, G.R.
No. 177056, September 18, 2009
11. When Entitled to Compensation? Mosqueda vs. Pilipino Banana
Growers & Exporters Association, Inc., G.R. No. 189185, 16 August
12. When Just Compensation Shall Accrue? Interest? Secretary of the
DPWH vs. Spouses Tecson, G.R. No. 179334, April 21, 2015
13. Prescriptive Period? What is Inverse Condemnation? National Power
Corporation vs. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, 656 SCRA 60 (2011)
14. Applying The Doctrine of the Law of the Case in Just Compensation
EPZA (now PEZA) vs. Pulido, 656 SCRA 315 (2011)
15. When Other Methods of Valuation is Allowed. Republic vs. Judge
Mupas and PIATCO, G.R. No. 181892, September 8, 2015
16. Determination of Just Compensation a Judicial Function. LBP vs.
Dalauta, G.R. No. 190004, 8 August 2017
17. Judicial Determination of Just Compensation. Alfonso vs. LBP and
DAR, G.R. No. 181912, 29 November 2016
C. Taxation
a. Requisites for valid exercise

IV. State Policies. Principles and Other General Considerations

1. Republicanism (Art. II, Sec. 1)

a. Separation of powers
i. MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947- 48, February
15, 2011
ii. Belgica vs. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 208566, November 2013
1. Principle of checks and balances
a. Gonzales Ill vs. Office of the President, G.R. No. 196231, January
28, 2014
2. Principle of blending of powers
3. Political question vs. Justiciable question
b. Principle of non-delegation of powers
i. Two (2) fundamental tests for adequate legislative guidelines for delegated
1. Belgica vs. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013
2. Adherence to International law (Art. II, Sec. 2)
a. Doctrine of Incorporation
3. Renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy (Art. II, Sec. 2)
a. Relate with Art. VI, Sec. 23 (1)
b. Policy of freedom from nuclear weapons (Art. II, Sec. 8)
4. Civilian supremacy clause (Art. II, Sec. 3)
a. Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, GR No. 198554, 30 July 2012
5. Doctrine of Separation of the Church and the State (Art. II, Sec. 6)
a. Relate with Art. XIV, Sec. 3 (3)
6. Social Justice
a. New or Expanded meaning (Art II, Sec.10 and Art. XIII, Sec. 1)
7. The right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology (Art. II, Sec. 16)
a. Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792 (1993)
8. Equal access to opportunity for public service and prohibition against political dynasties
(Art. II, Section 26)
9. Education
a. Free and compulsory elementary education (Art. XIV, Sec. 2(2))
b. Optional study of religion in public elementary and high schools (Art. XIV, Sec. 3(3))
c. Academic Freedom (Art. XIV. Sec. 5(2))
i. Cadet 1CL Cudia vs. The Superintendent of the PMA, G.R. No. 211362. 24
February 2015
10. The right of the states to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials and
employees (Art. XI, Sec 15)
a. Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Commission on Behest Loans et al., vs. Desierto, G.R.
No. 130140, Oct. 25, 1999
11. Regalian Doctrine (Art. XII, Sec. 2 relate with Art. XII, Sec. 5 and Art. 11, Sec. 22)
a. Isagani Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, G.R. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000
12. Nationalist provisions: (Art. II, Sec. 19)
a. Utilization of natural resources (Art. XII, Sec. 2)
i. Resident Marine Mammals vs. Sec. Angelo Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, 21 April
b. Franchise, certificate and authority for public utilities (Art. XII, Sec.11)
i. Roy III vs. Chairperson Herbosa, G.R. No. 207246, 22 November 2016
c. Ownership / acquisition of lands (Art. XII, Secs. 7 and 8)
i. Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC) vs. Keppel Philippines, Holdings Inc.,
G.R. No. 202050, 25 July 2016
d. Practice of profession (Art. XII, Sec. 14, 2nd par)
e. Ownership, control, administration and establishment of educational institutions (Art
XIV, Sec. 4(21)
f. Ownership and management of mass media (Art. XVI, Sec. 11(1))
Ownership of and control over businesses engaged in advertising industry (Art. XVI, Sec. 11
13. Language
a. Classifications
i. National Language (Art. XIV, Sec. 6, 151 pars.)
ii. Official language (Art. XIV, Sec. 7 and Sec. 6, 2nd par.)
iii. Auxiliary official language (Art. YJV, Sec. 7, 2nc1 par.)
iv. Voluntary or optional language (Art. XIV, Sec. 7, 3"' par.)
b. Language used in the promulgation of the Philippine Constitution (Art. XIV, Sec. 8)
14. Philippine flag (Art. XVI, Sec. 1)
15. Country's name, national anthem and national seal (Art. XVI, Sec. 2)
16. Military (Art. XVI, Secs. 4 and 5)
a. Private armies -Art. XVIII, Sec. 24
17. Police force (Art. XVI, Sec. 6)

