review

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINESCOLLEGE OF LAW

STA. MESA, MANILA

COURSE OUTLINE IN

POLITICAL LAW

By:

ATTY. GENER M. GITO, LL.M.Assistant Professorial Lecturer II

I. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

A. Definition of Political Law is a branch of public law, which deals with the organization and operations of the governmental organs of the state and defines the relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory.

B. Necessity for the Study – one of the necessities of the study is the inclusion in the curriculum in law courses; and every citizen, regardless of the calling must understand the mechanics and motivation of his government. This must be because of “the sovereignty resides in the people and the government authority emanates from them. It is upon the active involvement in the public and civic affairs of every Filipino that the success of the Republic of the Philippines will depend.

C. Basis of the Study – the basis of the study of the Constitutional Law is the present Constitution of the Philippines as adopted on February 2, 1987.

i. Article II, Sec. 1 – the Philippines is a democratic and republican state. Its sovereignty resides in the people and the government authority emanates from them.

D. Background of the Study -

Read: Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2002 ed., pp. 1-8

II. CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

A. What is a constitution – constitutions is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer.

B. Classifications of the Constitution – (rigid and flexible/ written and unwritten/ evolved and enacted/ normative, nominal and semantic)

C. Qualities of a good written Constitution – broad, brief and definite.D. Essential parts of a good written Constitution – constitution of liberty, constitution of

government and constitution of sovereignty. E. Brief constitutional history of the PhilippinesF. Interpretation of the ConstitutionG. Purpose of the Constitution – to prescribe a permanent framework of the system of government,

to assign to the several department their respective powers and duties and to establish certain first principles to which the government is founded.

Read: Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law, 200, pp.3-11

III. CONCEPT OF THE STATE

A. Definition of State – community of persons, more or less numerous occupying a fixed territory and possessed of an independent government organized for political ends to which great body of inhabitants renders habitual obedience.

B. Elements of the Statei. Peopleii. Territory

a. Art. I, 1987 Constitutionb. Archipelagic doctrinec. Straight baseline methodd. Republic Act No. 9522

d.1. Margallona vs. Ermita, G.R No. 187167, Aug. 16, 2011e. Territorial Jurisdiction

e.1. Reagan vs. CIR, 30 SCRA 968 iii. Government

a. Definitionb. Definition of government of the Philippinesc. Functions of government

c.i. constituentc.ii. ministrant

1. Romualdez-Yap vs. CSC, 225 SCRA 285 2. Shipside, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 143377, Feb 20, 2001

3. PVTA vs. CIR, 65 SCRA 416d. Doctrine of Parens Patria

d.i. Government of PI vs. Monte, 35 SCRA 738

Facts:

1. Spain paid $400,000 into the treasury of the Philippine Islands for the relief of those damaged by an earthquake.

2. Upon the petition of Monte de Piedad, an institution under the control of the church, the Philippine Government directed its treasurer to give $80,000 of the relief fund in Four (4)4 installments. As a result, various petitions were filed, including the heirs of those entitled to the allotments. All prayed for the State to bring suit against Monte de Piedad, and for it to pay with interest.

3. The Defendant appealed since all its funds have been exhausted already on various jewelry loans.

Issue: Whether the government is the proper authority to the cause of action

YES.

The Philippine government, as a trustee towards the funds could maintain the action since there has been no change of sovereignty. The state, as a sovereign, is the parens patriae of the people. These principles are based upon public policy. The Philippine Government is not a mere nominal party because it was exercising its sovereign functions or powers and was merely seeking to carry out a trust developed upon it when the Philippine Islands was ceded to the United States. Finally, if said loan was for ecclesiastical pious work, then Spain would not exercise its civil capacities.

f. Classification of Governmentf.i. De jure - (government of law) is an organized government of a state which

has the general support of the people.f.ii De facto - (government of fact) is a government which actually exercises

power or control but without legal title.

j. Kinds of de facto government That the government gets possessions and control, or usurps, by force or

by the voice of the majority and maintains itself against the will of the latter.

That established as an independent government by the inhabitant of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state.

That which is established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy during the course of war and which is denominated as government of paramount force.

j.i. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003iv. Sovereignty

a. Definition – is the supreme and uncontrollable power of the state by which the sate is governed.

b. Kinds of sovereignty – legal and political Legal sovereignty is the authority of the state to issue final command Political sovereignty – is the sum of the influence behind the power of

legal sovereigntyc. Characteristics – is permanent, absolute, indivisible, inalienable, imprescriptible,

exclusive and comprehensived. Effects of change in sovereignty – sovereignty is not change by belligerent

occupation. It is just the political laws of the territory, which were suspended by the occupants. Non-political laws like civil and insurance code remained effective except when they were amended or superseded by the affirmative act of the occupants.

d.i. People vs. Perfecto, 43 Phil 887 – libel is no longer punishable (contrary to penal code of Spain) when the accused committed it since America has already occupied the Philippines and the laws of the former did not state any punishment to libel.

d.ii. Macariola vs. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77 – respondent judge had bought a parcel of land that was subjected to his litigation 2 years earlier. He was not held liable since the land had been bought from a third person and the litigation was already 2 years passed the time he bought it.

