You are on page 1of 13


Basis of Philippine Political Law

*Macariola vs Asuncion, AM NO 133-J, May 31, 1982
When the US acquires a territory, the interim political law is immediately displaced by a transfer of sovereignty. However, private laws
continue unless in conflict with the US political law.
State as a Legal Concept
*US vs Dorr, GR NO 1051, May 19, 1903
Government is the aggregate of authorities which rule a society.
The term "government" as employed in ACT No. 292 of the U.S. Philippine Commission is used in the abstract sense of the existing
political system as distinguished from the concrete organism of the Government. The article in question contains no attack upon the
governmental system of the U.S., and it is quite apparent that, though grossly abusive as respects both the Commission as a body and
some of its individual members, it contains no attack upon the governmental system by which the authority of the U.S. is enforced in
these islands. The form of Government by a Civil Commission and a Civil Governor is not assailed. It is the character of the men who are
instructed with the administration of the government that the writer is seeking to bring into disrepute.
*Poindexter vs Greenhow, 114 US 270, 5 S CT 903, 29 L ED 185, Apr 20, 1885
Philippine Constitutional Development
1935 Constitution
Vera vs Avelino, GR NO L-543, Aug 31, 1946
On the ground of the separation of powers, the judiciary cannot order a co-equal branch to reinstate a member of their own.
>protests have been filed with the Senate Electoral Tribunal against the election of Vera, Diokno, and Romero
Mabanag vs Lopez Vito, GR NO L-1123, Mar 5, 1947
>If a political question conclusively binds the judges out of respect to the political departments, a duly certified law or resolution also
binds the judges under the enrolled bill rule born of that respect.
>Political questions are not within the province of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such questions has been
conferred upon the courts by express constitutional or statutory provision. This doctrine is predicated on the principle of the separation of
Gonzales vs COMELEC, GR NO L-28196, Nov 9, 1967
The system of checks and balances underlying the judicial power to strike down acts of the Executive or of Congress transcending the
confines set forth in the fundamental laws is not in derogation of the principle of separation of powers, pursuant to which each
department is supreme within its own sphere.
> Congress MAY act as a Constituent Assembly in proposing amendments to the constitution AND AT THE SAME TIME, call for a
constitutional convention for the same purpose. In ratifying proposed amendments to the constitution, the constitution provides that
such ratification should be through AN ELECTION or more accurately A PLEBISCITE as the court clarifies. Whether or not it is a special or
regular election is not relevant since such question hinges on the wisdom and not the legality if the action.
Tolentino vs COMELEC, GR NO L-34150, Oct 16, 1971
The Con-Con cannot propose on a piecemeal basis as only one election, not multiple elections, will be held for ratification. Because the
Con-Con is empowered by the Constitution, it is therefore limited by it.
> Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution, the proposed amendment in question cannot be presented to the people for ratification
separately from each and all of the other amendments to be drafted and proposed by the Convention.

Planas vs COMELEC, GR NO L-35925, Jan 22, 1973

But it was subsequently overtaken by Martial Law. On 30 November 1972, the Convention submitted its "draft" to the President, who
called on a plebiscite to ratify the Constitution. This was questioned in the case of Planas v COMELEC, 49 SCRA 105 (1973) on the ground
that there can be no freedom of expression under Martial Law.
1973 Constitution

Javellana vs Executive Secretary, GR NO L-36142, Mar 31, 1973

Political questions are questions of wisdom that are decided on by the people and not by judicial review.
Sanidad vs COMELEC, GR NO L-44640, Oct 12, 1976
W/N the President has power to propose amendments to the Constitution.
YES. If the president has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the Interim Assembly, there is no reason why he cannot
validly discharge the function of that Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution, which is but adjunct, although peculiar, to its
gross legislative power. This, of course, is not to say that the President has converted his office into a constituent assembly of that nature
normally constituted by legislature. Rather, with the interim National Assembly not convened, and only the Presidency and the Supreme
Court in operation, the urges of absolute necessity render it imperative upon the President to act as agent for and in behalf of the people
to propose amendments to the Constitution. Parenthetically, by its very constitution, the Supreme Court possesses no capacity to propose
amendments without constitutional infractions. For the President to shy away from that actuality and decline to undertake the amending
process would leave the governmental machinery at a stalemate or create in the powers of the State a destructive vacuum. After all, the
constituent assemblies or constitutional conventions, like the President now, are mere agents of the people.
Mitra v COMELEC, GR NO 56503, Apr 4, 1981
> a new Constitution can come into effect by the acquiescence of the people. The fact that people voted in the succeeding referendums
regarding the 1976 amendments (after Marcos announced the 1973 Consti was ratified), and the two elections (for interim Batasang
Pambansa and local government officials; also held under the present 1973 constitution) is proof that they recognize that the 1973
Constitution is in full force and effect.
> The judiciary, during the period of martial law from September 21, 1972 to January 17,
1981, performed its functions and discharged its responsibility as a separate branch of the government. It never ceased all the while to
exercise the power of judicial review. There can be no justification then for the reckless assertion that upon the proclamation of martial
law and while it was in force, constitutionalism, in terms of the exercise of the power of judicial review and respect for individual rights,
no longer held sway in the Philippines.
Legaspi vs Minister of Finance, GR NO L-58289, Jul 24, 1982
Petition: Legaspi filed a petition to declare Presidential Decree 1840 "granting tax amnesty and filing of statement of assets and liabilities
and some other purposes" unconstitutional
>Presidential Decree 1840 was issued pursuant to the Presidents power to legislate under Amendment No. 6. When the President acts as
a legislator as in the case at bar, he does not need the concurrence of the Batasan. Rather, he exercises concurrent authority vested by
the Constitution.
>Legislative power, provided in Amendment No. 6, is a power which the Constitution directly confers upon the President or allows to be
delegated to him by the Batasan in times of crises and emergencies.
PBA vs COMELEC, GR NO L-72915, Dec 19, 1985
Petitions for this case are DISMISSED, with less than 10 votes to declare BP 883 as unconstitutional. From the justiciable question of the
constitutionality of BP 883, the issue has transformed into a political question wherein the decision for elections lie in the capacity of the
sovereignty of the people.
>Whether or not BP 883, an act calling for snap elections for President and Vice President, is unconstitutional. ANS: NO. Article VII, Section
9 of the Constitution does not yield the conclusion that BP 883 is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not prohibit the President from
tendering a resignation that is not immediately effective.
>Whether or not the Supreme Court can prohibit the elections for President and Vice President.
ANS: NO. Supervening events have turned the issue into a political question which can be truly decided only by the people in their
sovereign capacity. The Court cannot stand in the way of letting the people decide through their ballot, either to give the incumbent
president a new mandate or to elect a new president. The court should defer to the exercise of the peoples public right to vote and to
express their judgment, since there is no question more political than the election.
Marcos Jr vs Republic, GR NO 189434, Apr 25, 2012, Mar 12, 2014
This petition was filed by Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. seeking a reversal of the 2 April 2009 Decision of the Anti-Graft court in Civil Case No.
0141, which granted the motion for partial summary judgment and declared all assets and properties of Arelma, S.A an entity created by
Marcos, forfeited in favor of government.
DECISION: Petition is DENIED. Decision by Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED. All assets, properties, and funds belonging to Arelma, S.A. are
hereby forfeited in favor of Respondent Republic of the Philippines.

Freedom Constitution
In Re Letter of Associate Justice Puno, AM NO 90-11-2697, Jun 29, 1992
Petitioner Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno wrote a letter seeking the correction of his seniority ranking (based on the dates of their
respective appointments) in the Court of Appeals. As provided by EO No.33 issued by President Corazon Aquino, any member who is
reappointed will retain the precedence to which he was entitled under his original appointment. Associate Justices Campos and Javellana
questioned the petition on grounds that Puno cannot claim reappointment because the courts where he had previously been appointed
ceased to exist when the Marcos regime was toppled. The Court ruled in favor of Justices Campos and Javellana, thereby retaining the
number 26 ranking of Associate Justice Puno.
>HELD: Motion for Reconsideration of Justices Campos and Javellana is GRANTED and the seniority rankings of members of the Court of
Appeals, including that of the petitioner, at the time the appointments were made by the President in 1986, are recognized and upheld.
>The present Court of Appeals is a new entity, for it was created in the wake of the massive reorganization launched by the revolutionary
government. Appointments thereto are of no relation to earlier appointments to the abolished courts
Lawyers League vs Aquino, GR NO 73748, May
The petitioners questioned the legitimacy of the government of President Corazon C. Aquino.
>The counsel for the petitioners withdrew the petition and hereby dismissed by the court.
>The Supreme Court dismissed the petition because the legitimacy of the Aquino government is a political matter, where only the people
of the Philippines are the judge, and therefore not a justiciable matter. The people have accepted the government of President Corazon
Aquino and the community of nations has recognized its legitimacy.
In Re Saturnino Bermudez, GR NO 76180, Oct 24, 1986
The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter.
>This case seeks to clarify who are the incumbent Pres and VP referred to in Article XVIII, Sec. 5 of the proposed 1986 Constitution. Note
that after the February 1986 Snap Elections, Makasiar named Marcos as Pres and Tolentino as VP, while Teehankee named Aquino as Pres
and Laurel as VP. The court dismissed the case as a) it is not within their jurisdiction, the petition is in effect a suit against the President
and s/he is immune from suits during her incumbency, and b) there is no cause of action, it being in public records and common public
knowledge that Aquino and Laurel are the incumbent Pres and VP, and in view of the fact that the Aquino Govt. is THE Philippine
Government, de facto and de jure.
>SC ruling in In Re: Saturnino Bermudez that incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to court during the
period of their incumbency and tenure but not beyond.
1987 Constitution
De Leon vs Esguerra, GR NO 76180, Aug 31, 1987
Under the 1987 Constitution, all existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions, and other issuances not
inconsistent, with this Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed or revoked.
Defensor-Santiago vs COMELEC, GR NO 127325, Mar 19, 1997
Delfin aimed to lift the terms of elective officials and demanded that the COMELEC take the necessary steps to initiate a referendum for
his cause. However, the Supreme Court held that it is only through Congress - by calling a Constitutional Convention or by taking the role
of the Constitutional Commission - that revisions can be made. The COMELEC was enjoined from participating in Delfins effort to launch
a plebiscite until a law has been passed by Congress.
Estrada vs Desierto, Gr Nos 146710-15, Mar 2, 2001 And Apr 3, 2001
Political Question doctrine or the power of judicial review (Marbury v. Madison)
Resignation is not a high level legal abstraction. It is a factual question and its elements are beyond quibble: there must be an intent to
resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. The validity of a resignation is not governed by any formal requirement
as to form. It can be oral. It can be written. It can be express. It can be implied. As long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal
Lambino vs COMELEC, GR NO 174153, Oct 25, 2006, Nov 21 2006
Judicial Review
Marbury vs Madison, 5 Us 137, Feb 1803
It is the Courts duty to determine which of the conflicting rules would govern the case. This is the essence of juridical duty.
> Yes, the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and valid

