1

st
1 Semester, School Year 2019-2020

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Political Law defined
2. Subjects under Political Law

II. THE 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. Constitutional construction
a. Nitafan vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 152 SCRA 284
6. Self-executing and non-self-executing provisions
a. Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, GR No. 122156, 3 February 1997
7. 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
8. Amendments and revision (Art. XVII, Secs. 1 to 4)
a. Difference
i. Lambino vs. Comelec, GR No. 174153, 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. Imbong v. COMELEC, 35 SCRA 28, (1970)
3. By People’s Initiative; Requirements and limitations
a. RA 6735
b. Defensor-Santiago vs. COMELEC, GR No. 127325, 19 March 1997
c. 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

III. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. National Territory (Art. I)
a. Archipelagic Doctrine
i. Straight Baseline Method
b. Magallona vs. Ermita, GR No. 187167, 16 July 2011
2. Doctrine of State Immunity (Art. XVI, Section 3)
a. Entitlement of immunity, justiciable or political question?

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Course Syllabus
(Atty. Enan Flores, Ll.M.)


2

1. The Holy See v. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524, Dec. 1, 1994

2. Liang vs. People, GR No. 125865, 28 January 2000
b. Immunity of International Organizations and Agencies
i. Callado vs. IRRI, 244 SCRA 210
c. 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
d. Suability not outright liability
i. Meritt vs. Gov’t. Of the Phil. Islands, 34 Phil 311, No. 11154, 21 March 1916)
e. Waiver of state immunity
i. Express consent (Suit against the Philippine government)
Read: 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 contracts
ii. UP vs. Dizon, GR No. 171182, August 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 government)
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
f. 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
g. Suit against public officers
i. Arigo vs. Swift, G.R. No. 206501, 16 September 2014
h. Immunity cannot be used to perpetrate an injustice on a citizen
i. Wylie vs. Rarang, 209 SCRA 357
3. Republicanism (Art. II, Sec. 1)
a. Separation of powers – MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48, February
15, 2011; Belgica vs. Ochoa, Jr, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013 (November 11 in SC website)
i. Principle of checks and balances
1. Gonzales III vs. Office of the President, G.R. No. 196231, January 28, 2014
ii. Principle of blending of powers
iii. Political question vs. Justiciable question
b. Principle of non-delegation of powers
i. Exceptions (Permissive Delegation of Legislative Power)
1. Two (2) fundamental tests for adequate legislative guidelines for delegated rule-
making - Belgica vs. Ochoa, Jr, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Course Syllabus
(Atty. Enan Flores, Ll.M.)


3

4. Adherence to International law (Art. II, Sec. 2)

a. Doctrine of Incorporation
5. 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)
6. Civilian supremacy clause (Art. II, Sec. 3)
a. IBP vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, Aug. 15, 2000
b. Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, GR No. 198554, 30 July 2012
7. Doctrine of Separation of the Church and the State (Art. II, Sec. 6)
a. Relate with Art. XIV, Sec. 3 (3)
8. Social Justice
a. New or Expanded meaning (Art II, Sec. 10 and Art. XIII, Sec. 1)
9. Equal access to opportunity for public service and prohibition against political dynasties (Art. II, Section 26)
10. Education
a. Free and compulsory elementary education (Art. XIV, Sec. 2[2])
b. Constitution in the curricula (Art. XIV, Sec. 3[1])
i. ..and Panitikan - Council of Teachers and Staff of Colleges and Universities of the Philippines
(CoTeSCUP) v. Secretary of Education, G.R. No. 216930, October 09, 2018
c. Optional study of religion in public elementary and high schools (Art. XIV, Sec. 3[3])
d. Academic Freedom (Art. XIV, Sec. 5[2])
i. UP Board of Regents v. CA, G.R. No. 134625, Aug. 31, 1999
ii. Isabelo, Jr. v. Perpetual Help College of Rizal, Inc., 227 SCRA 595, Nov. 8, 1993
iii. Cadet 1CL Cudia vs. The Superintendent of the PMA, G.R. No. 211362, 24 February 2015
11. 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 Committee on Behest Loans, et. al. v. Desierto, G.R. No. 130140, Oct.
25, 1999
12. Regalian Doctrine (Art. XII, Sec. 2 relate with Art. XII, Sec. 5 and Art. II, Sec. 22)
a. Isagani Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, G.R. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000
13. Nationalist provisions: (Art. II, Sec. 19)
a. Reservation of certain areas of investments (Art. XII, Sec. 10)
nd
i. The Filipino First Policy (Art. XII, Sec. 10, 2 par.)
1. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408 [1997]
2. Tanada vs. Angara, GR No. 118295, 2 May 1997
b. Utilization of natural resources (Art. XII, Sec. 2)
i. Resident Marine Mammals vs. Sec. Angelo Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, 21 April 2015
c. Franchise, certificate and authority for public utilities (Art.XII, Sec.11)
i. Roy III vs. Chairperson Herbosa, G.R. No. 207246, 22 November 2016
d. 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
14. Language
a. Classifications
st
i. National Language (Art. XIV, Sec. 6, 1 par.)
nd
ii. Official language (Art. XIV, Sec. 7 and Sec. 6, 2 par.)
nd
iii. Auxiliary official language (Art. XIV, Sec. 7, 2 par.)
1. Council of Teachers and Staff of Colleges and Universities of the Philippines
(CoTeSCUP) v. Secretary of Education, G.R. No. 216930, October 09, 2018
rd
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)
15. Philippine flag (Art. XVI, Sec. 1)
16. Country’s name, national anthem and national seal (Art. XVI, Sec. 2)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Course Syllabus
(Atty. Enan Flores, Ll.M.)