Likewise, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce that prohibits judges from engaging in commerce is, as heretofore stated, deemed abrogated automatically upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to America, because it is political in nature. – thus engaging in a business with his wife.

d.iii. Vilas vs. City of Manila, 229 U.S. 345 – creditors filed a complaint since there was a change in sovereignty from Spanish to US after the Treaty of Paris has been signed on December 2, 1898. Though there was a change in the sovereignty, it was not held that obligations from debts might be escaped since it was not expressly stated on the legislative declaration of the contrary purpose.

e. Effects of belligerent occupation

e.i. Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, 75 Phil. 285 - "The criminal jurisdiction established by the invader in the occupied territory finds its source neither in the laws of the conquering or conquered state, — it is drawn entirely form the law martial as defined in the usages of nations. The punishment of reclusion perpetua for the case of robbery has been justified in this case since it is in the belligerency of the Japanese Army. The law were promulgated for the protection of the army and cannot be said nor think that it violates the public conscience. (Paramount force). However though valid and good, since the belligerence has ceased to exist, the penalties imposed also ceased.

e.ii. Alcantara vs. Director of Prisons, 75 Phil. 749 – Anacleto Alcantara was convicted because of illegal discharge of firearms with slight physical injuries

and was convicted thereof for 4 months and 21 days of arresto menor but the penalties had been modified by CA of Baguio into 3 years and 6 months of prission correctional. The Belligerent occupant has created the power of CA to modify and its other jurisdiction during the Japanese Era and it’s enforceable since they don’t have complexities or acts punished outside the scope of municipal law. Belligerent occupant legislature is based on law marital and is intended to protect the army so as the public rather than the private security.

e.iii. Ruffy vs. Chief of Staff, 75 Phil. 875

Read: Bernas, 1987 Constitution, A Commentary, 2003, pp. 35-59 Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2002, 14-30Nachura, Outline pp. 26-30

IV. DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

A. Basisi. Art. XVI, Sec. 9

ii. Republic vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 83 – defendant sought for the garnishment of the money of the AFP. This is a suit against the state.

B. Application – cases of which the claims were dismissed since the subject of it were the state/ agents of the state.

i. Garcia vs. Chief of Staff, 16 SCRA 120 – plaintiff claims a sum of money after sustaining an injury while on training in AFP. Hence, he filed a complaint directly to the court without utilizing the necessary steps of filing it first thru the general in auditor.

ii. Sanders vs. Veridiano, 162 SCRA 88 – Plaintiff sued the officers of the Armed of Forces of the US while as agents of the state.

iii. US vs. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 – Officers committed torts in their personal capacity and not as acts of the state.

iv. The Holy See vs. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524 – petitioner herein is an agent of a state of Vatican and their acts of selling the land is not for their proprietary action but because of the illegal settlers on the land who do not want to vacate.

C. Waiver of immunity

D. Forms of consent

i. Republic vs. Purisima, 78 SCRA 470 – the waiver made by the lawyer for the Rise and Corn Administration, was held by the SC not legally binding upon the state.

ii. Amicable vs. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360 – portion of the land has been converted by the government for roa.,mbcv d widening. Where the government takes away property from a private landowner for public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the government without thereby violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit without its consent.

ii. Ministerio vs. City of Cebu, 40 SCRA 464 - Where the government takes away property from a private landowner for public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the government without thereby violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit without its consent. The doctrine of the state immunity cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating injustice to the citizens.

iv. Santiago vs. Republic, 87 SCRA 294 – suit against the government agency to recover the land donations given for failure of the latter to install lighting facilities and parking areas in accordance with the agreement. Since this is not a suit against the money of the government, the SC ruled that suit could prosper. As what the plaintiff herein was seeking was the return of the properties donated, he did not even need to file his claim first with the COA under the provision of CA 327 amended by RA 1445.

v. Froilan vs. Pan Oriental Ship. Co., G.R. No. L-6060, Sept. 30, 1950 – where the government impliedly allowed itself to be sued when it filed a complaint in intervention for the affirmative relief against the plaintiff to recover the vessel.

vi. Lim vs. Brownell, 107 SCRA 345 – where the Philippines as a successor of the United States for the properties being claimed from the latter, filed a complaint in intervention to join the defendant in invoking the doctrine of the state immunity to secure the dismissal of the action. As the Philippine Government was not asking for any affirmative relied from the plaintiff but had intervened only for the purpose od resisting his claim the SC held that no implied waiver of immunity could be assumed.

vii. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 182 SCRA 911 – Disini had a contract with the PCGG that he will be immune from civil and criminal cases but not to testify against those who have acquired ill-gotten wealth during Marcos regime as per EO 1 and 2. However since their was a contract between the RP and Disini, the RP cannot revoke what has agreed upon – to be immune from suits with the fact that Disini has complied with all the agreements.

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. Lyons vs. US, 104 Phil. 593 – US Naval Forces entered into a contract with a private individual for steverdoring. Plaintiff submitted a complaint directly to the court not exhausting all steps provided by the state. It should be filed with the auditor general first and next to the secretary of the naval force for any appeals. In this regard, the suggestion was that regardless of the form of the contract, the government or state would lose its immunity.

ix. U.S. vs. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487 - in this case at bar, the immunity would lost only if the contract entered upon to is in the form of proprietary capacity. *Governmental contracts do not result in implied waiver of immunity of the State from suit. The state entered into a contract for the repair of wharves in Subic Naval Force. The plaintiff filed a complaint for damages but the SC held that the wharves are for state protection of both the US and RP – state cannot be sued.

Thus since the international law is not petrified and keeps on developing ang evolving, it is necessary to distinguish whether the contract is governmental (jure empirii) and proprietary/ private (jure gestionis) – and the immunity only extends to jure empirii.