It is the duty of the Judicial Department to interpret the law. And if two laws conflict each other, the Court must decide on the operation
of each. If courts are to regard the Constitution and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary Legislative act, the Constitution and not
such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Angara vs Electoral Commission, GR NO L-45081, Jul 15, 1936
The Electoral Commission shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the
National Assembly (ART 4, SEC 4 of the 1935 Constitution).
>In justifying the power of judicial review, J. Laurel pointed out that when the court allocated constitutional boundaries, it neither asserts
supremacy, nor annuls the acts of the legislature. It simply carries out the obligations imposed upon it by the constitution to determine
conflicting claims and to establish for the parties the rights which the constitution grants to them.
Conditions for the Exercise of Judicial Review
People vs Vera, GR NO L-45685, Nov 16, 1937, Dec 22, 1937
All Laws and statures must uphold the constitution.
>In People v Vera, 66 Phil 56 (1937), J. Laurel laid down the doctrine that judicial review can only be exercised in an actual case and
This means (1) a party with a personal and substantial interest, (2) an appropriate case, (3) a constitutional question raised at the earliest
possible time, and (4) a constitutional question that is the very lis mota of the case, i.e. an unavoidable question.
*Rescue Army vs Municipal Court of City of Los Angeles, 331 US 549, Jun 9, 1947
The Federal Supreme Courts decision should be without prejudice to any rights which may arise upon final determination of the
Municipal Court proceeding, relative to review in the Supreme Court of that determination. With that reservation the only course
consistent at once with preservation of appellants' rights and with adherence to long-observed policy is to decline to exercise jurisdiction.
Political Question
Tanada vs Cuenco, GR NO L-10520, Feb 28, 1957
Political questions are questions to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority
has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of government.
*Quino vs COMELEC, GR NO 197466, Oct 18, 2011, Nov 29, 2011, Nov 13, 2012
The Court will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: (1) theres a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the exceptional
character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; (3) when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
*Pormento vs Estrada & COMELEC, GR NO 191988, Aug 31, 2010 22, 1986
The Court can only adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies. It is not empowered to decide moot questions that are non-justiciable.
Quizon vs COMELEC, GR NO 177927, Feb 15, 2008
A case becomes moot and academic when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in
passing upon the merits There is no actual substantial relief to which petitioner would be entitled and which would be negated by the
dismissal of the petition
Minoza vs Lopez, GR NO 170914, Apr 13, 2011
No, the petitioner has no standing.
General rule: Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest, who stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
>Jurisprudence defines interest as "material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere
interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. By real interest is meant a present substantial interest, as distinguished
from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest."
>"To qualify a person to be a real party-in-interest in whose name an action must be prosecuted, he must appear to be the present real
owner of the right sought to be enforced."
Philippine Jurisprudence on the Matter
*In Re: Saturnino Bermudez, GR NO 76180, Oct 24, 1986

The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. The Aquino government has been accepted by the people. It is not
merely a de facto government but a de jure government.
Dumlao vs COMELEC, GR NO L-52245, Jan 22, 1980
Laws shall not be declared invalid unless the conflict with the Constitution is clear beyond reasonable doubt.
*PBA vs COMELEC, GR NO L-72915, Dec 19, 1985
Supervening events have turned the issue into a political question which can be truly decided only by the people in their sovereign
capacity. The Court cannot stand in the way of letting the people decide through their ballot, either to give the incumbent president a
new mandate or to elect a new president. The court should defer to the exercise of the peoples public right to vote and to express their
judgment, since there is no question more political than the election.
Lozano vs Nograles, GR NO 187883, June 16, 2009
Locus Standi or Legal Standing is not an open invitation for the ignorant and ignoble to file petitions that prove nothing but their cerebral
deficit. (< haha this)
Office of the Ombudsman vs Liggayu, GR NO 174297, Jun 20 2012
The disciplining authority (in this case the OMBUDSMAN) should not appeal the reversal of its decision because instead of being impartial
and detached, becomes an active participant in prosecuting the respondent.
National Appellate Board Of Napolcom vs Mamauag, GR NO 149999, Aug 12, 2005

Transcendental Importance
CREBA vs Energy Regulatory Commission, GR NO 174697, Jul 8, 2010
The Court provided the following instructive guides as determinants in determining whether a matter is of transcendental importance: (1)
the character of the funds or other assets involved in the case; (2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory
prohibition by the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the government; and (3) the lack of any other party with a more direct
and specific interest in the questions being raised.
Taxpayer's Suit
Anti-Graft League Of The Phil. vs San Juan, GR NO 97787, Aug 1, 1996
This petition for certiorari with application for preliminary injunction seeking the nullification of the 20 March 1989 compromise
>To constitute a taxpayers suit, 2 requisites must be met: (1) public funds are disbursed by a political subdivision or instrumentality; (2)
the petitioner is directly affected by the alleged ultra vires act.
>NO. In the case at bar, disbursement of public funds was only made in 1975 when the province bought the lands from Ortigas. The 1st
requirement is absent. When, however, no such unlawful spending has been shown, as in the case at bar, petitioner, even as a taxpayer,
cannot question the transaction validly executed by and between the province and ortigas for the simple reason that it is not privy to said
contract. Petitioner has no locus standi.
Functions of Judicial Review
Salonga vs Cruz Pano, GR NO L-59524, Feb 18, 1985
>[on Symbolic/Matters of Great Public Importance]The case against petitioner for subversion which was filed by the fiscal on the basis of
flimsy testimony given by Victor Lovely was already dismissed without prejudice by the fiscal (upon anticipation of adverse ruling). And
yet, the SC noting that as the fiscal said the dismissal of the charges was without prejudice to the filing of new ones for the same acts
because the petitioner has not been arraigned and double jeopardy does not apply, the case is not entirely moot, decided to perform its
duty to "formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts and doctrines or rules" for the guidance of the bar and
bench. It thus, went on to lecture about its antiquated understanding of the inciting test, and how it could not be proved by a mere
Javier vs COMELEC, GR NO L-68379-81, Sept 22, 1986
>Sec 3 of Art 12-C of the 1973 Constitution, which was:
was interpreted by the Solicitor General to allow the divisions of the Comission to decide pre-proclamation controversies in this case as
said controversy was not a contest at the time. SG describes that a contest should involve contention of both parties for the same office

where the one contesting wants not only to oust the intruder but also to be put into office. Commission decides controversies after
>SC calls the SGs interpretation irrational and couldnt have been the intent of the framers of the Constitution. Interpreting it this way
gives more powers to the division than to the Commission en banc. Constitution clearly intended for the Commission to get full authority
for election cases (supported by the 1978 Election Code, Sec 175)
>Further, the SC defines the term contest as any matter involving the title or claim of the title to an elective office, made before or
after the proclamation of the winner, whether or not the contestant is claiming the office in dispute.
>The purposes of Sec 3 (Art 12-C 1973 Consti) could not have been achieved had the Commission been only been able to act en banc after
the proclamation (it would have been too late).
Standing for Taxpayers, Voters, Concerned Citizens, Legislators, etc.
Advocates For Truth In Lending Inc. vs Banko Sentral Monetary Board, Gr No, 192986, Jan 15, 2013

Resident Marine Mammals Of The Protected Seascape Tanon Strait vs Reyes, GR NO 180771, Apr 24, 2012, Apr 21, 2015
According to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, a Filipino citizen may file a citizen suit for violation of environmental laws.
The Court explained that this was to further encourage the protection of the environment, based on the principle that human beings are
the stewards of nature. In this case, standing is not granted to the marine mammals of Tanon Strait, but to the petitioners, juridical
persons, who have proven that they are indeed stewards of nature.
According to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
Facial Challenge Against As-Applied Challenge
Cruz vs DENR, GR NO 135385, Apr 13, 1999, Dec 6 2000
The only instance where a facial challenge to a statute is allowed is when it operates in the area of freedom of expression. In such
instance, the overbreadth doctrine permits a party to challenge the validity of a statute even though as applied to him it is not
unconstitutional but it might be if applied to others not before the Court whose activities are constitutionally protected. But in other
cases, even if it is found that a provision of a statute is unconstitutional, courts will decree only partial invalidity unless the invalid portion
is so far inseparable from the rest of the statute that a declaration of partial invalidity is not possible.
Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, GR NO 148560, Nov 19, 2001, Jan 29, 2002

Effects of a Declaration of Unconstitutionality and the Doctrine of Operative Fact

Dumlao vs COMELEC, GR NO L-52245, Jan 22, 1980
Section 4 of BP 52 provided that any retired elective local official who had received retirement pay to which he was entitled under the law
and who have been 65 years old at the commencement of the term of office to which he sought to be elected, was not qualified to run for
the same elective local office from which he had retired.
Dumlao filed for prohibition to enjoin the enforcement of the law, claiming that this was directed at him as former governor of Nueva
> The SC held that (a) he had no standing, since he had not been injured by the operation of the law, no petition for his disqualification
having been filed and (b) the action was a request for advisory opinion. And yet, the SC upheld the validity "because of paramount public
interest", declaring that the legislative purpose of infusing younger blood in local government was valid. Adapted.