V. Legislative Department

1. Who may exercise legislative power?

a. Art VI, Sec. 1
b. Art VI, Sec. 1 relate with Sec. 32
c. Delegated Legislative power to LGUs
d. Delegated Tariff Powers to the President (Art. VI, Sec. 28(2)
e. Delegated Emergency Powers (Art. VI, Sec. 23(2))
f. Lagman vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 231658, 4 July 2017
2. House of Congress
a. Senate
i. Composition (Art. VI, Sec. 2)
1. Antonio Trillanes IV. Vs Hon. Oscar Pimentel, Sr., G.R. No. 179817, 27
June 2008
b. House of Representatives
i. Apportionment of legislative districts
1. Gerrymandering
a. Restraint – (Art. VI, Sec. 5(3), 1st sentence)
b. Representation of cities and provinces (Art. VI, Sec. 5(3), 2nd
i. Aquino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, 7 April 2010
ii. Bagabuyo vs. COMELEC, 8 December 2008
iii. Sema vs. COMELEC, 16 July 2008
ii. Qualifications (Art VI, Sec. 6)
1. Qualifications of Party-List Representatives (Sec. 9, RA 7941)
3. Parliamentary Immunities and privileges
a. Freedom from arrest – Art. VI, Sec. 11
i. People vs. Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 689, Feb 3, 2000
b. Speech and debate clause – Art. VI, Sec. 11
i. Osmeña vs Pendatun, 109 Phil 863 (1960)
ii. Pobre vs. Santiago, A.C. No. 7399, 25 Aug. 2009
4. Disqualifications
a. Incompatible offices – Art VI, Sec. 13, 1st sentence
i. Liban vs. Gordon, G.R. No. 175352, 15 July 2009
ii. Resolution on the MR, 18 January 2011
b. Forbidden Offices – Art. VI, Sec. 13, 2nd sentence
5. Election of officers – Art. VI, Sec. 16(1)
a. Rep. Baguilat vs. Speaker Alvarez, G.R. No. 227757, 25 July 2017
6. Electoral Tribunals – Art. VI, Sec. 17
a. Functions
i. Pimentel vs. HRET, 393 SCRA 227 (2002)
ii. Vilando vs. HRET, 656 SCRA 17 (2011)
b. Jurisdiction
i. Reyes vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013
ii. Velasco vs. Speaker Belmonte, G.R. No. 211140, 12 January 2016
iii. Abayon vs COMELEC, 11 February 2010
7. The Commission on Appointments – (relate to the President’s Power of Appointment)
8. Powers of Congress
a. Legislative oversight functions
i. Three kinds – ABAKADA Guro vs. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, 14 August 2008
1. The concept of legislative veto
ii. The power of inquiry (Art. VI, Sec. 21)
1. Constitutional requisites/limitations
a. Garcillano vs. House of Representatives, 23 December 2008
2. Executive Privilege: Kinds
a. Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, 20 April
b. Presumptive Presidential Communication Privilege
i. Neri vs. Senate, 5 Sept 2008
c. Offers in Treaty Negotiation
i. AKBAYAN, et al., vs. Thomas Aquino, G.R. No. 170516,
16 July 2008
d. Commander-in-Chief Clause
i. Gudani vs. Senga, G.R. No. 10561, 15 Aug 2006
3. Remedy to compel attendance
a. Legislative contempt
i. Arnault vs. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-3820, 18 July 1950
ii. NORECO vs. Sang. Panglungsod of Dumaguete, 155
SCRA 421 (1987)
b. Power of Impeachment
i. Subject officials – Art. XI, Sec. 2
1. Immunity vis-à-vis Impeachability
a. President
i. David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3,
b. Other impeachable officers
i. Lecaroz vs. Sandiganbayan, 128 SCRA 324 (1984)
(Whether an impeachable officer can be charged
criminally while holding office)
ii. Re: EM No. 03-010 – Order of the First Division
COMELEC dated August 15, 2003, A.M. No. 03-8-22-SC,
Sept 16, 2003
iii. Republic vs. Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, G.R. No.
237428, May 11, 2018 (note read all opinions – main,
concurring and dissenting)
1. Resolution on the MR June 19, 2018
2. Limitation – Art. XI, Sec. 3(5)
3. Procedure
a. Initiation stage
i. If initiated by less than 1/3 (Art. XI, Sec. 3(2) and (3))
ii. If initiated by 1/3 (Art. XI, Sec. 3[4])
b. Trial stage (Art. XI, Sec. 3(6))
4. Consequences of conviction -Art. XI, Sec. 3(7)
c. Limitations on legislative power
i. Bills that shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives – Art. VI,
Sec. 24
ii. Presidential veto and congressional override - Art. VI, Sec. 27
1. Message veto vs. Pocket veto
2. General veto power vs. Item or line-veto power
3. Doctrine of Inappropriate Provision

VI. Executive Department

1. The President
a. Qualifications of President – Art. VII, Sec. 2
b. Presidential succession
i. If there is vacancy BEFORE the beginning of the term – Art. VII, Sec. 7
ii. If there is PERMANENT vacancy DURING the incumbency – Art. VII, Sec. 8
1. Estrada vs. Desierto, GR Nos. 146710-15, 2 March 2001
iii. If there is TEMPORARY vacancy DURING the incumbency – Art. VI, Sec. 11
2. Prohibitions – Art. VII, Sec. 13; relate with Art. XI, Sec. 16
a. Rule on additional positions:
i. Elective – Art. IX-B, Sec. 7, 1st par.
ii. Appointive – Art. IX-B, Sec. 7, 2nd par.
iii. Elective (President and VP) and appointive (Cabinet Secretaries, Usecs and
Asecs.) – Art. VII, Sec. 13
a. Art. VII, Sec. 3
b. Art. VIII, Sec. 8 (1)
c. Art. XII, Sec. 9
d. Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency
e. Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (1991)
f. Clarificatory en banc Resolution in GR No 83896 (Civil Liberties Union vs.
Executive Secretary) and GR No. 83815 (Anti-Graft League of the
Philippines, Inc., et al. vs. Juico, as Secretary of Agrarian Reform et al.)
dated August 1, 1991
g. Public Interest Center Inc. vs. Magda gal B. Elma, CPLC, GR. No.
138965, 30 June 2006
iv. Military – Art. XVI, Sec. 5 (4)
3. Presidential Immunity
a. Soliven vs. Makasiar, Beltran vs. Makasiar 167 SCRA 393 (1988)