E. Suability but not automatic liability – when the state waived its immunity from suit, it does not mean that it will concede to the liability to the plaintiff.

i. Republic vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 84 – same as the basis of the doctrine of state immunity

ii. PNB vs. Pabalan, 83 SCRA 595 - On 17 Dec 1970, Judge Pabalan issued a writ of execution followed thereafter by a notice of garnishment of the funds of Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration in the sum of P12,724.66 deposited with the petitioner bank. PNB La Union filed an administrative complaint against Pabalan for grave abuse of discretion, alleging that the latter failed to recognize that the questioned funds are of public character and therefore may not be garnished, attached or levied upon. The PNB La Union Branch invoked the doctrine of non suability, putting a bar on the notice of garnishment.

ISSUE: Whether or not PNB may be sued.

HELD: Funds of public corporations which can sue and be sued are not exempt from garnishment. PVTA is also a public corporation with the same attributes, a similar outcome is attributed. The government has entered with them into a commercial business hence it has abandoned its sovereign capacity and has stepped down to the level of a

corporation. Therefore, it is subject to rules governing ordinary corporations and in

effect can be sued. Therefore, the petition of PNB La Union is denied.

iii. Meritt vs. Government of the Phil., 76 SCRA 47 - whether or not the state is liable fo the negligence of tis employee who was driving the ambulance when it hit the plaintiff causing serious physical injuries. The SC rules that it is for the state to decide whether or not it will subject itself to be liable to pay more for the damages its employee caused. When the state consented to be sued, it simply waives it immunity from suit. It is thereby not contending to be liable to plaintiff, or cause any action in his favor, or extend its liability to any cause not previously recognized. It merely gives a remedy to enforce a preexisting liability to interpose a lawful defense.

The state can only be liable when its employees, officials, agents acted as special agents of the state to whom the acts for the state is expressed.

F. Suit against Government Agencies i. Bermoy vs. PNC, G.R. No. L-8670, May 18, 1956ii. Arcega vs. CA, 66 SCRA 229iii. National Airports Corporation vs. Teodoro, 91 Phil. 203iv. Bureau of Printing vs. Employees Association, 1, SCRA 340v. Mobil Philippines Exploration vs. Customs Arrastre, 18 SCRA 1120

G. Suability against Public Officersi. Sanders vs. Veridiano, 162 SCRA 88ii. Shaulf vs. CA, 191 SCRA 713iii. Wylie vs. Rarang, 209 SCRA 357

Read: Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2002, 31-49Nachura, Outline pp. 26-30

V. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES

A. PreambleB. Republicanism and Democracy

i. Section 1, Art. II – the Philippines is a democratic and republican state. The sovereign resides in the people and the government authority emanates from them.

C. Incorporation Clausei. Sec. 2, Art. II – The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of international policy

and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the laws of the land. It adopts and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, cooperation and amity with all nations.

ii. Sec. 7, Art. II – The state pursues an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other nations, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest and the right to self-determination.

iii. Kuruda vs. Jalandoni, 42 O.G. 4282 – iv. Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Kehv. Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155vi. Gonzales vs. Hechanovavii. Agustin vs. Edu, 88 SCRA 195

D. Civilian authority supreme over the militaryi. Sec. 3, Art. II – The civil authority is, at all times supreme over the military. The AFP is

the protector of the people and the state. Its goal is to maintain the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the territory.

E. Defense of the Statei. Sec. 4, Art. II – The prime duty of the government is to serve and protect the people and

the state. The government may call upon the citizens to defend the State, and in fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, as prescribed by law, to render personal, civil or military service.

ii. Sec. 4, Art. XVIiii. People vs. Lagman; People vs. Zosa, 38 O.G. 1676

F. Independent foreign policyi. Sec. 7, Art. II - The state pursues an independent foreign policy. In its relations with

other nations, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest and the right to self-determination.

G. Freedom from nuclear weaponsi. Sec. 8, Art. II – The Philippines, consistent with national interest adopts and pursues

policies of freedom from nuclear weapon in its territories. H. Social Order and Social Justice

i. Sec. 9, Art. II – The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order to ensure prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty by means of public policies that will render adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising in standard of the living and an improved quality of life for all.

ii. Sec. 10, id. – The State promotes social justice in all phases of national development.iii. Sec. 11, id. – The State values the dignity of every human person and ensure full respect

of human rights. iv. Sec. 18, id. – The state affirms labor as a national economic force. It shall protect the

rights of the workers and promote their welfare. v. Sec. 21, id. – The state shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian

reform. vi. Tondo Med. Center Emlys. vs. CA, G.R. No. 167324, July 17, 2007vii. Definition of Social Justice

I. Rearing of youthi. Sec. 12, Art. II - The State recognized the sanctity of family life and shall protect and

strengthen family as the basic autonomous social institution. It shall protect equally the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The primary and natural rights and duty of the parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efificiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the government.

ii. Department of Education vs. San Diego, 180 SCRA 533

J. Right to balance ecologyi. Sec. 15, Art. II – The State protects and promotes the right to health of the people and

shall instill health consciousness among them.ii. Sec. 16, id – The State promotes and advance the right of the people to a balanced and

healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

iii. Oposa vs. Factoran, 101083, July 30, 1993iv. LLDA vs. CA, G.R. No. 110120, March 16, 1994

H. National Economyi. Sec. 19, Art. II – The State shall develop a self reliant and independent national economy

effectively controlled by Filipinos.

ii. Garcia vs. BOI, G.R. No. 92024, November 9, 1990

Read: Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2002, 50-72Bernas, 1987 Constitution, A Commentary, 2003, pp. 35-100