Serrano De Agbayani vs Pnb, GR NO L-23127, Apr 29, 1971

Prior to having a legislative or executive act nullified, its existence as a fact must be recognized.
>In 1939, Agbayani borrowed P450 from PNB secured by a realty mortgage. In 1944, the loan matured but PNB could not
collect because it was at this time of the war. In 1945, Pres. Osmena issued the Debt Morato- rium Law (EO #32), suspending
the payment of loans for four years due to the ravages of war. In 1948, RA 342 extended the Debt Moratorium Law for another
eight years (up to 1956). In 1953, however, the SC declared RA 342 as unconstitutional in the case of Rutter v Esteban. In
1959, PNB filed a suit for payment of the loan. Has the action prescribed?

> But if we take the unorthodox view, as the SC did, the action could still prosper. The period from 1945 when the law was
promulgated, to 1953 when it was declared unconstitutional should not be counted for the purpose of prescription since the
Debt Moratorium Law was operative during this time. In effect, only 7 years had elapsed (1944-45, 1953-59).
Indeed, it would be unjust to punish the creditor who could not collect prior to 1953 because the Debt Moratorium Law was
effective, only to be told later that his respect for an apparently valid law made him lose his right to collect.

*Rutter vs Esteban, GR NO L-3708, May 18, 1953

>Section 2, Republic Act No. 342: All debts and other monetary obligations payable by private parties within the Philippines originally
incurred or contracted before December 8, 1941, and still remaining unpaid, any provision or provisions in the contract creating the same
or in any subsequent agreement affecting such obligation to the contrary notwithstanding, shall not be due and demandable for a period
of eight (8) years from and after settlement of the war damage claim of the debtor by the United States Philippine War Damage
Commission, without prejudice, however, to any voluntary agreement which the interested parties may enter into after the approval of
this Act for the settlement of said obligations.
>. Statutes declaring a moratorium on obligations are generally constitutional
Such laws were often passed during or after times of financial distress such as wars and disasters. Similar laws were passed in some US
states after the civil war and they have been declared constitutional. Some laws however, were declared unconstitutional where the
period of moratorium prescribed is indefinite or unreasonable.
>The argument that moratorium laws impair the obligation of contracts does not hold water. It is justified as a valid exercise of the state
of it's police power.
Thus the true test of constitutionality of a moratorium statute lies in the determination of the period of a suspension of the remedy. It
is required that such suspension be definite and reasonable, otherwise it would be violative of the constitution.
>R.A. No. 342 is unconstitutional for being unreasonable
Planters Products Inc. vs Fertiphil Corp, GR NO 166006, Mar 14, 2008
The doctrine of operative fact is the exception to the general rule and is not a necessary consequence of constitutional invalidity. It only
aplies as a matter of equity and fair play, and is only applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on
those who have relied on the invalid law.
Castro vs Deloria, GR NO 163586, Jan 27, 2009
Where a judicial interpretation declares a law unconstitutional or abandons a doctrinal interpretation of such law, the Court, recognizing
that acts may have been performed under the impression of the constitutionality of the law or the validity of its interpretation, has
consistently held that such operative fact cannot be undone by the mere subsequent declaration of the nullity of the law or its
interpretation. Thus, the declaration can only have a prospective application.
>But where no law is invalidated nor doctrine abandoned, a judicial interpretation of the law should be deemed incorporated at the
moment of its legislation. Thus, its retroactive effect.
*Uy vs Sandiganbayan, GR NO 105965-70, Aug 9, 1999, Feb 22, 2000, Mar 20, 2001
the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. (Aug 9, 1999)
# the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and other courts. (March 20, 2001)
Araullo vs Aquino III, GR NO 209287, Jul 1, 2014, Feb 3 2015
Only projects, activities and programs that can no longer be undone and whose beneficiaries relied in good faith on the unconstitutional
activitys (DAP) validity are objects of the operative fact doctrine.
The doctrine of operative fact cannot be applied to the co-authors and co-actors of an unconstitutional act.
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
COCOFED vs Republic, GR NO 177857-58, Sep 17, 2009, Feb 11, 2010, Jan 24, 2012, Sep 4, 2012
Corollary to the principle of separation of powers is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction that the courts will DEFER to the decisions of the
administrative offices and agencies by reason of their expertise and experience in the matters assigned to them.
Interpretation of the Constitution
*Francisco Jr vs House Of Representatives, GR NO 160261, Oct 28, 2003, Nov 10, 2003
*CLU vs Executive Secretary, GR NO 83896, Feb 22, 1991

*Manila Prince Hotel vs Gsis, GR NO 122156, Feb 3, 1997

doctrine of constitutional supremacy: if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract, whether promulgated
by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes, is null and void and without any force
and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every
statute and contract
*Tanada vs Cuenco, GR NO L-10520, Feb 28, 1957
Political questions are questions to be decide by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority
has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of government.
*Peralta vs Director Of Prisons, GR NO L-49, Nov 12, 1945
The Philippines as a State
Magallona vs. Ermita, GR No 187167, July 16, 2011, Oct 18, 2011
The reach of the exclusive economic zone as per UNCLOS III extends way beyond the waters covered by the rectangular demarcation
under the Treaty of Paris. And whether as internal waters in the Constitution or archipelagic waters in the UNCLOS, the Philippines
still exercises sovereignty over all bodies of water lying landward to the baselines.
The Province of North Cotabato vs. The Govt of the Rep. of the Phil. Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, GR No. 183591, Oct. 14, 2008,
Nov 11, 2008
#No part of the constitution nor any law in the Philippines provides for a province, municipality, or the ARMM to be recognized as
associative to the Philippines (i.e to set aside a portion of the territory for such a purpose)
In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration between the Philippines and China, PCA Case No. 2013-19, July 12, 2016
# When a dispute exists between two states concerning the interpretation or application of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), they have a number of dispute settling mechanisms at their disposal. Apart from negotiations, or procedures
established by general, regional, bilateral or other agreements, Part XV of the UNCLOS itself provides for conciliation, and several
compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions. Among these compulsory procedures are judicial proceedings before the International
Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) or the International Court of Justice (ICJ); special arbitration, where the dispute relates to
provisions on fisheries, the marine environment, marine scientific research, or navigation; and arbitration, governed by Annex VII of the
Definition of People
Qua CheeGan vs. Deportation Board, GR No. L-10280, Sept 30, 1963
An alien, whose presence is injurious to the security of the State, may be deported from the country (as per Section 69 of the Revised
Administrative Code) by the President of the Philippines provided that prior investigation of his case was conducted.
Co vs. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representative, GR Nos. 92191-92, July 30, 1991
The court cannot go into the collateral procedure of stripping one of his citizenship after death. An attack on citizenship may only be done
through direct action for nullity. To ask the court to declare the grant of PH citizenship to respondents father as null and void would run
against due process
Series of Conflicting SC Decisions re Citizenship
*Roa vs. Collector of Customs, GR No. L-7011, Oct 30, 1912
In Roa v Commissioner of Customs (1912), during the regime of the Philippine Bill of 1902, Roa, who was born in the Philippines in 1889 by
a Chinese father and Filipino mother, was declared by the court to be a citizen by jus soli.
*Paz Chua vs. Secretary of Labor, GR No. 46451, Sept 30, 1939
One cannot invoke Filipino nationality merely because of the fact that she was born in this country.
In Paz Chua v Secretary of Labor (1939), during the regime of the 1935 Constitution, Paz Chua who was born in Tarlac in 1914 of Chinese
father and Filipino mother, was not declared a citizen. The SC held, without alluding to the Roa case, that the jus soli was never adopted in
the Philippines.
*Torres vs. Tan Chim, GR No. L-46593, Feb 3, 1940