4. Powers of the President
a. Executive power – Art. VII, Secs. 1 and 17
i. Residual power – Marcos vs. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668, 178 SCRA 760
b. Control power – Art. VII, Sec. 17
i. The Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency
ii. Ocampo vs. Rear Admiral Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, 8 November 2016
iii. Power Sector Asset and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM) vs.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 198146, 8 August 2017
c. Power of general supervision – Art. X, Secs. 4 and 16
i. Ganzon vs. CA, 200 SCRA 271 (1991)
d. Power of appointment – Art. VII, Secs. 13 to 16
i. Regular vs. ad interim
ii. Ad interim vs. in an acting capacity
1. Art. VII, Sec. 16, 2nd par.
iii. Steps in the appointing process
1. Lacson vs. Romero, 84 Phil 740
2. Art. II, Sec. 4
iv. Presidential appointees:
1. Requires CA confirmation – Art. VII. Sec. 16, 1st sentences (relate with
Art. VIII, Sec. 8(2), Art. IX-8, Sec. 1 (2), Art. IX-C, Sec. 1 (2), Art. IX-0,
Sec. 1 (2), and Art. X, Sec. 18
2. By the president alone – Art. VII, Sec. 16, 2nd sentence; Art. VII, Sec. 3,
2nd par.
3. Requires JBC nomination – Art. VIII, Sec. 9 and Art. XI, Sec. 9
a. Re: Nomination of Solicitor General Francis H. Jardeleza for the
Position of Associate Justice Vacated by Justice Roberto A.
Abad, A.M. No. 14-07-01-SC-JBC. July 8, 2014
b. Aguinaldo vs. President Aquino III, G.R. No. 224302, 29
November 2016
v. Limitations on the appointing power of the president
1. Relatives – Art. VII, Sec. 13, 2nd par.
2. Midnight appointment – Art. VII, Sec. 15
a. In Re: Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon. Placido B. Vallarta,
298 SCRA 408, 9 November 1998
b. Atty. Velicaira-Garafil vs. Office of the President, G.R. No.
203372, 16 June 2015
c. De Castro vs. JBC, GR No. 191002, 20 April 2010 (relate with Art.
VIII, Sec. 4 (1), 3rd sentence
d. De Rama vs. CA, 353 SCRA 94, 28 February 2001
3. Losing candidate – Art. IX-B, Sec. 6
4. Military – Art. XVI, Sec. 5 (4)
5. Members of constitutional commissions -Art. IX (B), (C) and (D), Sec.
1 (2)
a. Funa v. COA Chair, GR No. 192791, 24 April 2012
vi. Limitation on the appointments extended by an Acting President – Art. VII,
Sec. 14
e. Military Powers or the Commander-in-Chief Clause – Art. VII, Sec. 18
i. Calling out powers
1. Requisites?
2. David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, GR No. 171396, 3 May 2006
3. Kulayan vs. Tan, GR No. 187298, 3 July 2012
4. Subject to Judicial Review?
a. IBP vs. Zamora, GR No. 141284, 15 August 2000
ii. Power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
1. Requisites?
a. Rebellion as Ground
b. Quantum of Proof
c. Lagman vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 231658, 4 July 2017
2. Effects of the suspension of the privilege
a. Art. VII, Sec. 18, pars. 5
b. Art. 111, Sec. 2; Art. VII, Sec. 18, par. 6
c. Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code
d. Art. 111, Sec. 13
3. Role of Congress
a. Congress’ Power to Revoke vs. Judicial Power to Review
i. Lagman vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 231658, 4 July
ii. Padilla vs. Congress of the Philippines, G.R. No. 231671,
25 July 2017
4. Mode of review
a. Lagman vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 231658, 4 July 2017
5. Scope of SC's Power of Review
a. Lagman vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 231658, 4 July 2017
6. Ways to lift the suspension
iii. Power to proclaim martial law
1. Requisites
a. Rebellion as Ground
b. Quantum of Proof
c. Lagman vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 231658, 4 July 2017
2. Effects of the proclamation / Power added to the President
a. Lagman vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 231658, 4 July 2017
3. Limitations – Art. VII. Sec. 18, 4th par.
a. “Open Court" Doctrine
i. Olaguer vs. Military Commission No. 34, 150 SCRA144
4. Role of Congress
a. Congress' Power to Revoke vs. Judicial Power to Review
i. Lagman vs. Executive Secretary. G.R. No. 231658, 4 July
ii. Padilla vs. Congress of the Philippines, G.R. No. 231671,
25 July 2017
5. Mode of Review
a. Lagman vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 231658, 4 July 2017
6. Scope of SC's Power of Review
a. Lagman vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 231658, 4 July 2017
7. Ways to lift the proclamation
iv. Command Responsibility
1. Macapagal-Arroyo vs. People, G.R. No. 220598, 19 July 2016
f. Delegated: Emergency powers – Art. VI, Sec. 23 (2)
i. Conditions of granting emergency powers
ii. Relate with Art. XII, Sec. 17
iii. See also Art. XVI, Sec. 5(7)
g. Executive clemencies – Art. VII, Sec. 19
i. Limitations: See Art. IX-C, Sec. 5
ii. Pardon vs. Amnesty
1. Monsanto vs. Factoran, 170 SCRA 190
2. Garcia vs. Chairman, GR No. 75025, 14 September 1993
3. In Re: Wilfredo Sumulong Torres, 251 SCRA 709, 29 December 1995
h. The diplomatic/treaty-making power – Art. VII, Sec. 21; Art. XVIII, Sec. 25
i. Power of impoundment
i. PHILCONSA vs. Enriquez. 235 SCRA 506, 9 August 1994
j. Power of augmentation – Art. VI, Section 25(5)
i. Arielle vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, 3 February 2015
k. Power with regard to the utilization of natural resources – Art. XII, Sec 2, (pars. 4
and 5)
i. Congressional power with regard to small-scale utilization – Art. XII, Sec 2,
(par. 3)
ii. Resident Marine Mammals vs. Sec. Angelo Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, 21 April