VI. SEPARATION OF POWERS

A. PurposesB. Blending of powersC. Checks and BalancesD. Role Judiciary

i. Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139E. Justiciable and political question

i. In re sotto, 82 Phil. 595ii. Casibang vs. Aquino, 92 SCRA 642iii. Tañada vs. Cuenco, 100 Phil. 1101iv. Sanidad vs. Comelec, 73 SCRA 333v. Daza vs. Singson, 180 SCRA 496vi. Tañada vs. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997vii. Francisco vs. House of Representatives, 460 Phil. 830viii. Gutierrez vs. House, 643 SCRA 198

F. Political question under the 1987 Constitution

Read: Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2002, 73-90

VII. DELEGATION OF POWERS

A. Rulei. Jaworski vs. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 144463, January 14, 2004ii. Lim vs. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649

B. Permissible delegationi. Tariffs powers to the president (Sec. 28 (2), Art. VI)

a. Garcia vs. Executive Sec., 211 SCRA 219b. Phil. Inter Island Ass. vs. CA, G.R. No. 100481, Jan. 22, 1997

ii. Emergency powers to the president (Sec. 23(2), Art. VI)a. Araneta vs. Dinglasan, 84 Phil. 368b. Rodriguez vs. Gella, 92 Phil. 603

iii. Delegation to the people (Sec. 32, Art. VI; Sec. 10, Art. X; Sec. 2, Art. XVII)

a. R.A. 6735iv. Delegation to local governments

a. R.A. 7160b. People vs. Vera, 65 Phil. 56

v. Delegation to administrative bodiesa. Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies vs. POEA, 243

SCRA 666b. Eastern Shipping vs. POEA, 166 SCRA 533c. Pelaez vs. Auditor General, 15 SCRA 569d. Municipality of San Narciso vs. Mendez, 239 SCRA 11

C. Test of valid delegationi. Completeness test

a. U.S. vs. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil. 1ii. Sufficient standard test

a. Ynot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659b. People vs. Vera, suprac. Tatad vs. Secretary of Energy, G.R. 124360 November 5, 1997d. De la Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294

Read: Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2002, 73-90 Nachura, Outline pp. 67-70 Bernas, 1987 Constitution, A Commentary, 2003, pp. 655-673

VIII. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

A. The Senate i. Sec. 1, Art. VIii. Composition (Sec. 2, Art. VI)iii. Qualification (Sec. 3, Art. VI; Sec. 2, Art. IV)

a. Social Justice Society vs. DDB, G.R. 161658, Nov. 3, 2008iv. Term of Office (Sec. 4, Art. VI)

a. Limitation on the term of officeB. The House of Representatives

i. Sec. 1, Art. VIii. Composition (Sec. 5, Art. VI)

a. District Representativesb. Party-List Representatives

b.i Veterans Federation Party vs. Comelec, G.R. 136781, Oct. 6, 2000b.ii Ang Bagong Bayani vs. Comelec, G.R. 147589, June 26, 2001b.iii Ang Bagong Bayani- OFW Labor Party vs. Comelec, June 25, 2003b.iv Banat vs. Comelec, G.R. 179295, April 21, 2009

c. Apportionmentc.i Tobias vs. Abalos, G.R, 114783, Dec. 8, 1994c.ii Mariano vs. Comelec, G.R. 118577, March 7, 1995c.iii Montejo vs. Comelec, G.R. 118702, March 16, 1995c.iv Baguyao vs. Comelec, G.R. 176970, December 8, 2008

iii. Qualification (Sec. 6, Art. VI)a. district representatives

a.i Romuladez-Marcos vs. Comelec, GR 119976, Sept. 18, 1995a.ii Aquino vs. Comelec, GR 120265, Sept. 18, 1995a.iii Domingo vs. Comelec, GR 134015, July 19, 1999a.iv. Co. vs. HRET, GR 92191-92, July 30, 1991a.v Benzon vs. Cruz, GR 142840, May 7, 2001a.vi Valles vs. Comelec, GR 137000, August 9, 2000

b. party-list representativesiv. Term of Office (Sec. 7, Art. VI)

a. Dimaporo vs. Mitra, GR 96859, October 15, 1991b. Fariñas vs. ES, GR 147387, December 10, 2003

C. Election (Sec. 9, Art. VI)i. Tolentino vs. Comelec, GR 148334, January 21, 2004

D. Salaries (Sec. 10, Art. VI)E. Parliamentary Immunities (Sec. 11, Art. VI)

i. Immunity from arresta. People vs. Jalosjos, GR 132875, Feb. 3, 2000

ii. Privilege of Speech and Debatea. Jimenes vs. Cabangbang, 17 SCRA 876b. Pobre vs. Defensor Santiago, A.C. No. 7399, Aug. 25, 2009

F. Conflict of Interest (Sec. 12, Art. VI)G. Incompatible and Forbidden Office (Sec. 13, Art. VI)H. Inhibitions and disqualifications (Sec. 14, Art. VI)

i. Puyat vs. De Guzman, 113 SCRA 33I. Session (Sec. 15, Art. VI)J. Officers (Sec. 16(1), Art. VI)

i. Avelino vs. Cuenco, 83 Phil. 17ii. Santiago vs. Guingona, GR 134577, November 18, 1998iii. Arroyo vs. De Venecia, GR 127255, August 14, 1997

K. Internal Discipline (Sec. 16(3), Art. VI)i. Osmeña vs. Pendantun, 109 Phil. 863ii. Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan, GR 118364, August 10, 1996