# Philippine Bill (Act of July 1, 1902), section 4 of which provides: That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein
who were Spanish subjects on the 11th day of April, 1899, and then resided in said Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto,
shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands and as such entitled to the protection of the United States.
> In Torres v Tan Chim (1940), Tan, who was in the Philippines in 1893 of Chinese father and Filipino mother, was declared a citizen.
According to J. Laurel, the principle of jus soli still applied. The 1934 Concon was aware of the Roa ruling and did not intend to overrule it.
The principle of territoriality or jus soli
*Tan Chong vs. Sec of Labor and Lam Swee Sang vs. Commonwealth of the Philippines, GR No. 47616, Oct 15, 1941, Sept 16, 1947 A
man retains his domicile, if he leaves it animus revertendi or with the intention of returning.
a case decided during the regime of the Republic upon a motion for reconsideration of a pre-war decision, Tan, who was born in 1915,
and Lam, who was born in 1900, both in the Philippines, of Chinese father and Filipino mother, were not declared citizens. According to J.
Padilla, the 1935 Constitution never adopted the jus soli principle; the mere fact of birth in the Philippines does not confer citizenship on a

father), the re-acquisition did not extend to Co since Co was never a Filipino citizen to begin with and could not reacquire such
citizenship. However, by Ps reacquisition of her Filipino citizenship, Co is now entitled to the provisions of Art IV Sec 1 (4) of the 1935
Constitution. Albeit, he could not avail to elect for Filipino citizenship at this time since he is still a minor and has yet to reach his point of
Republic vs. Guy, GR No. L-41399, July 20, 1982

*Talaroc vs. Uy, GR No. L-5397, Sept 26, 1952

# In Talaroc v Uy (1950), considering his service during the war and his having been elected mayor in Misamis, was declared by the SC a
citizen "simply due to birth", without mention of jus soli or jus sanguinis.

Yao MunTek vs. Republic, GR No. L-23383, Jan 28, 1971

# The Statutory requirement that the notice of hearing in a naturalization case shall be published once a week, for three consecutive
weeks, in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or province, is jurisdictional. Non-compliance renders all
proceedings in such a case as null and void.
The order of the court allowing one to take an oath of allegiance is not yet final until the 30 days from the receipt of the order by the
Solicitor General, within which time the government may appeal, has elapsed.

TioTiam vs. Republic, GR No. L-9602, Apr 25, 1957

The last of the flip-flop decisions of the SC on citizenship. A person born of alien parents can be given the benefit of our naturalization law
considering that s/he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications prescribed in the law for the acquisition of
Philippine citizenship.

*Valles vs. COMELEC, GR No. 137000, Aug 9, 2000

The principle of jus sanguinis is the basis for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship, in the 1935, 1973, and 1986 Constitution. Jus
Sanguinis is defined as a child follows the citizenship of parents regardless of place of birth
Jus soli childs citizenship is determined by the place of birth (just in case sir would ask for the definition)

Caram Rule
It would be worthy to note that the flip-flop in decision can be explained by the date of birth of the applicant in each case. Those born
before 11 April 1899 were the ones to whom jus soli was applied, for they very well were citizens under the Treaty of Paris.
c) Those who were naturalized in accordance with law. (Act. No. 2927 of the Philippine Commission).
d) Those who were citizens under the 1935 Constitution.
1) Those who were citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution (15 November 1935, the date of the inauguration of the
Commonwealth government).
2) Those born in the Philippines of foreign parent, who before the adoption of the Constitution had been elected to public office in the
This is the so-called "Caram rule in honor of Caram, a Syrian, elected to the 1934 Constitutional Convention. The rule was adopted to
avoid the absurdity of the situation.
The rule only applies to elective positions, not appointive ones.

Dual Citizenship and Dual Allegiance

AASJS vs. Datumanong, GR No. 160869, May 11, 2007
Re-acquisition and Retention of Citizenship
David vs. Agbay, GR No. 199113, Mar 18, 2015
Natural born citizens who lost their citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country before passage of act will reacquire their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
Natural born citizens who became citizens after RA 9225 took effect shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon the taking of the same

Chiongbian vs. De Leon, GR No. L-2007, Jan 31, 1949

#If one is considered a citizen under the Caram rule, his children would also be considered citizens, but under the third category of Section
1 Article IV of the 1935 Constitution (those whose fathers are citizens)
Point of Reckoning
Cu vs. Republic, GR No. L-3018, July 18, 1951
In order to elect Philippine citizenship, it is enough that (1) the person's mother was a Filipino at the time of her marriage to the alien
father, even if she subsequently lost her citizenship by virtue of the marriage and (2) the person be a child of that marriage, for him to
elect Philippine citizenship.
Villahermosa vs. Commissioner of Immigration, GR No. L-1663, March 31, 1948
P is the Filipina mother of Delfin Co (whose father is Chinese). When he was 16, Delfin, without any notice to his mother, journeyed to
China to fulfill his youthful lust for adventure. After two years, however, he decided to return to the Philippines through illegal entry in
Ilocos Norte. He was apprehended by the authorities along with 69 other Chinese aliens upon arrival.
>Having learned of his sons incarceration and recommended deportation, P re-acquired her citizenship in the hopes that this may
exculpate him from deportation. Hence this petition.
>HELD: Co is not a citizen Citizenship is determined upon entry in Philippine territory (legal or otherwise) and upon the appraisal of the
proper authorities. When Co illegally entered the Philippines, he was deemed a Chinese citizen because by jus sanguinis, his father was
Chinese. Furthermore, while his mother did re-acquire her citizenship by virtue of CA 63 (which was lost during her marriage to Cos

Use of Foreign Passport

Arnado vs. COMELEC, GR No. 210164, August 18, 2015
>Petitioner Arnado is a natural-born Filipino citizen who was naturalized as citizen of the US. Subsequently, Arnado applied for
repatriation under Republic Act No. 92255 before the Consul General of the Philippines in San Franciso, USA.
Poe-Llamanzares vs. COMELEC, GR 221697, March 8, 2016
Loss and Re-acquisition of Philippine Citizenship
Loida Nicolas-Lewis vs. COMELEC, GR No. 162759, August 4, 2006
Art. 5, Sec. 2 provides an exception to the residency requirement in section 1 of the 1987 constitution
the instant petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court rules and so holds that those who retain or re acquire Philippine citizenship under
Republic Act No. 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Re Acquisition Act of 2003, may exercise the right to vote under the system of
absentee voting in Republic Act No. 9189, the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003.
*Macalintal vs. COMELEC, GR No. 157013, July 10, 2003
For overseas absentee voting, an immigrant or permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host country is disqualified from
voting because they are deemed to have renounced their Filipino citizenship. However, immigrants that execute affidavits to show that
they have not abandoned
Cordora vs. COMELEC, GR No. 176947, Feb 19, 2009
Case about Tambunting winning an election, and Cordora complaining to COMELEC about it. Tambunting is a dual citizen, of a Filipino
mom and American dad. Dual citizenship is not a ground for disqualification from running for any elective local position. However,

concern is of those who were naturalized at a foreign country, and were made to renounce their allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines. Regarding those instances, they are only allowed to retain their Filipino citizenship by swearing allegiance to the supreme
authority of the Republic of the Philippines.
Natural-born Citizens:
Bengson III vs. HRET, GR No. 142840, May 7, 2001
Japzon vs. COMELEC, GR No. 180088, Jan 19, 2009
The term residence" is to be understood not in its common acceptation as referring to "dwelling" or "habitation," but rather to
"domicile" or legal residence, that is, "the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter
where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi). A domicile of origin is acquired by
every person at birth. It is usually the place where the childs parents reside and continues until the same is abandoned by acquisition of
new domicile (domicile of choice).

*The Province of North Cotabato vs. The Govt of the Rep. of the Phil Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, GR No. 183591, Oct. 14, 2008,
Nov 11, 2008
Reagan vs. CIR, GR No. L-26379, Dec 27, 1969
The Philippines is independent and sovereign. Its authority may be exercised over its entire domain. There is no portion thereof that is
beyond its power. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme. That is the extent of the jurisdiction, both territorial and personal. There is no
diminution of its sovereignty.
Saguisag vs. Ochoa, Jr., GR 212426, January 12, 2016, July 26, 2016
# The court ruled that EDCA doesnt encroach on Philippine sovereignty. It merely gives the US temporary access to PH land and facilities
and these lands remain under PH jurisdiction. US access is purely at the invitation of PH.
Territorial, Personal and Extrajudicial Jurisdiction
Filartiga vs. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, Docket 79-6090, June 30, 1980
# Among the rights universally proclaimed by all nations, is the right
to be free of physical torture. Indeed, for purposes of civil liability, the torturer has become like the pirate and slave trader before him
hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind. Every nation has jurisdiction.
Sovereign Immunity
Basis of Immunity
*Kawananakoa vs. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, Apr 8, 1907
*Republic vs. Villasor, GR No. L-30671, Nov 28, 1973
# The State may not be sued without its consent. The state is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory,
but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right