VII. Judicial Department

1. Concept
a. Judicial power, traditional and expanded meaning – Art. VIII, Sec. 1
i. Garcia v. Drilon, 699 SCRA 352 (2013)
b. Political Question Doctrine
i. Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary, 28 April 2010
ii. Ocampo vs. Rear Admiral Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, 8 November 2016
c. Requisites for the proper exercise of the power of judicial review
i. Actual case or controversy
1. Cases:
a. In the Matter of: Save the SC Judicial Independence and Fiscal
Autonomy Movement vs. Abolition of Judiciary Development
Fund (JDF) and Reduction of Fiscal Autonomy, UDK-15143,
and 21 January 2015
2. Advisory opinion
a. Declaratory relief – Sec. 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, as
b. International Court of Justice – Article 96, Chapter XIV of the
UN Charter
3. Moot and academic
a. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech
Applications, Inc. vs. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines)
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 209271, 26 July 2016
ii. Proper party (locus standi or legal standing)
1. General Rule: “direct injury test”
a. Hon. Executive Secretary, et al. vs. Southwing Heavy
Industries, Inc., et al., GR No. 16417, 20 February 2006
2. Exceptions:
a. Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792 (1993)
b. David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, GR No.171396, May 3, 2006
c. Concerned Citizen: Transcendental Importance – Ocampo vs.
Rear Admiral Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, 8 November 2016
d. Legislator’s Suit – Umali vs. JBC, G.R. No. 228628, 25 July 2017
e. Legislator’s Suit – Saguisag vs. Executive Secretary Ochoa,
G.R. No. 212426, 12 January 2016
f. Steward of Nature: Writ of Kalikasan – Resident Marine
Mammals vs. Sec. Angelo Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, 21 April 2015
g. Steward of Nature: Writ of Kalikasan – West Tower
Condominium Corporations. First Philippine Industrial
Corporation, G.R. No. 194239, 16 June 2015
h. Writ of Kalikasan vs. Writ of Continuing Mandamus - Segovia
vs. The Climate Change Commission, G.R. No. 211010, 7 March
i. Judicial Review on Martial Law Proclamation and Suspension
of the Privilege of the Writ – Art. VII, Sec. 18 (3rd par), in view
of the ruling in Lagman vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
231658, 4 July 2017
3. Prohibition against third-party standing
a. Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. vs.
Anti-Terrorism Council, 632 SCRA 146 (2010)
b. Disini, Jr. vs. The Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335,
February 18, 2014
c. Imbong vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014
d. Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK) vs. Quezon
City, G.R. No. 225442, 8 August 2017
iii. Earliest opportunity
1. Exceptions
iv. The lis mota of the case / necessity of deciding constitutional question
1. Lalican vs. Vergara, 276 SCRA 518 (1997)
2. Doctrine of Purposeful Hesitation
a. Drilon vs Lim, G.R. 112497, Aug 4, 1994
3. Doctrine of Operative Fact
a. Republic v. CA, GR 79732, Nov. 8, 1993
2. Safeguards of Judicial Independence
a. Constitutional safeguards
i. Art. VIII, Secs. 3, 4(1), 9(last sentence of 1st par), 11(1st sentence), and 12;
ii. Art. XI, Sec. 2;
iii. Art. VIII, Secs. 10, 11(2nd sentence), 5(5, 6 and 3), and 6;
iv. Art. VIII, Sec. 2;
v. Art. VI, Sec. 30
1. Re: COA Opinion on the computation of the appraised value of the
properties purchased by the retired chief/associate justices of the
Supreme Court, AM No. 11- 7-10-SC, 31 July 2012
2. In Re First Indorsement from Honorable Raul M. Gonzales dated 16
March 1988 Requesting Honorable Justice Marcelo B. Fernan to
Comment on an Anonymous Letter-Complaint, A.M. Nos. 88-4-54333,
15 April 1988
3. Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464 (1993)
4. De Vera vs. Pelayo, 335 SCRA 281, 6 July 2000
5. Ampong vs. CSC, G.R No. 167916, 26 August 2008
6. Conchita Carpio Morales vs. CA and Jejomar Erwin S. Binay G.R. Nos.
217126-27, 10 November 2015
7. Estipona vs. Lobrlgo, G.R.2.26679, 15 August 2017
8. Mamiscal vs. Clerk of Court Macalinog S. Abdullah, A.M. No. SCC-13-
18-, 1 July 2015
3. The Supreme Court
a. Composition, qualifications and vacancy (Art. VIII, Sec. 4(1) and Sec. 7)
b. Decision-making
i. Sessions of the SC and votes required to render a decision or resolution
1. En banc – Art. VIII, Sec. 4(2) and (3), 2nd and 3rd sentence and Sec. 11,
2nd sentence; Sec. 3, Rule 2 of The Internal Rules of the Supreme
a. SM Land vs. BCDA, G.R. No. 203655, 7 September 2015
2. In division - Art. VIII, Sec. 4(3) 1st sentence
3. Procedure if the necessary majority cannot be had
a. Sec. 7, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court (relate with Sec. 2, Rule 12
of The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (A.M. No. 10-4·20-
ii. Period to decide cases – Art. VIII, Sec. 15(1) and (4)
a. Sesbreno vs. CA, GR No. 161390, 16 April 2008
b. Re: Problem of Delays in Cases before the Sandiganbayan,
AM No. 00-8-05-SC, 28 November 2001
c. Re: report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional
Trial Court, Br. 56, Mandaue City, Cebu, A.M. No. 09-7-284-
RTC, February 16, 2011
4. The Judicial and Bar Council – Art. VIII, Sec. 8 and 9
a. Chavez vs. JBC, G.R. 202242, April 16, 2013
b. Jardeleza vs. Chief Justice Sereno, G.R. No. 213181, 19 August 2014
c. Umali vs. JBC, G.R. No. 228628, 25 July 2017
d. Judge Ferdinand R. Villanueva vs. JBC, G.R. No. 211833, 7 April 2015