4

17. Military (Art. XVI, Secs. 4 and 5)

a. Private armies – Art. XVIII, Sec. 24
18. Police force (Art. XVI, Sec. 6)

IV. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

1. Who may exercise legislative power (Art VI, Sec. 1 relate with Sec. 32)
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. Houses of Congress
a. Senate
i. Composition (Art. VI, Sec. 2)
1. Antonio F. Trillanes IV vs. Hon. Oscar Pimentel, Sr., in His Capacity as Presiding Judge,
RTC – Branch 148, Makati City et al., GR No. 179817, 27 June 2008
ii. Qualifications (Art. VI, Sec. 3)
1. Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drug Board, et al., GR No. 157870, 3 November
2008
b. House of Representatives
i. Composition (Art. VI, Sec. 5)
1. The Party-List System (Art. VI, Sec. 5 [2]; RA 7941)
a. The four parameters in the Party-List election
b. Cases:
a. Veterans Federation Party vs. COMELEC, GR No. 136781, 6 October 2000
b. BANAT vs. COMELEC, GR No. 179271, 21 April 2009
c. Atong Paglaum vs. COMELEC, GR No. 203766, 02 April 2013
d. Lokin vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 179431-32, 22 June 2010
2. Apportionment of legislative districts
a. Gerrymandering
st
i. Restraint - (Art. VI, Sec. 5[3], 1 sentence)
nd
b. Representation of cities and provinces (Art. VI, Sec. 5[3], 2 sentence)
ii. Aquino vs. COMELEC, GR No. 189793, 7 April 2010
iii. Bagabuyo vs. COMELEC, 8 December 2008
iv. Sema vs. COMELEC, 16 July 2008
ii. Qualifications (Art. VI, Sec. 6)
1. Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300 (1995)
3. Qualifications of Party-List representatives (Sec. 9 of RA 7941)
iii. Term of office (Art. VI, Sec. 7)
3. Parliamentary immunities and privileges
a. Freedom from arrest – Art. VI, Sec. 11
i. People v. Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 689, Feb. 3, 2000
b. Speech and debate clause –Art. VI, Sec. 11
i. Osmena v. Pendatun. 109 Phil. 863 (1960)
ii. Pobre vs. Santiago, A.C. No. 7399, 25 August 2009
4. Disqualifications
st
a. Incompatible offices – Art. VI, Sec. 13, 1 sentence
i. Liban vs. Gordon, G.R. No. 175352, 15 July 2009; Resolution on the Motion for Clarification
and/or for Reconsideration dated 18 January 2011, GR No. 175352
nd
b. Forbidden offices - Art. VI, Sec. 13 (2 sentence)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Course Syllabus
(Atty. Enan Flores, Ll.M.)