In Personamvs In Rem
Republic vs. Feliciano, GR No. 70853, Mar 12, 1987
A suit for the recovery of property is not an action in rem, but an action in personam. It is an action directed against a specific party or
parties, and any judgment therein binds only such party or parties.
Official vs Personal Capacity
Shauf vs. CA, GR No. 90314, Nov 27, 1990
This is the case about two naval officers in Subic, discriminating upon a Filipina Female. Equal opportunity complaint was filed, and issue
was W/N its a suit against the state. Unauthorized acts of officers of a foreign state, are not acts of the state, and any action against
officials or officers by one whose rights have been invaded or violated, for the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the state
*Lansang vs. CA, GR No. 102667, Feb. 23, 2000
Beyond the Scope of Authority
Republic vs. Sandoval, GR No. 84607, Mar 19, 1993
The heirs of the deceased of the January 22, 1987 Mendiola massacre, together with those injured (Caylao group, also respondents in this
case), instituted a petition (G.R. No. 84645) seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Orders of Judge Edilberto G. Sandoval (May 31,
1988 2 and August 8, 1988 3 ) which dismissed the case against the Republic of the
The State has not waived its immunity from suit, i.e. the State has not given consent to a suit against it
Wylie vs. Rarang, GR No. 74135, May 28, 1992
#Public officials can be held personally accountable for acts claimed to have been performed in connection with official duties where they
have acted beyond legal power and authority or where there is showing of bad faith.
Contracts Connected with Sovereign Functions
Republic vs. Nolasco, GR No. 155108, Apr 27, 2005, Dec 14, 2005, June 26, 2006
The State may not be sued without its consent. Immunity from suit is based on the political truism that the State, as a sovereign, can do no
wrong. References Kawananakoa doctrine
Mobil Phils. Exploration, Inc. vs. Customs Arrastre Service and BOC, GR No. L-23139, Dec 17, 1966
# Any suit, action or proceeding against it (office of the Government), if it were to produce any effect, would actually be a suit, action or
proceeding against the Government itself, and the rule is settled that the Government cannot be sued without its consent, much less over
its objection.
The Customs Arrastre Service later delivered to the broker of the consignee three (3) cases only of the shipment
Gascon vs. Arroyo, GR No. 78389, Oct 16, 1989
petitioners seek to annul and set aside the "Agreement to Arbitrate" entered into by and between the Republic of the Philippines,
represented by Executive Secretary Joker T. Arroyo, and ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, represented by its President, Eugenio Lopez,

Suit against/not against the State

Begosa vs. PVA, GR No. L-25916, Apr 30, 1970
Exception to Non-Suability of State: It is well settled that where a litigation may have adverse consequences on the public treasury,
whether in the disbursements of funds or loss of property, the public official proceeded against not being liable in his personal capacity,
then the doctrine of non-suability may appropriately be invoked. It has no application, however, where the suit against such a functionary
had to be instituted because of his failure to comply with the duty imposed by statute appropriating public funds for the benefit of
plaintiff or petitioner

De los Santos vs. IAC, GR No. L-71998-99, June 2, 1993

#The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen.

*Del Mar vs. PVA, GR No. L-27299, June 27, 1973

Agencies of the government, such as PVA, cannot be sued as it is considered a suit against the State without its consent except if the
action is against a functionary who fails to comply with his statutory duty (*applicable in money claims against government provided that
the public funds demanded are already appropriated by statute for the benefit of the claimant.)

Failure to Raise Immunity as Defense

U.S. vs. Guinto, GR No. 76607, Feb 26, 1990
# Article XVI Sec 3 1987 Consti: The State may not be sued without its consent.

Justice and Equity

EPG Construction Company vs. Vigilar, GR No. 131544, Mar 16, 2001
# The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. It is just as
important, if not more so, that there be fidelity to legal norms on the part of officialdom if the rule of law were to be maintained.

Exception to Non-Suability of State: It is well settled that where a litigation may have adverse consequences on the public treasury,
whether in the disbursements of funds or loss of property, the public official proceeded against not being liable in his personal capacity,
then the doctrine of non-suability may appropriately be invoked. It has no application, however, where the suit against such a functionary
had to be instituted because of his failure to comply with the duty imposed by statute appropriating public funds for the benefit of
plaintiff or petitioner
Waiver of Immunity under VFA
Arigo vs. Swift, GR No.206510, September 16, 2014
#Any waiver of immunity under the VFA applies only to criminal jurisdiction and not civil action, but the US government may still be liable
for damages of the environment in Philippine territory under customary laws of navigation (Art. 31 UNCLOS)

Consent to be sued
Republic vs. Purisima, GR No. L-36084, Aug 31, 1977
*Republic vs. Feliciano, GR No. 70853, Mar 12, 1987
The doctrine of non-suability applies in the case. An action for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land against the State
brings the State to court just like any other private person who is claimed to be usurping a piece of property.A suit for recovery is not an
action in rem but an action in personam.
Money Claims
Sayson vs. Singson, GR No. L-30044, Dec 19, 1973
A money claim against the government predicated on a contract is a suit against the State to which it must consent. Money claims must
be filed to the Auditor General through a process prescribed by law.
*National Home Mortgage Finance Crop vs. Abayari, GR No. 166508, October 2, 2009
# It is within the power of the Commision on Audit has the power, authority, and duty to examine money claims due from or owing to any
government agency. These claims must be filed with CoA before these agencies can proceed.
Merritt vs. GPI, GR No. L-11154, Mar 21, 1916
Consolidated Cases of U.S. vs. Guinto, U.S. vs. Rodrigo, U.S. vs. Ceballos, U.S. vs. Alarcon, GR No. 76607, 79470, 80018, 80258, Feb 26,
1990 Suability depends on the consent of the state to be sued, liability on the applicable law and the established facts. The circumstance
that a state is suable does not necessarily mean that it is liable; on the other hand, it can never be held liable if it does not first consent to
be sued. Liability is not conceded by the mere fact that the state has allowed itself to be sued. When the state does waive its sovereign
immunity, it is only giving the plaintiff the chance to prove, if it can, that the defendant is liable.
[Article 2180 of the New Civil Code] establishes a rule of liability, not suability. The government may be held liable under this rule only if it
first allows itself to be sued through any of the accepted forms of consent.
[T]he agent performing his regular functions is not a special agent even if he is so denominated, as in the case at bar. No less important,
the said provision appears to regulate only the relations of the local state with its inhabitants and, hence, applies only to the Philippine
government and not to foreign governments impleaded in our courts.
*Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC, GR No. 104269, Nov 11, 1993
# The State can be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract, express or implied. However, the money claim
should be first brought up to the Commission on Audit
SSS vs. CA, GR No. L-41299, Feb 21, 1983
# Government owned or controlled Corporations can be sued for actions of special agents but if the error was a product of the negligence
of an employee who is not doing special functions, the GOCC cannot be held liable. The case then should be filed against the employee.

PNB vs. CIR, GR No. L-32667, Jan 31, 1978

#Funds of a government--owned or controlled corporation though public in character not exempt from suit. What is exempted are funds
of government offices. The funds of the Philippine Homesite and Housing Corporation belong to an incorporated government-owned
entity and are not immune from suit as the PHHC is governed by the Corporation Law.
*NASSCO vs. CIR, GR No. L-17874, Aug 31, 1963
#As a GOCC, the NASSCO has a personality of its own, distinct and separate from that of the Government, and the Government cannot be
held liable for any debt, liability, obligation or damage that might be contracted, incurred or caused by it.
NHA vs. Heirs of Guivelondo, GR No. 154411, June 19, 2003
Rayo vs. CFI of Bulacan, GR No. L-55273-83, Dec 19, 1981
NPC, as a government owned and controlled corporation, has a personality of its own, distinct and separate from that of the Government,
with capacity to sue and be sued (under its charter).
Germany Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) vs. CA, GR. No. 152318, Apr 16, 2009
State immunity from suit may be waived by general or special law. The special law can take the form of the original charter of the
incorporated government agency.
Our Constitution stipulates that a State immunity from suit is conditional on its withholding of consent; hence, the laws and circumstances
pertaining to the creation and legal personality of an instrumentality or agency invoking immunity remain relevant.
*Holy See vs. Rosario, Jr., GR No. 101949, Dec 1, 1994
# jure imperii and jure gestionis
>A foreign state cannot be sued in its performance of its diplomatic duties
>The petitioner is the Holy See, represented by the Papal Nuncio. The respondent is Starbright Sales Inc
>Petitioner received a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila for a lot of land
Implied Consent
When Government enters into business contracts
U.S. vs. Ruiz, GR No. L-35645, May 22, 1985
#Sometime in May, 1972, the United States invited the submission of bids for 2 projects
>Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. responded to the invitation and submitted bids. Subsequent thereto, the company received from the United
States two telegrams requesting it to confirm its price proposals and for the name of its bonding company.
China National Machinery and Equipment Corp vs. Santamaria, GR No. 185572, Feb 7, 2012, Apr 24, 2012
# There are two theories for sovereign immunity. In ABSOLUTE THEORY, a sovereign cannot, without its consent, be made a respondent in
the courts of another sovereign. In RESTRICTIVE THEORY, the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts (acts
jure imperii) of a State, but not regard to private acts (acts jure gestioni).
EXPLANATION: Since the Philippine adheres to restrictive theory, it is crucial to ascertain the legal nature of act involved whether the
agency (implementing agency) performs governmental, or proprietary function. It is not enough to say that the corporation or agency is
an implementing agency of the state and is therefore immune to suit. The corporation/agency still needs to show that it does not a
perform proprietary function in order not to be sued.
PTA vs. Phil. Golf Devt and Equipment, Inc. GR No. 176628, Mar 19, 2012
Malong vs. PNR, GR No. L-49930, Aug 7, 1985
Suits against State agencies with respect to matters in which they have assumed to act in a private or nongovernmental capacity are not
suits against the State.
Rule on Suits against Government Agencies
*SSS vs. CA, 120 SCRA 707, GR No. L-41299, Feb 21, 1983
#Case about Spouses getting a loan from SSS, and paying sometimes not exactly timely payments. SSS filed for oreclosure pursuant to
accelaration clause in contract. Advertised the foreclosed house for bidding THREE times even after spouses informed them to stop since
they are paying properly after the FIRST advertisement. CA & SC said that, since priv-respondents were current during date of first
advertisement, yes, it is negligence by employees after being told to stop after the first one. The State is is liable for acts committed by its

officials (wrongly so under art. 2180, as it is supposed to be only for special agents). Decision was blasted by Justice Makasiar on his
dissent, stating that it is, negligence, but filing case under Art. 2180 (case against special agents) is incorrect, since they were official
agents. Case shouldve been filed under Art. 2176.f
*Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Assn., GR No. L-15751, Jan 28, 1961
*Civil Aeronautics Administration vs. CA, GR No. L-51806, Nov 8, 1988
An agency is not immune from suit when it engages in function/s pertaining to a private/proprietary entity.
Amigable vs. Cuenca, GR No. L-26400, Feb 29, 1972
One may sue the government without thereby violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit without its consent. For this
doctrine cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. It is unthinkable then that precisely because there was a
failure to abide by what the law requires, the government would stand to benefit.