L. Journals (Sec. 16(4), Art. VI)i. U.S. vs. Pons, 34 Phil. 729 ii. Casco vs. Philippine Chemical Co. vs. Gimenez, 7 SCRA 347iii. Astorga vs. Villegas, 56 SCRA 714iv. Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630v. Philippine Jusges Association vs. Prado, 227 SCRA 703

M. Adjournment (Sec. 16(5), Art. VI)N. Electoral Tribunals (Sec. 17, Art. VI)

i. Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 134ii. Abbas vs. Senate, 166 SCRA 651iii. Bondoc vs. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792iv. Guerrero vs. Comelec, GR 137004, July 26, 2000v. Pimentel vs. HRET, GR 141489, November 29, 2002vi. Limkaichong vs. Comelec, GR 178831-32, April 1, 2009

O. Commission on Appointment (Sec. 18, Art. VI)i. Daza vs. Singson, 180 SCRA 496ii. Coseteng vs. Mitra, 187 SCRA 377iii. Guingona vs. Gonzales, GR 106971, October 20, 1992

P. Organization (Sec.19, Art. VI)

Read: Cruz, supra, pp. 109-150 Bernas, supra, pp. 653-792

IX. POWERS OF CONGRESS

A. Legislative Power in GeneralB. Procedure (How does a bill become a law?)C. Origin of the bills (Sec. 24, Art. VI)

i. Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630D. Prohibited Measures

i. Sec. 31, Art. VIii. Sec. 30, Art. VI

ii.a. Fabian vs. Desierto, GR 129742, September 16, 1998E. Subject and Titles of the Bills (Sec. 26, Art. VI)

i. Lidasan vs. Comelec, 21 SCRA 496ii. Philconsa vs. Gimenez, 15 SCRA 479iii. Tio vs. Videogram Regulatory Board, 151 SCRA 208iv. Phil. Judges Ass. vs. Prado, GR 105371, Nov. 11, 1993v. Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630

F. Approval of Bills (Sec. 27, Art. VI)i. Item Veto

i.a. CIR vs CTA, 185 SCRA 329i.b. Philconsa vs. Enriquez, GR 113105, August, 19, 1994i.C. Gonzales vs. Macaraig, GR 87636, Nov. 19, 1990

G. Power of Appropriation (Sec. 29, Art. VI)

i. Definitionii. Implied limitations

ii.a. Pascual vs. Secretary of Public Works, 110 Phil. 331 iii. Constitutional Limitations

iii.a. Sec. 25(6), Art. VIiii.b. Sec. 25(4), Art. VIiii.c. Sec. 25(1), Art. VIiii.d. Sec. 29(1), Art. VIiii.e. Sec. 26(1), Art. VIiii.f. Garcia vs. Mata, 65 SCRA 520iii.g. Sec. 25(5), Art. VIiii.h. Demetrio vs. Alba, 148 SCRA 208

iv. Appropriation for Sectarian Purposes (Sec. 29(2), Art. VI)v. Automatic Re-appropriation (Sec. 25(7), Art. VI) vi. Special Funds (Sec. 29(3), Art. VI)

Osmeña vs. Orbos, GR 99886, March 31, 1993vii. Cases

vii.a. Guingona vs. Carague, GR 94571, April 22, 1991vii.b. Demetria vs. Alba, 148 SCRA 208

H. Power of Taxation (Sec. 29, Art. VI)i. Gerochi vs. Department of Energy, GR 159796, July 17, 2007ii. Lladoc vs. CIR, 14 SCRA 292iii. Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, GR 101273, July 3, 1992iv. Systems Plus Computer College vs. Caloocan city, GR 146382,

August 7, 2003v. Central Mindanao University vs. DAR, GR 100091, Oct., 22, 1992vi. Commissioner of BIR vs. CA, GR 124043, Oct. 14, 1998vii. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Santos, GR 119252,

August 18, 1997viii. John hay Peoples Alternative Coalition vs. Lim, GR 119775, October 24, 2003

I. Power of ConcurrenceJ. The War Powers (Sec. 23 (1), Art. VI)K. Legislative Inquiries (Sec. 21, Art. VI)

i. Bengzon vs. Blue Ribbon, GR L-89914, November 20, 1991ii. Sabio vs. Gordon, GR 174177, October 17, 2006iii. Standard Chartered Bank vs. Senate Committee,

GR 167173, Dec. 27, 2007iv. Senate Blue Ribbon vs. Judge Majaducon, GR 136760, July 29, 2003

L. Executive Privilege (Sec. 22, Art. VI)i. Senate vs. Ermita, GR 169777, April 20, 2006ii. Neri vs. Senate, GR 180643, September 4, 2008


X. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

A. Executive Power (Sec. 1, Art. VII)i. Marcos vs. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668

B. Qualifications (Sec. 2, Art. VII)i. Tecson vs. Comelec, GR 161434, March 3, 2004

C. Election and Proclamation (Sec. 4, Art. VII)i. Macalintal vs. Comelec, GR 157013, July 10, 2003ii. Pimentel vs. Joint Canvassing Committee, June 22, 2004iii. Fernando Poe, Jr., vs. GMA, March 29, 2005

D. Term of Office (Sec. 4, Art. VII)

E. The Vice-President (Secs. 3 and 4, Art. VII)F. Presidential Succession (Secs. 7 and 8, Art. VII)

i. Estrada vs. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, G.R. 146738, March 2, 2001ii. Estrada vs. Desierto, GR 146710-15, March 2, 2001