5

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
7. The Commission on Appointments – Art. VI, Secs. 18 and 19
a. Function – Art. VII, Sec. 16
8. Powers of Congress
a. Legislative oversight functions
i. Three kinds – ABAKADA Guro vs. Purisima, GR No. 166715, 14 August 2008
1. Concept of “legislative veto”
2. Inquiry in aid of legislation (Art. VI, Sec. 21) vs. Question hour (Art. VI, Sec. 22)
ii. The power of inquiry (Art. VI, Sec. 21)
1. Constitutional requisites / limitations
a. Garcilliano vs. House of Representatives, 23 December 2008
2. Executive Privilege; Kinds - Senate of the Phil. vs. Ermita, GR No. 169777, 20 April
2006
a. Presumptive Presidential Communication Privilege – Neri vs. Senate, 5
September 2008
b. Offers in treaty negotiation - AKBAYAN, et al. vs. Thomas Aquino in His
Capacity as Undersecretary of the Department of Trade, et al., GR No.
170516, 16 July 2008
3. Commander-in-Chief Clause - Gudani vs. Senga, GR No. 170561, 15 August 2006
a. Remedy to compel attendance?
4. Judicial privilege - Agcaoili v. Fariñas, G.R. No. 232395, July 03, 2018
a. Limitations?
iii. Legislative contempt
1. Arnault vs. Nazareno, GR No. L-3820, 18 July 1950
2. Balag v. Senate, G.R. No. 234608, July 3, 2018
3. NORECO vs. Sang. Panlunsod 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 – David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, GR No. 171396, 3 May 2016
b. Other impeachable officers –
i. Lecaroz vs. Sandiganbayan, 128 SCRA 324 [1984] (Focus on the
question of whether an impeachable officer can be charged
criminally while holding office)
ii. RE: EM No. 03-010 – Order of the First Division of the Commission -
on Elections Dated August 15, 2003, A.M. No. 03-8-22-SC,
September 16, 2003
iii. Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, June 19, 2018
ii. Grounds – Art XI, Sec. 2
iii. Limitation – Art. XI, Sec. 3(5)
iv. Forum – Art. XI, Sec. 3(1)
v. Procedure
1. Initiation stage
a. If initiated by less than 1/3 (Art. XI, Sec. 3[2] and [3])
b. If initiated by 1/3 (Art. XI, Sec. 3[4])
2. Trial stage (Art. XI, Sec. 3[6])
vi. 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

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Course Syllabus
(Atty. Enan Flores, Ll.M.)


6

1. Tolentino vs. Sec. of Finance, 235 SCRA 634 (1994)

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
a. Doctrine of Inappropriate Provision
b. Gonzales vs. Macaraig, GR No. 87636, 19 November 1990

V. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

1. The President
a. Qualifications of President – Art. VII, Sec. 2
st nd
b. Term of office and re-election – Art. VII, Sec. 4, 1 and 2 par.
c. 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. Disierto, 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:
st
(1) Elective – Art. IX-B, Sec. 7, 1 par.
nd
(2) Appointive - Art. IX-B, Sec. 7, 2 par.
(3) Elective (President and VP) and appointive (Cabinet Secretaries, Usecs. and Asecs.)
– Art. VII, Sec. 13
i. Art. VII, Sec. 3
ii. Art. VIII, Sec. 8 (1)
iii. Art. XII, Sec. 9
iv. Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency
v. Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (1991)
vi. 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
vii. Public Interest Center Inc. vs. Magdangal B. Elma, CPLC, GR. No.
138965, 30 June 2006
(4) Military – Art. XVI, Sec. 5 (4)
3. 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
nd
- Art. VII, Sec. 16, 2 par.
- Fetalino vs. COMELEC, 686 SCRA 813 (2012)
ii. Ad interim vs. in an acting capacity
iii. Steps in the appointing process

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Course Syllabus
(Atty. Enan Flores, Ll.M.)