VIII. The Bill of Rights

1. Due process – Right to Life, Liberty and Property

a. Doctrine of Relative Constitutionality
b. Hierarchy of rights
i. Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs. Philippine Blooming
Mills Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 189 (1973)
c. Property right
i. Chavez vs. Romulo, 431 SCRA 534 (2004)
d. Constitutional vs. Statutory Due Process
i. Agabon vs NLRC G R No. 158693, November 17, 2004
e. Aspects of due process
i. Substantive due process
1. Requisites
ii. Procedural due process
1. Requisites
2. Equal Protection
a. Requisites for valid classification
i. Garcia v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 198554, July 30, 2012
ii. Garcia v. Drilon, 699 SCRA 352 (2013)
b. Judicial standards of equal protection (Rational basis, strict scrutiny and
intermediate scrutiny tests)
i. Central Bank Employees Association vs. BSP, GR No. 148208, December 15,
3. Search and Seizure
a. Availability of right to alien
i. People vs. Chua Ho San, 307 SCRA 432 (1999)
b. Requisites of valid warrant
i. Probable-Cause Standard
1. The difference between the determination of probable cause of a
prosecutor and the determination of probable cause of a judge
a. Reyes vs. Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212593-94, 15 March 2016
2. Drug, alcohol and blood tests
a. SJS vs. Dangerous Drugs Board, GR No. 157870, November 3,
ii. Satumino C. Ocampo vs. Hon. Ephrem S. Abando, G.R. No. 176830, February
11, 2014
iii. Stonehill vs. Diokno, No. L-19550, June 19, 1967
c. Administrative warrants of arrest
i. Qua Chee Gan vs. The Deportation Board, 9 SCRA 27 (1963)
d. Knock and Announce Principle
i. People vs. Huang Zhen Hua, GR No. 139301, September 29, 2004
e. Warrantless searches
i. Search incidental to a lawful arrest
1. People vs. Chua Ho San, 307 SCRA 432 (1999)
2. People vs. Tudtud, 412 SCRA 142 (2003)
ii. Consented search
1. People vs. Leila Johnson, GR No. 138881, December 18, 2000
iii. Plain View Doctrine
1. People vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 668, January 22, 1999
iv. Stop-and-frisk Search
1. Malacat vs CA, 283SCRA 159, December 12, 1997
v. Search of a moving vehicle
1. People vs. Balingan, 58 SCAD 861, 241 SCRA 277
vi. Customs search
1. Papa vs. Mago, No. L-27360, February 28, 1968
2. Roldan vs. Arca No. L-25434, July 25, 1975
vii. Searches at checkpoints
1. People vs. Usana, 323 SCRA 754, January 28, 2000
viii. Exigent and emergency circumstances
1. People vs. De Gracia, 233 SCRA 716 (1994)
ix. Search by private persons
1. People vs. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
f. Warrantless arrests
i. Section 5, Rule 113, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
1. In flagrante delicto
a. People vs. Molina, 352 SCRA 17 4, February 19, 2001
2. Arrest in hot pursuit
a. Pestilos vs. Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, 10 November 2014
b. Padilla vs CA, G.R. No. 121917 March 12, 1997
c. People vs. Compacion, G.R. No. 124442, July 20, 2001
3. Continuing offense
a. Umil vs. Ramos, GR No. 79731, July 9, 1990
4. Privacy of Communication and Correspondence
a. Right to Privacy
i. Categories
1. Disini, Jr. vs. The Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18,
b. Concept of Informational Privacy
i. Zulueta vs. CA, 253 SCRA 699
ii. Anti-wiretapping Act (RA 4200)
1. Salcedo-Ortanez vs. CA, 235 SCRA 111, August 4, 1994
2. Navarro vs. CA, GR No. 121087, August 26, 1999
iii. Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173)
1. “Right to be Forgotten”
a. Google Spain vs AEPD (Spanish Data Protection Agency) and
Mario Costeja Gonzalez, C-131/12
c. Limitations
d. Exclusionary Rule
i. Article 723 of the Civil Code
ii. Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Yu, A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813, 22
November 2016
e. Two-part test to determine reasonableness of person’s expectation of privacy
i. Disini, Jr. vs. The Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014
ii. In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Capt. Garry Alejano, et al.
vs. Gen. Pedro Cabuay, et at., GR No. 160792, August 25, 2005
iii. Ayer Production Pty. Ltd. Vs. Capulong, 16 SCRA 861 (1988)
iv. Government-issued Computer
1. Pollo vs. David, GR No. 181881, October 18, 2011
v. CCTVs
1. Spouses Hing vs. Choachuy, G.R. No. 179736, 26 June 2013
vi. Online Social Networks
1. Vivares vs. St Theresa's College, G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014
5. Freedom of Expression, Press and Right to Peaceably Assemble
a. Concept and scope
i. Freedom from censorship or prior restraint
1. Content-based and Content-neutral regulation or restraint
2. The Diocese of Bacolod vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205728, 21
January 2015
3. The O'Brien Test
ii. Freedom from subsequent punishment
b. Tests for valid government interference to freedom of expression
i. Clear and Present Danger Rule (BP 880, Sec. 6(a))
ii. Dangerous Tendency Rule
iii. Balancing of Interest Rule
c. Commercial speech
i. Disini, Jr. vs. The Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014
d. State regulation of mass media
i. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. COMELEC, GR No. 133486, January
28, 2000
ii. Re: Live TV and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President Corazon C.
Aquino's Libel Case, October 22, 1991
iii. Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the
Plunder Case Against Former President Joseph E. Estrada, AM No. 01-4-03-
SC, June 29, 2001
iv. Re: Live Media Broadcast of Ampatuan Trial, Res., AM Nos. 10-11-5-SC, 10-11·6-
SC, and 10-11-7-SC, October 23, 2012
v. GMA Network, Inc. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205357, 2 September 2014
vi. Section 5 of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173) and RA 53, as amended
by RA 1477
e. Academic freedom and the right of the school to discipline its students
i. Miriam College Foundation, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 348 SCRA 265 (2000)
f. Assembly and petition
i. BP 880 (The Public Assembly Act of 1985)
1. IBP vs. Atienza, GR No. 175241, February 24, 2010
ii. In Re: Petition to Annul En Banc Resolution AM No. 98-7-02-SC - Ricardo C.
Valmonte and Union of Lawyers and Advocates for Transparency in
Government (UL.AT), GR No. 134621, September 29, 1998
6. Freedom of Religion
a. Non-establishment clause
i. Concept and basis
1. lmbong vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014
ii. Exceptions under the Constitution
1. Art. VI, Secs. 28(3) and 29(2)
2. Art. XIV, Secs. 3(3) and 4(2))
3. Re: Letter of Tony A. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the
Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, 7 March
b. Free exercise clause