G. Vice-Presidential Succession (Secs. 9 and 10, Art. VII)H. Oath of Office (Sec. 5, Art. VII)I. Perquisites and Inhibitions (Sec. 6 and 13, Art. VII)

i. Civil Liberties Union vs. The Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317ii. Doromal vs. Sandiganbayaniii. Bitonio, Jr. vs. COA, GR 147392, March 12, 2004iv. Public Interest Center vs. Elma, GR 138965, June 30, 2006

J. Presidential Immunityi. Estrada vs. Desierto, supra.

K. Temporary Disability (Sec. 11, Art. VII)i. Estrada vs. Desierto, supra.


XI. POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT

A. The Appointing Power (Sec. 16, Art. VI)i. Government vs. Springer, 50 Phil. 259ii. Bermudez vs. Executive Secretary, GR No. 131429, August 4, 1999iii. Flores vs. Drilon and Gordon, GR 104732, June 22, 1993iv. Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549v. Calderon vs. Carale, GR 91639, April 23, 1992vi. Matibag vs. Benipayo, GR 149036, April 2, 2002vii. Rufino vs. Endriga, G.R. 139565, July 21, 2006

B. Limitation on the Power of Appointment (Secs. 14 and 15, Art. VII)i. In re Appointments of Valenzuela, A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC,

November 9, 1998ii. De Castro vs. JBCii. De La Rama vs. CA, GR 131136, Feb. 28, 2001

C. The Removal Poweri. Alajar vs. Alba, 100 Phil. 683

D. Power of Control (Sec. 17, Art. VII)i. Drilon vs. Lim, 235 SCRA 135ii. Villena vs. Secretary of Interior, 67 Phil. 451iii. Araneta vs. Gatmaitan, 101 Phil. 328iv. Gascon vs. Arroyo, 178 SCRA 582v. Lacson-Magallanes vs. Paño, 21 SCRA 895vi. Ang-Angco vs. Castillo, 9 SCRA 619vii. Namarco vs. Arca, 29 SCRA 648viii. De leon vs. Carpio, 178 SCRA 457ix. Blaquera vs. Alcasid, GR 109406, September 11, 1998x. Dadole vs. COA, GR 125350, December 3, 2002xi. DENR vs. DENR Employees, GR 149724, August 19, 2003

E. The “Take Care” ClauseF. The Military Power (Sec. 18, Art. VII)

i. Commander-In-Chiefii. Habeas Corpusiii. Martial Lawiv. Limitations on Military Powerv. Cases

a. IBP vs. Zamora, GR 141284, August 15, 2000b. Lacson vs. Perez, GR 147780, May 10, 2001

c. Sanlakas vs. Exec. Secretary, GR 159085, February 3, 2004d. David vs. Arroyo, GR 171396, May 3, 2009

G. Pardoning Power (Sec. 19, Art. VII)i. Definitionii. Limitations

a. People vs. Salle, 250 SCRA 582b. Llamas vs. Orbos, GR 99031, October 15, 1991c. Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, GR 132601, Jan. 19, 1999

iii. Kinds of Pardona. Culanag vs. Director of Prisons, 20 SCRA 1123b. Espuelas vs. Provincial Warden of Bohol, 108 Phil. 353

iv. Effects of Pardona. Monsanto vs. Factoran, Jr., 170 SCRA 190b. Torres vs. Gonzales, 152 SCRA 272c. In Re: Torres vs. Director of Bureau of Prisons, GR 122338, December 29, 1995d. Drilon vs. Court of Appeals, GR 91626, October 25, 1989

v. Amnestya. Barrioquinto vs. Fernandez, 85 Phil. 642

H. Barrowing Power (Sec. 20, Art. VII)I. Diplomatic Power (Sec. 21, Art. VII)

i. International agreementsii. Deportation of aliensiii. Cases

a. Pimentel vs. Ermita, GR 158088, July 6, 2005b. Lim vs. Executive Secretary, GR 151445, April 11, 2002c. Bayan vs. Executive Secretary, GR 138570, October 10, 2000d. Secretary of Justice vs. Judge Lantion, GR 139465, October 17, 2000

J. Budgetary Power (Sec. 22, Art. VII)K. Informing Power (Sec. 23, Art. VII)J. Other Powers


XII. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

A. Independence of the Judiciarya. Sec. 4(1), Art. VIIIb. Sec. 2, Art. IXc. Sec. 2, Art. VIIId. Sec. 30, Art. VIe. Sec. 9, Art. VIIIf. Sec. 6, Art. VIIIg. Sec. 11, Art. VIII

B. Judicial Power (Sec. 1, Art. VIII)a. Santiago vs. Bautista, 32 SCRA 188b. Marcos vs. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668c. Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, GR 132601, January 19, 1999d. United States vs. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683e. Infotech Foundation vs. Comelec, GR 159139

C. Congress and Judicial Power (Sec. 2, Art. VIII)a. Malaga vs. Penachos, GR 86695, September 3, 1992

D. Fiscal Autonomy (Sec. 3, Art. VIII)a. Radiowealth vs. Agregado, 86 Phil. 429b. Bengzon vs. Drilon, GR 103524, April 15, 1992

E. Composition of the Supreme Court (Sec. 4(1), Art. VIII)F. En banc Cases (Sec. 4(2), Art. VIII)G. Division Cases (Sec. 4(3), Art. VIII)

a. Fortich vs. Corona, GR 131457, August 19, 1999b. People vs. Dy, GR 115236-37, January 16, 2003c. People vs. Ebio, GR 147750, September 29, 2004