*Alfonso vs. Pasay City, GR No. L-12754, Jan 30, 1960

*Ministerio vs. CFI of Cebu, GR No. L-31635, Aug 31, 1971
# The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. It is
unthinkable then that precisely because there was a failure to abide by what the law requires, the government would stand to benefit.
Santiago vs. Republic, GR No. L-48214, Dec 19, 1978
# A donor, with the Republic or any of its agencies being the donee, is entitled to go to court in case of an alleged breach of the conditions
if such donation.
Commissioner of Public Highways vs. Burgos, GR No. L-36706, Mar 31, 1980
# In expropriation cases, the interest at the legal rate in favor of the landowner accrued not from the taking of the property but when the
claim for compensation was filed with the Auditor General. The taking of private property by the Government in the exercise of its power
of eminent domain does not give rise to a contractual obligation. (continuation of amigable vs cuenca)
Froilan vs. Pan Oriental Shipping, GR No. L-6060, Sept 30, 1954
#When the government files a counterclaim, it can be taken as an implied consent to be sued by the party against whom such
counterclaim is filed.
Scope of Consent
Commissioner of Public Highways vs. San Diego, GR No. L-30098, Feb 18, 1970
*Alzua vs. Johnson, GR No. L-7317, Jan 31, 1912
# No judge, justice of the peace, or assessor shall be liable to a civil action for the recovery of damages by reason of nay judicial action or
judgment rendered by him in good faith, and within the limits of his legal powers and jurisdiction.
UP vs. Dizon, GR No. 171182, Aug 23, 2012
#Trial judges should not immediately issue writs of execution or garnishment against the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies
and instrumentalities to enforce money judgments. Suability of the State did not necessarily mean its liability.
*PNB vs. CIR, GR No. L-32667, Jan 31, 1978
The People's Homesite and Housing Corporation, being a GOCC, had a juridical existence enabling it to sue and be sued.
Measure of Recovery
*Ministerio vs. CFI of Cebu, GR No. L-31635, Aug 31, 1971

The State was sued for unduly taking the possession of land for the widening of Gorodo Avenue without any prior agreements and
without paying just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled that the State cannot be sued however, the officers or officials of the
government involved can be sued because they werent able to perform their jobs as provided by law. Had they done so, the problem
wouldve been avoided. The State does not authorize illegal acts. They also held that due compensation was necessary.
*CommStatessioner of Public Highways vs. Burgos, GR No. L-36706, Mar 31, 1980
Republic vs. CA, GR No. 116111, January 21, 1999
SM Land, Inc. vs. BCDA, GR No. 203655, August 13, 2014, March 18, 2015, September 7, 2015
# The government cannot be estopped by the mistakes or errors of its agents. Suffice it to state, however, that this precept is not
absolute. As jurisprudence teaches, this rule on estoppel cannot be used to perpetrate an injustice.
Jurisdictional Immunity of the State
*Germany vs. Italy, ICJ Reports, Feb 3, 2012
Immunity of a State from the jurisdiction of another state holds (as in the case of Germany) as long as the actions committed by the State
are those of jus imperii regardless if they are violative of human rights.

*U.S. vs. Dorr, GR No. 1051, May 19, 1903
#Republica vs Dennie: An attack upon the lawfully established system of civil government in the Philippine Islands, like that which Dennie
was accused of making upon the republican form of government lawfully established in the United States and in the State of Pennsylvania
would, we think, if couched in scandalous language, constitute the precise offense described in section 8 of Act No. 292 as a scurrilous
libel against the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands.
*PVTA vs. CIR, GR No. L-32052, July 25, 1975
# The distinction between the constituent and ministrant functions of the government has become obsolete. The government has to
provide for the welfare of its people. RA No. 2265 providing for a distinction between constituent and the ministrant functions is
irrelevant considering the needs of the present time: The growing complexities of modern society have rendered this traditional
classification of the functions of government obsolete.
*ACCFA vs. ACCFA Supervisors Assn., GR No. L-21484, Nov 29, 1969
The implementation of the land reform program of the government according to Republic Act No. 3844 is most certainly a governmental,
not a proprietary, function; and for that purpose Executive Order No. 75 has placed the ACA (new name of ACCFA) under the Land Reform
Project Administration.
Soriano vs. Laguardia, GR. No. 164785, April 29, 2009 and March 15, 2010
Suspension is not a prior restraint but a form of permissible administrative sanction/punishment. Not contrary to free speech
Preventive suspension must be done in furtherance of the law
Admin agencies have powers and functions-- administrative, investigative, regulatory, quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial.
Principles and Policies of the Philippine Government
Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, GR No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997
# When the Constitution speaks of national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines, as the Constitution
could have very well used the term natural resources, but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos.
Unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce it, the presumption is that it is a self-executing provision, lest
the constitution be subordinated to the will of the legislative. Ubi jus ibi remedium. Where there is a right, there is a remedy even without
a statute.
Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr., GR No. 101083, July 30, 1993
Sections 15 and 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution are self-executing and judicially enforceable even in their present form (as opposed
to the other Policies under Article II).
BFAR Employees Union vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. 169815, Aug 13, 2008

BCDA vs. COA, GR No. 178160, February 26, 2009

# The State is not estopped from correcting a public officers erroneous application of a statute, and an unlawful practice, no matter how
long, cannot give rise to any vested right.
Adherence to International Law
Taada vs. Angara, GR No. 118295, May 2, 1997
The Constitution "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of
peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by
generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered to be automatically part of our own laws.
Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch v. Comm. of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 188550, August 19, 2013
#Pacta Sunt Servanda: The time--honored international principle of pacta sunt servanda demands the performance in good faith of treaty
obligations on the part of the states that enter into the agreement.
A state that has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislations those modifications that may be necessary to
ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken.
Arigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014
#The US is still to abide by international common navigation laws (which forms part of UNCLOS) despite their non-signing of the
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Guevarra, G.R. No. 167052, March 11, 2015
Republic of the Philippines v. Mupas, G.R. No. 181892, September 8, 2015
#A foreign judgment would not bind Philippine courts unless the judgment is recognized and enforced in this jurisdiction.
Saguisag vs. Ochoa, Jr., GR 212426, January 12, 2016, July 26, 2016
Supremacy of Civilian Authority
Gudani vs. Senga, GR No. 170165, August 15, 2006
Senate vs. Ermita, GR No. 169777, Apr 20, 2006, July 14, 2006
Any executive issuance tending to unduly limit disclosures of information in investigations in aid of legislation that are generally
conducted in public necessarily deprives the people of information which, being presumed to be in aid of legislation, is presumed to be a
matter of public concern. The citizens are thereby denied access to information which they can use in formulating their own opinions on
the matter before Congress - opinions which they can communicate to their representatives and government officials through the various
legal means allowed by their freedom of expression. The impairment of the right of people to information is, therefore, just as direct as
the violation of the legislatures power of inquiry.
Government as Protector of the People & People as Defenders of the State
Kilosbayan, Inc., vs. Morato, GR No. 118910, July 17, 1995, Nov 16, 1995
#The state, specifically the executive and the legislature has authorized the holding of lotteries for charity in line with PCSOs charter
relating to the purpose of providing funds for health programs, medical assistance and services and charities national in character.
Separation of Church & State
Everson vs. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, Feb 10, 1947
*Pamil vs. Teleron, GR No. L-34854, Nov 20, 1978
#To allow an ecclesiastic to head the executive department of a municipality is to permit the erosion of the principle of separation of
Church and State and thus open the floodgates of violation of the cherished liberty of religion which the constitutional provision seeks to
enforce and protect. (This is an archaic ruling. 1973 pa ang governing Constitution that time)
In the dissenting opinion of Justice Teehankee, that the archaic Administrative Code provision declaring ecclesiastics ineligible for election
or appointment to a municipal office is inconsistent with and violative of the religious freedom guaranteed by the 1935 Constitution and
that to so bar the them from office is to impose a religious test in violation of the Constitutional mandate that no religious test shall be
required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers, GR No. L-25246, Sept 12, 1974
Aglipay vs. Ruiz, GR No. L-45459, Mar 13, 1937
Iglesia ni Cristo vs. CA, GR No. 119673, July 26, 1996, Mar 29, 2011

The exercise of religious freedom can be regulated by the State when it will bring about the clear and present danger of some substantial
evil, which the State is duty bound to prevent.
Prior restraint on speech, including religious speech, cannot be justified by hypothetical fears but only by the showing of a substantive and
imminent evil, which has taken the life of a reality already on ground.
*American Bible Society vs. City of Manila, GR No. L-9637, Apr 30, 1957
#Taxing institutions that exclusively distribute religious texts and books is a form of censorship against their freedom of religion, and
should therefore be prohibited.
Estrada vs. Escritor, AM No. P-02-1651, Aug 4, 2003, June 22, 2006
Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 11, 2014
Medical practitioners, being conscientious objectors, cannot be penalized for refusing to dispense contraceptives and to refer patients to
other practitioners. Such a penalty would violate their freedom of religion. Unless there is a compelling state interest, their religious
freedom cannot be compromised.