i. Dual aspect
1. Dominador L. Taruc, et al. vs. Bishop Porfirio dela Cruz, GR No.
144801, March 10, 2005
2. Austria vs. NLRC, GR No. 124382, August 16, 1999
a. Definition of Ecclesiastical affair
ii. Estrada vs. Escritor, 492 SCRA 1, AM No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006 and August
4, 2003
1. Standards
a. Strict Neutrality Theory
b. Benevolent Neutrality Theory
2. Tests
a. Clear and Present Danger Test
b. Compelling State Interest Test
c. Conscientious Objector Test
c. Non-religious test clause
7. Liberty of Abode and the Right to Travel
a. Limitations of Liberty of abode
i. Lorenzo vs. Director of Health, 50 Phil 595 (1950)
b. Concept of the right to travel
i. Coverage
1. Marcos vs. Manglapus, GR No. 88211, October 27, 1989
ii. Aliens
1. Nishimura Ekiu vs. United States, 142 US 651, 659 (1892)
iii. HDO
1. Reyes vs. CA, GR No. 182161, December 3, 2009
c. Limitations of the right to travel
i. Public Safety
1. Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK) vs. Quezon City,
G.R. No. 225442, 8 August 2017
ii. Commander in Chief Clause
1. Gudani vs. Senga, 498 SCRA 671, August 15, 2006
iii. SC's administrative supervision over lower courts
1. OAS-OCA vs. Judge Ignacio B. Macarine, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770, July
18, 2012
iv. Other statutory and inherent limitations
1. Leave Division, OCA-OAS vs. Heusdens, etc., A.M. No. P-11-2927,
December 13, 2011
8. Right to Information
a. Scope
i. EO No. 2, Series of 2016
b. Limitations
i. AKBAYAN vs. Aquino, GR No. 170516, July 16, 2008
ii. Neri vs. Senate, GR No. 180643, September 4, 2008
iii. Memorandum from the Executive Secretary dated 24 Nov. 2016 re Inventory
of Exceptions to EO No. 2 (S. 2016)
9. Right of Association
a. Membership in subversive organizations
i. People vs. Ferrero, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)
b. Right not to join
i. Sta. Clara Homeowners Association vs. Gaston, GR No. 141961, January 23,
ii. Bel Air Village Association, Inc. vs. Dionisio, 174 SCRA 589
iii. In re: Marcial Edillion, 84 SCRA 554 (1978)
10. Taking of Private Property for Public Use (Eminent domain)
11. Non-Impairment of contracts
a. When there is impairment
i. China Banking Corp vs. ASB Holdings, GR No. 172192, December 23, 2008
b. Exceptions
i. Ortigas and Co. vs. Feati Bank and Trust Co., GR No. L-24670, December 14,
c. Franchises, privileges and licenses
i. Ysmael vs. Deputy Executive Secretary, 190 SCRA 673
12. Free Access to Courts and Quasi-judicial Bodies and Adequate Legal Assistance
a. Re: Query of Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi Re Exemption from Legal and Filing Fees of
the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., 596 SCRA 40, AM No. 09-6-9-SC, August 19,
13. Rights of Suspects Under Custodial Investigation
a. When rights available
i. Police line-up
1. People vs. Pepino, G.R. No. 174471, 12 January 2016
ii. Luz vs. People, 667 SCRA 421 (2012)
b. Rights included
i. Miranda Doctrine
1. Kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions
a. People vs. Obrero, 332 SCRA 190, May 17, 2000
2. Right to counsel
a. People vs. Viduya, 189 SCRA 403 (1990)
3. Admissibility – “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”
a. Confession given to media
i. People vs. Endino, 353 SCRA 307, February 20, 2001
b. Confession given to Municipal Mayor
i. People vs. Andan, 269 SCRA 95, GR No. 116437, March
3, 1997
c. Giving urine samples
i. Gutang vs. People, 335 SCRA 479 (2000)
d. Admissibility of other evidence obtained
i. Ho Wai Pang vs. People, 659 SCRA 624 (2011)
14. Right to Bail
a. What is Bail
i. Section 1, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
b. Extradition
i. Government of the USA vs. Purganan, GR No. 148571, September 24, 2002
ii. Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia, Jr., GR
No. 153675, April 19, 2007
1. Quantum of proof in granting bail in extradition cases
c. Deportation
i. Go vs. Ramos, GR No. 167569, September 4, 2009
d. Military
i. Comendador vs. De Villa, GR No. 93177, August 2, 1991
e. When bail a matter of right
i. Section 4, Rule 114, Crim Pro
ii. People vs. Valdez, G.R. Nos. 216007, 09, December 2015
f. When bail discretionary
i. Section 5, Rule 114, Crim Pro
ii. Juan Ponce Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, 18 August 2015
g. Distinction between Reclusion Perpetua and Life Imprisonment
15. Rights of an Accused During Trial
a. Summary of rights
i. Criminal due process
ii. Presumption of innocence
1. Equipoise Rule
a. Corpus vs. People, GR No. 74259, February 14, 1991
2. People vs Pepino, G.R. No. 174471, 12 January 2016
iii. Right to be heard
iv. Right to be informed
1. Juan Ponce Enrile vs. People, G.R. No. 213455, 11 August 2015
2. Quimvel vs. People, G.R. No. 214497, 18 April 2017
v. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial
1. Speedy trial vs. Speedy disposition of cases
vi. Right to meet the witnesses face to face (Confrontation Clause)
1. Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (AM No. 004-07-SC)
16. Writ of Habeas Corpus
a. Go vs. Ramos, GR No. 167569, September 4, 2009
17. Speedy Disposition of Cases
18. Right Against Self-incrimination
a. Scope and coverage
i. Alih vs. Castro, 151 SCRA 279
ii. Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Corporation vs. PCGG, 150 SCRA 181
iii. Beltran vs. Samson and Jose 53 Phil 57
b. Statutory immunity
i. Two types
1. Mapa, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 231 SCRA 783, GR No. 100295, April 26,
2. Power of the Commission on Human Rights - Sec. 18(8), Art. XIII
19. Freedom of Political Beliefs (political prisoners)
20. Freedom Against Involuntary Servitude
a. Art. II, Sec. 4
21. Right Against Cruel, Degrading and Inhuman Punishment
22. Right Against Imprisonment for Debt or Non-Payment of a Poll Tax
23. Double-Jeopardy
a. Two kinds
i. Same “Offense”
1. Lamera vs. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 186 (1991)
ii. Same “Act”
1. People vs. Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987]
b. Requisites
i. Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro, 635 SCRA 191, G.R. No. 172716, November 17,
ii. People vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 164185, July 23, 2008
c. Doctrine of Supervening Event / Supervening Fact Doctrine
i. People vs. Buling, 107 Phil 712 (1960)
d. MRs and appeals
i. People vs. Tria-Tirona, GR No. 130106, July 15, 2005
ii. Lejano vs. People, GR No. 176389, January 18, 2011
24. Prohibition Against Ex Post Facto Law or Bill of Attainder
a. Kinds of ex post facto law
i. In Re Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., 35 SCRA 429, GR No. L-32485, October 22, 1970
b. Bill of attainder
i. People vs. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)