7

1. Lacson vs. Romero, 84 Phil 740

2. Art. II, Sec. 4
iv. Presidential appointees:
st
a) Requires CA confirmation - Art. VII, Sec. 16, 1 sentence; Relate with Art. VIII, Sec. 8(2), Art.
IX-B, Sec. 1(2), Art. IX-C, Sec. 1(2), Art. IX-D, Sec. 1(2), and Art. X, Sec. 18
3. Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549
4. Manalo vs. Sistoza, 312 SCRA 239, 11 August 1999
nd nd
b) By the president alone - Art. VII, Sec. 16, 2 sentence; Art. VII, Sec. 3, 2 par.
1. Bermudez vs. Executive Secretary, GR No. 131429, 4 August 1999
2. Rufino vs. Endriga, G.R. No. 139554, July 21, 2006
c) Requires JBC nomination – Art. VIII, Sec. 9 and Art. XI, Sec. 9
1. Aguinaldo vs. President Aquino III, G.R. No. 224302, 29 November 2016
v. Limitations on the appointing power of the president
nd
5. Relatives – Art. VII, Sec. 13 (2 par)
6. 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
rd
(1), 3 sentence.
d. De Rama vs. CA, 353 SCRA 94, 28 February 2001
7. Losing candidate – Art. IX-B, Sec. 6
8. Military – Art. XVI, Sec. 5 (4)
9. Members of constitutional commissions – Art. IX (B), (C) and (D), Sec. 1(2)
a. Funa v. COA Chair, GR No. 192791, 24 April 2012
b. Ifurung v. Carpio Morales, G.R. No. 232131, April 24, 2018
vi. Limitation on the appointments extended by an Acting President – Art. VII, Sec. 14
e. Military Powers or the Commander-in-Chief Clause: (1) Calling out power; (2) Martial law power; and
(3) Power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus– Art. VII, Sec. 18
i. Calling out power
1. Requisite?
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? IBP vs. Zamora, GR No. 141284, 15 August 2000
ii. Power to proclaim martial law and power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
a. Requisites for the proper exercise for both powers
i. Rebellion as Ground, Quantum of Proof? Lagman vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
231658, 4 July 2017
b. Effects of the proclamation of martial law: Power added to the President
- Lagman vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 231658, 4 July 2017
c. Effects of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
- Art. VII, Sec. 18, pars. 5
- Art. III, Sec. 2; Art. VII, Sec. 18, par. 6
- Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code
- Art. III, Sec. 13
d. Limits to president’s exercise and safeguards to protect civil liberties
- Lagman v. Pimentel III, G.R. No. 235935, February 06, 2018
- Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 243522, February 19, 2019
e. Extension of proclamation or suspension
- Lagman v. Pimentel III, G.R. No. 235935, February 06, 2018
- Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 243522, February 19, 2019
f. Role of the Congress – Power to Revoke vs. Judicial Power to Review –

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Course Syllabus
(Atty. Enan Flores, Ll.M.)


8

- Lagman vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 231658, 4 July 2017

- Padilla vs. Congress of the Philippines, G.R. No. 231671, 25 July 2017
g. Role of the Supreme Court:
i. Mode of review - Lagman vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 231658, 4 July 2017
ii. Scope of SC’s Power of Review - Lagman vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 231658,
4 July 2017
h. Ways to lift the Suspension
iii. Special topic: 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. Grant of emergency power vs. Commander-in-Chief Clause
- SANLAKAS vs. Executive Secretary, GR No. 159085, 3 February 2004
iii. Relate with Art. XII, Sec. 17
- David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, GR No. 171396, 3 May 2006
iv. Relate with Art. XVI, Sec. 5(7)
g. Executive clemencies – Art. VII, Sec. 19
i. Limitations: See also Art. IX-C, Sec. 5
ii. Kinds of pardon
iii. Pardon vs. Probation
iv. Pardon vs. Parole
v. Pardon vs. Amnesty
- Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96, 19 January 1999
- Monsanto vs. Factoran, 170 SCRA 190
- Garcia vs. Chairman, GR No. 75025, 14 September 1993
- In Re: Wilfredo Sumulong Torres, 251 SCRA 709, 29 December 1995
- Risos-Vidal vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 206666, 21 January 2015
h. The diplomatic / treaty-making power – Art. VII, Sec. 21; Art. XVIII, Sec. 25
i. Bayan vs. Zamora, GR No. 138570, 10 October 2000
ii. Treaty vs. Executive agreement
- Saguisag vs. Executive Secretary Ochoa, G.R. No. 212426, 12 January 2016
- Intellectual Property Association of the Philippines (IPAP) vs. Ochoa, G.R. No.
204605, 19 July 2016
i. Power of impoundment
i. PHILCONSA vs. Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506, 9 August 1994
j. Power of augmentation - Article VI, Section 25(5)
- Araullo vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, 3 February 2015 (Reso on the MR to the 1 July 2014
Decision)
k. Power with regard to the utilization of natural resources – Art. XII, Sec 2, (pars. 4 and 5)
- Resident Marine Mammals vs. Sec. Angelo Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, 21 April 2015