H. Appointments (Sec. 9, Art. VIII)a. Qualifications (Sec. 7, Art. VIII)

i. In Re: JBC vs. Judge Quitain, JBC No. 013, August 22, 2007ii. Kilosbayan vs. Ermita, GR 177721, July 3, 2007

b. Judicial and Bar Council (Sec. 8, Art. VIII)I. Power of Judicial Review

a. Marbury vs. Madison, 1 Cranch 137b. Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139c. Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, GR 115455, August 25, 1994

J. Requisites of a Judicial Inquirya. Actual Case or controversy

i. Aetna Life Ins. Co. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227ii. PACU vs. Secretary of Education, 97 Phil. 806iii. Philconsa vs. Villareal, 52 SCRA 477

b. Property Partyi. Joya vs. PCGG, GR 96541, August 24, 1993ii. Macasiano vs. NHA, GR 107921, July 1, 1993iii. Mariano, Jr. vs. Comelec, GR 118577, March 7, 1995iv. Oposa vs. Factoran, GR 101083, July 30, 1993v. Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, GR 113375, May 5, 1994

c. Earliest Opportunityd. Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Question

i. Laurel vs. Garcia, 187 SCRA 797ii. Zandueta vs. De la Costa, 66 Phil. 115

K. Effects of a Declaration of Unconstitutionalityi. Norton vs. Shelby, 118 U.S. 425ii. Springer vs. Government of Phil. Islands, 297 U.S. 553iii. Manila Motors Co., vs. Flores, 99 Phil 738

L. Partial Unconstitutionalityi. In re Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534ii. Flores vs. Comelec, 184 SCRA 484

M. Power of the Supreme Court (Sec. 5, Art. VIII)a. Original Jurisdiction (Sec. 5(1), Art. VIII)b. Appellate Jurisdiction (Sec. 5(2), Art. VIII)c. Temporary assignment of Judges (Sec. 5(3), Art. VIII)d. Change of Venue or Place of Trial (Sec. 5(4), Art. VIII)e. Rule-Making Power (Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII)

i. In Re Edillon, 84 SCRA 554ii. Primicias vs. Ocampo, 93 Phil. 451iii. Bustos vs. Lucero, 81 Phil. 648iv. Javellama vs. DILG, GR 102549, August 10, 1992v. In Re: Petition to Disqualify Atty. De Vera, A.C No. 6052,

December 11, 2003f. Appointment of Court Personnel (Sec. 5(6), Art. VIII)g. Administrative Supervision of Courts (Sec. 6, Art. VIII)

i. Maceda vs. Vasquez, GR 102781, April 22, 1993ii. People vs. Gacot, GR 116049, July 13, 1995iii. Judge Caoiles, jr. vs. Ombudsman, GR 132177, July 19, 2001

N. Tenure of Judges (Sec. 11, Art. VIII)i. Ocampo vs. Secretary of Justice, January 18, 1955ii. Zandueta vs. De la Costa

iii. Vargas vs. Rilloraza, 80 Phil 297iv. De La Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294

O. Prohibition of Appointment (Sec. 12, Art.VIII)i. In Re: Judge Manzano, 166 SCRA 246

P. Consultation of Court (Sec.n13, Art. VIII)Q. Decisions of Court (Sec. 14, Art. VIII)

i. Air France vs. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155ii. Valdez vs. Court of Appeals, GR 85082, February 25, 1991iii. People vs. Lizada, GR 143468, January 24, 2003iv. Velarde vs. Social Justice Society, GR 159357, April 8, 2004

R. Periods of Decision (Sec. 15, Art. VIII)i. Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC, November 28, 2001ii. Court Administrator vs. Quiñola, October, 20, 1999

S. Salaries of Judges (Sec. 10, Art. VIII)T. Annual Report (Sec. 16, Art. VIII)


XIII. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

A. Independent Commissions (Secs. 1, 4, and 5 Art. IX,)i. Macalintal vs. Comelec, GR 157013, July 10, 2003ii. Civil Service vs. Department of Budget, GR 158791, July 22, 2005iii. Civil Service vs. DBM, GR 158791, February. 10, 2006

B. Salary (Sec. 3, Art. IX)C. Disqualification (Sec. 3, Art. IX)D. Reappointment

i. Nationalista Party vs. De Vera, 35 Phil. 126ii. Republic vs. Imperial, 96 Phil. 770iii. Brillantes vs. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358

E. Power to make Rules (Sec. 6, Art. IX)i. Aruelo vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 107852, October 20, 1993ii. Antonio vs. Comelec, GR 135869, September 22, 1999

F. Proceedingsi. Cua vs. Comelec, 156 SCRA 582ii. Mison vs. COA, 187 SCRA 445iii. Mateo vs. Court of Appeals, GR 113219, August 14, 1995iv. Ambil vs. Comelec, GR 143398, October 25, 2000v. Dumayas, Jr., vs. Comelec, GR 141952-53, April 3, 2001


XIV. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

A. Organization of the Commissioni. Gaminde vs. COA, GR 140330, December 13, 2000

B. Scope of Civil Servicei. NHA vs. Juco, 134 SCRA 172ii. National Service Corporation vs. NLRC, 168 SCRA 122iii. EIIB vs. Court of Appeals, GR 129133, Nov. 25, 1998