IX. Citizenship (see Election Law)



1. Reyes vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013

2. Velasco vs. Speaker Belmonte, G.R. No. 211140, 12 January 2016
3. Legaspi vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 216572, 19 April 2016

II. Registration of Voters

1. Qualification and Disqualification of Voters

a. Kabataan Party list vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221318, 16 December 2015
b. RA 10742, Sec. 4
2. Inclusion and Exclusion Proceedings
a. Inclusion and Exclusion Proceedings vs. Denial of Due Course to or Cancellation of
COC Proceedings
i. Velasco v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 180051, December 24, 2008

III. Political Parties and Party-lists

1. Political Parties to Candidates

a. Omnibus Election Code (OEC), Secs. 70-71
2. The Party-list System
a. The four parameters in the Party-List election
i. Veterans Federation Party vs. COMELEC, GR No. 136781, 6 October 2000
ii. BANAT vs. COMELEC, GR No. 179271, 21 April 2009
iii. Atong Paglaum vs. COMELEC GR No. 203766, 02 April 2013
iv. Lokin vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 179431-32, 22 June 2010

IV. Candidacy

1. Qualifications/Eligibilities of Candidates
a. General Guiding Principles in Candidates’ Qualifications
i. Qualifications for Public Office are Continuing Requirements
1. Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, 174 SCRA 245 (1989)
ii. Vice of Ineligibility Cannot be Cured by Election
1. Hayudini v, COMELEC, G.R. No. 207900, April 22, 2014
iii. Qualifications of Candidates Specified in the Constitution Cannot be
Expanded by a Statute
1. Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drug Board, et al., GR No. 157870,
3 November 2008
b. Constitutional and Statutory Qualifications of Candidates
i. Update: RA 10742, Sec. 10
c. Citizenship
i. Who are Filipino Citizens – Art. IV, Secs. 1-5
1. Tecson v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004
2. Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 221697, March 8, 2016
3. David v. SET, G.R. No. 221538, September 20, 2016
ii. Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship to Run for Public Office
1. “Twin requirements” are now Three Requirements
a. David v. SET, G.R. No. 221538, September 20, 2016
2. Dual Citizen from Birth
a. Cordora v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176947, February 19, 2009
b. Valles v, COMELEC, G.R. No. 137000, August 9, 2000
3. Dual Citizenship Obtained through Naturalization
a. Sobejana-Condon v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 198742, August 10,
4. Recantation of Oath of Renunciation
a. Maquiling vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013
d. Residency
i. Change of Domicile
1. Sabili vs. COMELEC, 670 SCRA 664 (2012)
ii. The Law Treats Citizenship Independently of Domicile. However:
1. Caballero vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 209835, September 22, 2015
e. Age
i. Garvida v. Sales, G.R. No. 124893, April 18, 1997
f. Other Eligibilities of Candidates
i. Non-suffering from Any Term Limitation
1. Albania v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 226792, June 7, 2017
a. Summary of prevailing jurisprudence on issues affecting
consecutiveness of terms and involuntary interruption
i. Abundo v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 201716, 8
January 2013
ii. Non-Suffering from Any Accessory Penalty of Disqualification
1. Jalosjos vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205033, June 18, 2013
2. Disqualification of Candidates
a. Grounds for Disqualification
i. Candidate Subject to Disqualification is Eligible but Committed Infraction or
Placed in a Disqualifying Situation
1. Tagolino v. HRET, G.R. No. 202202, March 19, 2013
ii. Restoration of Pardonee's Right to Run for Public Office
1. Risos-Vidal vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 206666, 21 January 2015
iii. Effect of Penal Provision to the LGC Provision Which Allows Prior Convict to
Run After Two (2) Years
1. Jalosjos vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205033, June 18, 2013
iv. Administratively “Removed from Office” Defined
1. Albania vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 226792, June 7, 2017
v. Doctrine of Condonation
1. Morales vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015
b. Petition for Disqualification (Sec. 68) vs. Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel
COC For False Material Representation in the COC (Sec. 78)
i. Tagolino v. HRET, G.R. No. 202202, March 19, 2013
c. Effects of Disqualification Case
i. If the judgement for disqualification has attained finality before election
1. RA 6646 (The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987) Sec. 6
2. Grego v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 125955, June 19, 1997
ii. If the judgment tor disqualification is still unresolved or has not yet attained
its finality before election
1. Sunga v. COMELEC. 288 SCRA 76 (1998)
2. Nolasco v. COMELEC, 275 SCRA 762 (1997)
iii. If the judgment for disqualification has attained its finality after election
1. Aquino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120265, September 18, 1995
3. Certificates of Candidacy (COC)
a. Ministerial duty of the COMELEC to receive a COC
i. Cerafica v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205136, December 2, 2014
b. Effect of filing of COC
i. Quinto v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189698, February 22, 2010
c. Substitution of Candidates
i. Federico vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 199612, January 22, 2013
d. Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel COC
i. Denial of Due Course to or Cancelling COC of a Nuisance Candidate (OEC,
Sec. 69)
ii. Denial of Due Course to or Cancellation of COC for False Material
Representation in the COC (OEC, Sec. 78)
1. Hayudini v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207900, April 22, 2014
2. Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel COC For False Material
Representation in the COC (OEC, Sec. 78) vs. Petition for Quo
Warranto (OEC, Sec. 253)
e. Effects of a case for Denial of Due Course to or Cancellation of COC
i. If the judgement for a petition to deny due course to or cancel a COC has
attained its finality before election
1. If the ground for cancellation or denial is false material
representation in the COC
a. RA 6646 (The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987), Sec. 6 in
relation to Sec. 7 thereof
2. If the denial of due course to or cancellation of a COC is ordered
because of the declaration of a nuisance candidate
a. Dela Cruz v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 192221, November 13, 2012
3. Rule applicable to both grounds
a. Ara Tea v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195229, October 9, 2012
ii. If the judgment for a petition to deny due course to or cancel a COC is still
unresolved or has not yet attained its finality before election
1. Sunga v. COMELEC 288 SCRA 76 (1998)
2. Nolasco v. COMELEC 275 SCRA 762 (1997)
iii. If the Judgment for disqualification has attained its finality after election
1. If the ground for cancellation or denial is false material
representation in the COC
a. RA 6646, Sec. 6 in relation to Sec. 7 thereof
2. If the denial of due course to or cancellation of a COC is ordered
because of the declaration of a nuisance candidate
a. Dela Cruz v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 192221, November 13, 2012
3. Rule applicable to both grounds
a. Hayudini v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207900, April 22, 2014

V. Campaign

1. Premature Election Campaigning

a. Penera v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 181613, November 25, 2009
2. Lawful Election Propaganda
a. The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015
b. Ejercito v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 212398, November 25, 2014
3. Equal Access to Media
a. GMA Network v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014
4. Electoral Expenditure
a. Garcia v. COMELEC, 611 SCRA 55 (201o)

VI. Casting and Counting of Votes

1. Automated Election System (AES)

a. Two Types
i. RA 8436, as amended by
ii. RA 9369, Sec. 2 (7) and (8)
b. Some Requirements for the Use of AES
i. RA 8436, as amended by
ii. RA 9369, Secs. 11 (4) and (5) and 14
2. Electoral Boards
a. Can Teachers Still be Compelled to Serve in Elections?
i. Republic Act No. 10756 or the Election Service Reform Act (April 8, 2016),
Sec. 3

VII. Proclamation

1. Pre-proclamation Remedies
a. Suspension of Proclamation (Pending Case for Disqualification or Cancellation of
i. RA 6646, Sec. 6, last sentence, in relation to Sec. 7 thereof
b. Failure of Election
i. Usman v. COMELEC, 42 SCRA 667 (1971)
c. Pre-proclamation Controversies
i. OEC, Sec. 243
d. Correction of Manifest Error
i. Chavez v. COMELEC, 211 SCRA 315 (1992)
2. Post-proclamation Remedies
a. Election Protest
b. Quo Warranto
i. Election Protest vs. Quo Warranto
1. Luison v. Garcia, 103 Phil 453 (1958)
2. Jurisdiction of Courts
c. Annulment of Election and Proclamation
i. Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, 174 SCRA 245 (1989)


I. General Principles

II. Administrative Agencies

1. Manner of creation
2. Kinds

III. Powers of Administrative Agencies/Bodies

1. Alliance for the Family Foundation vs. Garin, G.R. No. 217872, 26 April 2017
2. Quasi-legislative (rule-making) power
a. Notice and hearing required?
3. Quasi-judicial power (Determinative powers)
a. Dispensing powers
i. Notice and hearing required?
b. Enabling powers (Regulatory powers)
i. Notice and hearing required?
4. Fact-finding, investigative, licensing and rate-fixing powers

IV. Judicial Recourse and Review

1. Doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction
2. Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
a. Department of Finance vs. Hon. Mariano M. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 209331, 24 April 2015
b. United Overseas Bank of the Philippines vs. The Board of Commissioners-HLURB,
G.R. No. 182133, 23 June 2015
3. Doctrine of finality of administrative action


I. General principles

II. Modes and Kinds of Appointment

1. Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Yu, A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813, 22 November 2016

III. Rights of Public Officers

1. The Provincial Government of Camarines Norte vs. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 185740, July 23,

IV. Accountability of Public Officers

1. The “Threefold Liability Rule”
a. Office of the Ombudsman vs. Andutan, Jr., 654 SCRA 539 (2011)
2. “Moonlighting”
a. Re: Anonymous Letter-Complaint on the Alleged Involvement and for Engaging in
the Business of Lending Money at Usurious rates of Interest of Ms. Dolores T. Lopez
SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, and Mr. Fernando M. Montalvo, SC Supervising
Judicial Staff Officer, Checks Disbursement Division, Fiscal Management and Budget
Office, A.M. No. 2010-21-SC, 30 September 2014
3. Initiation of Complaint
a. IA1 Magcamit vs. Internal Affairs Service - Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (IAS-
PDEA), G.R. No. 198140, 25 January 2016
4. Dropping from the Rolls
a. Re: Dropping from the Rolls of Cornelio Reniette Cabrera, Utility Worker I,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Lipa City, 653 SCRA 695 (2011)
5. Quantum of Proof in Administrative Case Against Judges
a. Datoon vs. Kapili, 644 SCRA 384 (2011)
6. Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission (CSC)
a. Civil Service Commission vs. Court of Appeals, 682 SCRA 353 (2012)
b. Department of Finance vs. Hon. Mariano M. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 209331, 24 August
7. Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
a. Samson vs. Restrivera, 646 SCRA 481 (2011)