VI. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

10. Concept
a. Judicial power, traditional and expanded meaning – Art. VIII, Sec. 1
- Garcia v. Drilon, 699 SCRA 352 (2013)
i. Political Question Doctrine
1) Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary, 28 April 2010
2) Estrada vs. Desierto, GR Nos. 146710-15, 2 March 2001
- Difference between Edsa I and Edsa II
3) Ocampo vs. Rear Admiral Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, 8 November 2016
b. Requisites for the proper exercise of the power of judicial review

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Course Syllabus
(Atty. Enan Flores, Ll.M.)


9

i. Actual case or controversy

1) Cases:
- Isagani vs. Sec. of DENR, GR No. 135385, 6 December 2000
- 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, 21 January 2015
2) Advisory opinion
- International Court of Justice – Article 96, Chapter XIV of the UN Charter
3) “Moot and academic”
- 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”
- Hon. Executive Secretary, et al. vs. Southwing Heavy Industries, Inc., et al., GR No.
16417, 20 February 2006
- Exceptions: a. Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792 [1993]
b. David vs. Macapagal- Arroyo, GR No. 171396, 3 May
2006
c. Concerned Citizen: Transcendental Importance - Ocampo
vs. Rear Admiral Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, 8 November
2016
d. Legislator’s Suit and Citizen’s Suit for Assertion of Public
Right- Umali vs. JBC, G.R. No. 228628, 25 July 2017; Omeña
III v. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management
Corporation, G.R. No. 212686, September 28, 2015; Padilla
vs. Congress of the Philippines, G.R. No. 231671, July 25,
2017
e. Legislator’s and Taxpayers’ 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 Corporation vs. 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 2017
i. Citizen’s suit for 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; Contra
IBP vs. Zamora, GR No. 141284, 15 August 2000
iii. Earliest opportunity
- 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
- Drilon v. Lim, GR 112497, Aug. 4, 1994
3) Doctrine of Operative Fact

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Course Syllabus
(Atty. Enan Flores, Ll.M.)


10

- Republic v. CA, GR 79732, Nov. 8, 1993

4) Requisites of partial unconstitutionality
11. Safeguards of Judicial Independence
a. Constitutional safeguards
st st
- Art. VIII, Secs. 3, 4(1), 9(last sentence of 1 par.), 11(1 sentence), and 12; Art. XI, Sec. 2; Art. VIII, Secs.
nd
10, 11(2 sentence), 5(5, 6 and 3), and 6; Art. VIII, Sec. 2; 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, GR No. 167916, 26 August 2008
6. Conchita Carpio Morales vs. CA and Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Sr., G.R. Nos. 217126-27, 10
November 2015
7. Estipona vs. Lobrigo, G.R. 226679, 15 August 2017
8. Mamiscal vs. Clerk of Court Macalinog S. Abdullah, A.M. No. SCC-13-18-J, 1 July 2015
12. 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:
nd rd nd
1) En banc – Art. VIII, Sec. 4(2) and (3), 2 and 3 sentence, and Sec. 11, 2 sentence; OR JUST
READ Sec. 3, Rule 2 of The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC)
- SM Land vs. BCDA, G.R. No. 203655, 7 September 2015
st
2) In division – Art. VIII, Sec. 4(3), 1 sentence
3) Procedure if the necessary majority cannot be had
- 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-SC)
- Isagani Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, G.R. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000
ii. Period to decide cases – Art. VIII, Sec. 15(1) and (4)
- Sesbreno vs. CA, GR No. 161390, 16 April 2008
- Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan, AM No. 00-8-05-SC, 28
November 2001
- 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
13. The Judicial and Bar Council – Art. VIII, Sec. 8 and 9
- Chavez vs. JBC, G.R. 202242, April 16, 2013
- Umali vs. JBC, G.R. No. 228628, 25 July 2017
- Judge Ferdinand R. Villanueva vs. JBC, G.R. No. 211833, 7 April 2015

VII. THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Course Syllabus
(Atty. Enan Flores, Ll.M.)