A Just & Dynamic Social Order
Promotion of Social Justice
Calalang vs. Williams, GR No. 47800, Dec 2, 1940
Magkalas vs. NHA, GR No. 138823, September 17, 2008
Case is about NHAs authority to summarily eject informal settlers without judicial order. Petitioner invoked Social Justice Clause. SC said
no, you have been asked to move, and the act of destroying your property to make a new one for new people to stay in IS social justice.
Social Justice Clause, as the name suggests, should only be used to correct an injustice.
Social Justice must be founded on the recognition of necessity of interdependence among diverse units of a society and of the protection
that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the
fundamental and paramount objective of the State of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about the
greatest good to the greatest number.
Oxales vs. United Laboratories Inc., GR. No 152991, July 21, 2008
# The law, in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. While the
Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, management also has its own rights,
which are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play. Out of its concern for those with less privilege in life, this Court
has inclined more often than not toward the employee and upheld his cause with his conflicts with the employer. Such favorable
treatment has not blinded the Court to rule that justice is in every case for the deserving. Justice should be dispensed in the light of the
established facts and applicable law and doctrine.
Pamatong vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 161872, Apr 13, 2004, July 13, 2004
The rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates and the disqualification of candidates who have not evinced a bona fide
intention to run for office is easy to divine. The State has a compelling interest to ensure that its electoral exercises are rational, objective,
and orderly. Towards this end, the State takes into account the practical considerations in conducting elections. Inevitably, the greater the
number of candidates, the greater the opportunities for logistical confusion, not to mention the increased allocation of time and
resources in preparation for the election. These practical difficulties should, of course, never exempt the State from the conduct of a
mandated electoral exercise. (Individual < common good)
Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary, GR No. 83896, Feb 22, 1991
Appointive officials of the Executive Department may not hold any other office or employment during their tenure except those occupied
in an ex-officio capacity, for which they will not receive additional compensation.
Manila Water Company v. del Rosario, G.R. No. 188747, January 29, 2014
Goodyear Philippines, Inc. v. Angus, G.R. No. 185449, November 12, 2014
In the absence of an express or implied prohibition against it, the collection of both retirement and separation pay upon severance from
employment is allowed. This is grounded on the the social justice policy that doubts should always be in favor of labor rights.
Reyes v. Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc., G.R. No. 189255, June 17, 2015
Courts should not be so strict about procedural lapses which do not impair the proper administration of justice; the higher objective of
procedural rule is to ensure that the substantive right of the parties are protected.

Centro Project Manpower Services Corporation v. Naluis, G.R. No. 160123, June 17, 2015
Ilaw Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) Nestle Philippines Inc. Chapter (Ice Cream and Chilled Products Division) v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., G.R.
No. 198675, September 23, 2015
Respect for Human Dignity and Human Rights
Basco vs. Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation, GR No. 91649, May 14, 1991
Fiscal Autonomy of the CHR
CHREA vs. CHR, GR No. 155336, Nov 25, 2004, July 21, 2006
Constitutional Commissions that enjoy fiscal autonomy are CIVIL SERVICE, COA, and COMELEC only (does not include CHR)
# Revised Administrative Code of 1987, Section 3, Chapter 1, Title XVII: Powers and Functions. The Department of Budget and
Management shall assist the President in the preparation of a national resources and expenditures budget, preparation, execution and
control of the National Budget, preparation and maintenance of accounting systems essential to the budgetary process, achievement of
more economy and efficiency in the management of government operations, administration of compensation and position classification
systems, assessment of organizational effectiveness and review and evaluation of legislative proposals having budgetary or organizational
Fundamental Equality of Women and Men
*Muller vs. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, Feb 24, 1908
The right of a State to regulate the working hours of women rests on the police power and the right to preserve the health of the women
of the State, and is not affected by other laws of the State granting or denying to women the same rights as to contract and the elective
franchise as are enjoyed by men.
*Lochner vs. New York, 198 U.S. 45, Apr 17, 1905
*Adkins vs. Childrens Hospital, 261 U.S. 525, Apr 9, 1923
# There is no difference between men and women. Court overturned the courts decision in Muller vs Oregon stating that women are a
special class of citizens in need of protection at the workplace.
*West Coast Hotel Co., vs. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, Mar 29, 1937
#Court overturns ^ Adkins. The working class are at a disadvantageous position compared to their employers (re: contracts). The welfare
and betterment of the living conditions of women are generally beneficial to the community/society in general. Legislature can
constitutionally single out women in the exercise of State power.
Dabalos v. Regional Trial Court, G.R. No. 193960, January 7, 2013
Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013
# Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed. Note: This case also talks about the unequal power relationship between women and men; the fact that women
are more likely than men to be victims of violence (hence RA 9262)
Promotion of Health
Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr., GR No. 101083, July 30, 1993
Filipinos bear upon the right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as the parens
[1] Parent of the Nation refers to the public policy power of the State to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent.
The rhythm and harmony of nature indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and
conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that
their exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations.
MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, GR Nos. 171947-48, Dec 18, 2008, Oct 6, 2009, Feb 15, 2011
Del Rosario vs. Bengzon, GR No. 88265, Dec 21, 1989
no contract ever results from a consultation between patient and physician. A doctor may take in or refuse a patient, just as the patient
may take or refuse the doctor's advice or prescription. As aptly observed by the public respondent, no doctor has ever filed an action for
breach of contract against a patient who refused to take prescribed medication, undergo surgery, or follow a recommended course
treatment by his doctor. In any event, no private contract between doctor and patient may be allowed to override the power of the State
to enact laws that are reasonably necessary to secure the health, safety, good order, comfort, or general welfare of the community.
Priority of Education, Science, Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports (ESTACS)
Villar vs. Technological Institute of the Philippines, GR No. L-69198, Apr 17, 1985

# College students cannot be barred from enrollment due to their exercise of freedom of assembly; however, a university or college has
the right to set academic standard and exclude from enrollment those with several failing grades, but not students who merely exercised
the [freedom of assembly and freedom of speech] constitutional rights.
Tangonan vs. Cruz Pao, GR No. L-45157, June 27, 1985
Dept of Education, Culture & Sports vs. San Diego, GR No. 89572, Dec 21, 1989
# The right to quality education is not absolute. The constitution also provides that every citizen has the right to choose a profession or
course of study subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements.
It is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality education as a guarantee of the constitution: one must show that he is entitled to it
because of his preparation and promise.
Tablarin vs. Gutierrez, GR No. 78164, July 31, 1987
# The State is not really enjoined to take appropriate steps to make quality education accessible to all who might for any number of
reasons wish to enroll in a professional school but rather merely to make such education accessible to all who qualify under fair,
reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements.
Free Public Education
University of the Philippines vs. Ayson, GR No. 88386, Aug 17, 1989
# Institutions of higher learning cannot be compelled to provide for secondary education.
Academic Freedom
Garcia vs. Faculty Admission Committee, GR No. L-40779, Nov 28, 1975
# The right to determine who may be admitted is part of the academic freedom given to universities.
Academic Standards
*Tangonan vs. Cruz Pao, GR No. L-45157, June 27, 1985
School Discipline
Alcuaz vs. PSBA, GR No. 76353, May 2, 1988, Sept 29, 1989
Miriam College Foundation, Inc. vs. CA, GR No. 127930, Dec 15, 2000
# Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.
Conferment of Academic Honors
University of San Carlos vs. CA, GR No. 79237, Oct 18, 1988
Method of Teaching
Camacho vs. Coresis, Jr., GR No. 134372, Aug 22, 2002
#Academic freedom accords a faculty member the right to pursue his studies in his particular specialty. Academic freedom clothes a
professor with the widest latitude to innovate and experiment on the method of teaching which is most fitting to his students, subject
only to the rules and policies of the university.
Closure of School
*University of the Philippines vs. Ayson, GR No. 88386, Aug 17, 1989
# The institute of higher learning decides for itself its aims and objectives and how best to attain them.
Withdrawal of Degree
UP Board of Regents vs. CA, GR No. 134625, Aug 31, 1999
# A Writ of Mandamus cannot restrain an institute of higher learning from the exercise of its academic freedom. (The withdrawal of a
degree is an exercise of academic freedom)
Nothing can be more objectionable than bestowing a universitys highest academic degree upon an individual who has obtained the
same through fraud or deceit. The pursuit of academic excellence is the universitys concern. It should be empowered, as an act of selfdefense, to take measures to protect itself from serious threats to its integrity.
Mass Action
Non vs. Dames II, GR No. 89317, May 20, 1990
While exercise of the rights to free speech and assembly must be afforded to the students, this should not be taken to mean that school
authorities are virtually powerless to discipline students. Penalty imposed must be proportionate to the offense committed.
Dismissal of Teachers
Colegio del Sto. Nio vs. NLRC, GR No. 96301, May 28, 1991