I. Public Corporations
1. Distinguished from government-owned or controlled corporations
2. Classifications

II. Municipal Corporations

1. Requisites for creation, conversion, division, merger or dissolution
a. Navarro vs. Executive Secretary Ermita, Min. Res. G.R. No. 180050, 11 September
b. Umali vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203974, April 22, 2014

III. Powers (and Attributes) of Local Government Units (LGUs)

1. Police power (general welfare clause)
a. Rimando vs. Naguilian Emission Testing Center, Inc., 677 SCRA 343 (2012)
b. Buklod nang Magbubukid sa Lupaing Ramos, Inc. vs. E. M. Ramos and Sons. Inc.,
645 SCRA 401 (2011)
c. Mosqueda vs. Pilipino Banana Growers & Exporters Association, Inc., G.R. No.
189185, 16 August 2016
2. Eminent domain
3. Taxing power
a. Film Development Council of the Philippines (FDCP) vs. Colon Heritage Realty
Corporation, G.R. No. 203754, 16 June 2015
4. Closure and opening of roads
5. Legislative power
6. Corporate powers
IV. Local Officials
1. Succession of elective officials
2. Discipline of local officials
a. Doctrine of condonation
i. Conchita Carpio Morales vs. CA and Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Sr., G.R. Nos.
217126-27, 10 November 2015
3. Term limits
a. “Three-Term Limit” Rule
i. Abundo vs. COMELEC, GR No. 201716, 8 January 2013
ii. Albania vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 226792, 7 June 2017

V. lnter-govemmental Relations
1. Hon. Paje vs. Hon. Casino, G.R. No. 207257, 3 February 2015


I. General Principles
1. Theories of International Law
a. Natural Law Theory/School
b. Positive Law Theory/School
c. Eclectic Theory/School (a.k.a. the Grotian School)
2. Relationship Between International and National/Municipal Law
a. Independence of International Law from National Law
i. Monism
ii. Dualism (or Pluralism)
1. International Law vs. National Law
b. Approaches to Implement International Law in National Law
i. Doctrine of Transformation
ii. Doctrine of Incorporation
iii. What the Philippine Law Follows

II. Sources of International Law

1. Primary Sources
a. International Treaties and Conventions
b. Customary International Law
i. Opinio Juris
ii. Jus cogens
iii. Erga Omnes Obligation
c. General Principles of Law
i. Non liquet in International Law
d. Subsidiary Sources
i. Judicial Decisions and Highly Regarded Publicists
ii. ICJ Advisories
e. Hierarchy of Sources
i. Jus Cogens

III. Subjects and Objects of International Law

1. States
2. International Organizations
3. Individuals
4. Others
a. Non-Governments Organizations?
b. Corporations?

IV. Fundamental Rights of States

1. The Right of Existence, Territorial integrity and Self-Preservation
2. The Right of Sovereignty and Independence
a. Self-Determination
b. Decolonization and Uti Possidetis
3. The Right of Equality
4. The Right to Property and Jurisdiction
a. Bases of Jurisdiction
i. Territoriality principle
ii. Nationality principle and statelessness
iii. Protective principle
iv. Universality principle
1. Treaties Providing for Universal Jurisdiction: Aut Dedere Aut Judicare
v. Passive personality principle
vi. Conflicts of jurisdiction
b. Extradition
i. Principle of speciality
ii. Dual criminality principle
1. Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR vs.
Munoz, G.R. No. 207342, 16 August 2016
5. The Right of Legation

V. Fundamental Duties of States

1. Doctrine of State Responsibility
a. The Rules of Attribution: Lex Specialis
2. Treatment of aliens

VI. Consequences of Rights

1. Entrance Into Treaties
a. Treaty Law – Vienna Convention on the law of treaties (VCLT)
i. Preliminary Considerations in Treaty-Making
1. Requisites of a Treaty
2. Treaty vs. Executive Agreement
a. Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading 3 SCRA 351
b. Saguisag v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 212426, January 12, 2016
c. Intellectual Property Association of the Philippines (IPAP) vs.
Ochoa, G.R. No. 204605, 19 July 2016
d. Sec. 20, Art. VII of the Constitution
e. Two Classes of Executive Agreements
i. USAFFE Veterans Association, Inc. v. The Treasurer of
the Philippines, G.R. No. 10500, June 30, 1959
f. Importance of Knowing the Distinction Between Executive
Agreement and Treaty
i. Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000
3. Principles Governing Treaties
a. General Rule
i. Pacta Sunt Servanda
b. Exceptions:
i. Rebus Sic Stantibus
ii. Treaty in Violation of the Constitution
c. General Rule
i. Principle of Autonomy
d. Exception:
i. Jus cogens
e. General Rule
i. Non-retroactivity
f. Exception:
i. VCLT, Art. 28
g. General Rule
i. Pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt
h. Exceptions:
i. Treaties which have become part of Customary
International Law
ii. Stipulation Pour Autrui (VCLT, Art. 36)
4. Steps in Treaty-Making
a. Negotiation
b. Signing
c. Consent to be Bound
i. Definitive signature
ii. Exchange of instruments constituting a treaty
iii. Acceptance and approval
iv. Accession
v. Ratification
1. Ratification in the Philippines
a. Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
158088, July 6, 2005
b. Lim v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
151445, April 11, 2002
d. Entry into Force
e. Registration with the UN
i. Charter of the United Nations, Art. 102 and Art. 6
2. Peaceful and Forcible Sanctions
a. Concept of ex aequo et bono
b. Forum Prorogatum

VII. Special Areas of International Law

1. The International Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
a. Baselines
b. Archipelagic states
i. Two kinds of archipelago according to the UNCLOS
ii. Straight archipelagic baselines
iii. Archipelagic waters
iv. Archipelagic sea lanes passage
v. Regime of Islands
c. Internal waters
d. Territorial sea
i. Arigo vs. Swift, G.R. No. 206501, 16 September 2014
e. Exclusive economic zone
f. Continental shelf
i. Extended continental shelf
g. In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines vs. China), PCA Case
No. 2013-19, 12 July 2016
2. International Humanitarian Law
a. R.A. 9851 (Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law,
Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity)
3. International Environmental Law
a. Precautionary principle
b. Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration
4. International Criminal Law
a. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (special attention to Arts. 5 and 127)