C. Appointments (Sec. 2(2), Art. IX-B)D. Security of Tenure (Sec. 2(3), Art. IX-B)

i. Dario vs. Mison, 175 SCRA 84ii. Mendoza vs. Quisumbing, 186 SCRA 108

iii. Canonizado vs. Aguirre, GR 133132, January 25, 2000iv. Secretary Gloria vs. Court of Appeals, GR 119903, August 15, 2000v. Buklod ng Kawanian ng EIIB vs E.S., GR 142801-802, July 10, 2001vi. Dimayuga vs. Benedicto II, GR No. 144153, January 16, 2002vii. Seneres vs. Comelec and Robles, GR 178678, April 16, 2009

E. Partisan Political Activity (Sec. 2(4), Art. IX-B)F. Self-Organization (Sec. 2(5), Art. IX-B)

i. SSSEA vs. Court of Appeals, 175 SCRA 686ii. MPSTA vs. Laguio, 200 SCRA 323

G. Temporary EmployeesH. Objectives of Civil Service (Sec. 3. Art. IX-B)

i. Nazareno, et.al., vs. City of Dumaguete, GR 181559, October 2, 2009I. Oath of Office (Sec. 4, Art. IX-B)J. Disqualification (Sec. 6, Art. IX-B)

i. People vs. Sandiganbayan, GR 164185K. Salary Standardization (Sec. 5, Art. IX-B)L. Incompatible Office (Sec. 7, Art. IX-B)

i. Flores vs. Drilon, GR 104732, June 22, 1993M. Double Compensation (Sec. 8, Art. IX-B)

i. Quimzon vs. Ozaeta, 98 Phil. 705ii. Santos vs. Court of Appeals, GR 139792, November 22, 2000iii. Benguet State University vs. COA, GR 169637, June 8, 2007


XV. COMMISSION ON ELECTION

A. Composition and Qualifications (Sec. 1, Art. IX-C)i. Brillantes vs. Yorac, GR 93867, December 18, 1990ii. Cayetano vs. Monsod, GR 100113, September 3, 1991

B. Powers and Functions (Sec. 2, Art. IX-C)i. Enforcement of Election Laws (Sec. 2(1), Art. IX-C)ii. Decision of Election Contest (Sec. 2(3), Art. IX-C)iii. Decision of Administrative Questions (Sec. 2(3), Art. IX-C)iv. Power to Deputize (Sec. 2(4), Art. IX-C)v. Registration of Political Parties (Sec. 2(5), Art. IX-C)vi. Improvement of Elections (Sec. 2(6), Art. IX-C)

C. Election Period (Sec. 9, Art. IX-C)D. Party System (Secs. 6,7, and 8, Art. IX-C)E. Funds (Sec. 11, Art. IX-C)F. Judicial Review

Read: Cruz, supra, pp. 327-344 Bernas, supra, pp. 1035 - 1063

XVI. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

A. Composition and Qualification (Sec. 1, Art. IX-D)B. Powers and Functions (Sec. 2, Art. IX-D)

i. Matute vs. Hernandez, 66 Phil. 68ii. Dingcong vs. Guingona, Jr., 162 SCRA 782iii. Danville Maritime, Inc., vs. COA, 175 SCRA 701iv. Mamaril vs. Domingo, GR 100284, October 13, 1993v. Sambeli vs. Province of Isabela, GR No. 92279, June 18, 1992

vi. Polloso vs. Gangan & COA, GR 140563, July 14, 2000vii. Perreño vs. COA, GR 162224, June 7, 2007

C. Prohibited Exemptions (Sec. 3, Art. 3, IX-D)D. Report (Sec. 4, Art. IX-D)


XVII. ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

A. Public Office is a Public Trust (Sec. 1, Art. XI)i. Hipolito vs. Mergas, A.M. No. P-90-412, March 11, 1991

B. Impeachment (Sec. 2, Art. XI)i. Romulo vs. Yñiguez, 141 SCRA 263ii. In Re Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771

C. Impeachable Officers D. Grounds for ImpeachmentE. Procedure (Sec. 3, Art. IX-D)

i. Francisco, et.al. vs. House Speaker, GR 160261, November 10, 2003ii. Gutierrez vs. House

F. Sandiganbayan (Sec. 4, Art. IX-D)i. Nuñez vs. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433ii. Mayor Lecaroz vs. Sandiganbayan, 128 SCRA 324

D. Ombudsman (Secs. 5 and 6, Art. XI)i. Compositionii. Qualification and Appointmentiii. Termiv. Powers and Functionsv. Salary

E. Casesi. Ombudsman vs. CSC, GR 162215, July 30, 2007ii. Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, 160 SCRA 843iii. BIR vs. Ombudsman, GR 115103, April 11, 2002iv. Laurel vs. Desierto, GR 145368, April 12, 2002

F. Special ProsecutorG. Ill-gotten WealthH. LoansI. Assets and LiabilitiesJ. Change of Citizenship


XVIII. AMENDMENT AND REVISION

A. Amendment by initiative and Referendum (Secs. 1 and 2, Art. XVII)i. Santiago vs. Comelec, GR 127325, March 19, 1997ii. Lambino vs. Comelc, GR 174153, October 25, 2006

B. Amendment, Revision, Revolution (Sec. 3, Art. XVII)i. Tolentino vs. Comelc, 41 SCRA 702ii. Del Rosario vs. Comelec, 35 SCRA 367iii. Imbong vs. Comelec, 35 SCRA 28iv. Tolentino vs. Comelec, 41 SCRA 702

C. Ratification (Sec. 4, Art. XVII)i. Planas vs. Comelec, 49 SCRA 105ii. Javellana vs. Executive Secretary, GR 361142, March 31, 1973

review

Documents