The Court does not deny petitioner its academic freedom, which includes the power to choose its own faculty and the education of its
students according to its own standards and objectives and pursuant to the purposes of the Constitution. But that freedom does not give
it absolute authority over its employees or exempt it from the requirements of due process in its dealing with them.
PTA of St. Matthew Christian Academy vs. Metropolitan Bank, GR No. 176518, Mar 2, 2010
Based on a lack of evidence to the contrary, the right to quality of education and academic freedom will not be disrupted by the granting
of a writ of possession to the winning bidder in a foreclosure sale.
Guingona vs. Carague, GR No. 94571, Apr 22, 1991
Joya vs. PCGG, GR No. 96541, Aug 24, 1993
#The cultural properties of the nation which are covered by the protection of the state are classified as the "important cultural properties"
and the "national cultural treasures."
Important cultural properties" are those which have exceptional historical cultural significance to the Philippines but are not sufficiently
outstanding to merit the classification of national cultural treasures. On the other hand, "national cultural treasures" are unique objects
found locally, possessing outstanding historical, cultural, artistic and/or scientific value which is highly significant and important to this
country and nation.
Urban Land Reform and Housing
People vs. Leachon, GR No. 108725-26, Sept 25, 1998
#The enactment of an anti-squatting law affords squatters the opportunity to present their case before a competent court where their
rights will be amply protected and due process strictly observed. [] Furthermore, what gives such law the impetus is the constitutional
mandate that - no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Reform in Agricultural and Other Natural Resources
Luz Farms vs. Secretary of DAR, GR No. 86889, Dec 4, 1990
In construing constitutional provisions which are ambiguous or of doubtful meaning, the courts may consider the debates in the
constitutional convention as throwing light on the intend of the framers of the Constitution.
*Hacienda Luisita, Inc. vs. PARC, GR No. 171101, July 5, 2011; Nov 22, 2011; Apr 24, 2012
Protection of Labor
Continental Steel Manufacturing Corp vs. Montano, GR No. 182836, Oct 13, 2009
Being for the benefit of the employee, CBA [Collective Bargaining Agreement] provisions on bereavement leave and other death benefits
should be interpreted liberally to give life to the intentions thereof. Time and again, the Labor Code is specific in enunciating that in case
of doubt in the interpretation of any law or provision affecting labor, such should be interpreted in favor of labor.
In the same way, the CBA and CBA provisions should be interpreted in favor of labor.
Compulsory Arbitration
Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestle Phils. Inc., GR No. 88710-13, Dec 19, 1990
# Assumption and certification orders are executory in character and are to be strictly complied with by the parties even during the
pendency of any petition questioning their validity.
The last statement in the 1973 Constitutions Sec. 9 of Art. II, which reads: "Sec. 9. . . . The State may provide for compulsory arbitration."
still holds since no court has ever declared that the said provision is inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution.
Suspension of Collective Bargaining Agreement
Rivera vs. Espiritu, GR No. 135547, Jan 23, 2002
Right of Government Workers to Form Unions
Alliance of Govt Workers vs. Minister of Labor, GR No. L-60403, Aug 3, 1983
GOCCs embraced by the Civil Service Code do not have the right to bargain and strike because subjects of bargain such as raise in salaries
are a matter of law. For remedy, undergo administrative relief and/or convince the Congress to allot appropriations for the demands.
National Housing Corp vs. Juco, GR No. L-64313, Jan 17, 1985
For purposes of coverage in the Civil Service, employees of government-owned or controlled corporations whether created by special law
or formed as subsidiaries are covered by the Civil Service Law, not the Labor Code, and the fact that private corporations owned or
controlled by the government may be created by special charter does not mean that such corporations not created by special law are not
covered by the Civil Service.
National Service Corporation vs. NLRC, GR No. L-69870, Nov 29, 1988

#Government owned and controlled corporations with original charter are governed by the Civil Service however subsidiaries of GOCCs
without original charters are governed by the Labor Code.
SSS Employees Assn. vs. CA, GR No. 85279, July 28, 1989
Government employees are allowed to organize but such recognition does not allow them the right to strike. Their grievances can be
referred to the Public Sector Labor Management Council.
Manila Public School Teachers Assn vs. Laguio, GR No. 95445, Aug 6, 1991
The petitioners' obvious remedy was NOT to halt the administrative proceedings but, on the contrary, to take part, assert and vindicate
their rights therein, see those proceedings through to judgment and if adjudged guilty, appeal to the Civil Service Commission; or if,
pending said proceedings, immediate recourse to judicial authority was believed necessary because the respondent Secretary or those
acting under him or on his instructions were acting without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, to apply, not
directly to the Supreme Court, but to the Regional Trial Court, where there would be an opportunity to prove the relevant facts
warranting corrective relief.

Independent Peoples Organizations

Anak Mindanao Party-List Group vs. Executive Secretary, GR No. 166052, Aug 29, 2007
The law grants the President this power in recognition of the recurring need of every President to reorganize his office to achieve
simplicity, economy and efficiency. (Domingo v. Hon Zamora, 455 Phil. 7, 13 (2003))
Family as a Basic Autonomous Social Institution
Imbong vs. Ochoa, GR No. 204819, Apr 8, 2014
# As regards the value and exceptional status of the Filipino family, the Constitution upholds the ideal of an unconditional respect for its
inherent sanctity and autonomy as against the State itself.
Self-Reliant and Independent Economic Order
*Taada vs. Angara, GR No. 118295, May 2, 1997
Economic self-reliance is a primary objective of a developing country that is keenly aware of overdependence on external assistance for
even its most basic needs. It does not mean economic seclusion; rather, it means avoiding mendicancy in the international community.
Independence refers to the freedom from undue foreign control of the national economy, especially in such strategic industries as in the
development of natural resources and public utilities.
Gamboa vs. Teves, GR No. 176579, June 28, 2011
The term capital from Art. XII Sec. 11 refers to shares of stock that can vote in the election of directors. Capital stocks refer to the voting
stock or controlling interest of a corporation. Preferred stocks can also be part of it, but they have to have voting power first before they
can be counted.
Heirs of Gamboa vs. Teves, GR No. 176579, Oct 9, 2012
Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corp. vs. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp. GR No. 195580, April 21, 2014, January 28, 2015
The "control test" is still the prevailing mode of determining whether or not a corporation is a Filipino corporation, within the ambit of
Sec. 2, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, entitled to undertake the exploration, development and utilization of the natural resources of the
Philippines. The Grandfather Rule applies only when the 60--40 Filipino- foreign equity ownership is in doubt. Stated differently, where
the 60--40 Filipino- foreign equity ownership is not in doubt, the Grandfather Rule will not apply.
Marine Radio Communications Assn vs. Reyes, GR No. 86953, Nov 6, 1990
Section 20, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, along with other provisions prescribing private sector participation do not bar the
government from undertaking its own initiatives especially in the domain of public service and neither does it repudiate its primacy as
chief economic caretaker of the nation. The Government can enter into ventures that may compete with the private sector, especially if it
is in the interest of public service.
Garcia vs. BOI, GR No. 92024, Nov 9, 1990
Communication and Information in Nation-Building
PLDT vs. National Telecommunications Commission, GR No. 88404, Oct 18, 1990
#A modern and dependable communications network rendering efficient and reasonably priced services is indispensable for accelerated
economic recovery and development. To these public and national interests, public utility companies must bow and yield.
Autonomy of Local Governments
Pimentel vs. Exec. Sec, GR No. 195770, July 17 2012

A complete relinquishment of central government powers on the matter of providing basic facilities and services cannot be implied, as the
Local Government Code itself weighs against it. The national government is not precluded from taking a direct hand in the formulation
and implementation of national development programs especially where it is implemented locally in coordination with the LGUs
League of Provinces vs. DENR, GR No. 175368, April 11, 2013
Agencies, like DENR, who are tasked to carrying out the States constitutional mandate (like that of Section 2, Article XII of 1987
Constitution) are only vested power of supervision, not power of control.
Power to Suspend Local Officials
Ganzon vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 93252, Aug 5, 1991, Nov 8, 1991
The President has the power to suspend and/or remove local officials.
Limitation of Presidential Power of Supervision
Dadole vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. 125350, Mar 21, 2000, Dec 3, 2002
President has power of control over members of cabinet, but only has power of supervision over the heads of political subdivisions
elected by the people. He can only interfere when he finds that the LGUs have acted contrary to law.
Tax Ordinances
Drilon vs. Lim, GR No. 112497, Aug 4, 1994
# 1) Control: the power of an officer to alter or modify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties
and to substitute the judgment of the former for the latter. Supervision: the power of a superior officer to see to it that lower officers
perform their functions in accordance with
# 2) ACT OF SUPERVISION: Drilon did set aside the Manila Revenue Code, but he did not replace it with his own version. He did not say
that it was a bad law. He only found it illegal. He has no judgment on this matter except to see to it that the rules are followed. In the
opinion of the Court, Secretary Drilon did precisely this, and no more nor less than this, and so performed an act not of control but of
mere supervision.
Internal Revenue Allotment
Province of Batangas vs. Romulo, GR No. 152774, May 27, 2004
Alternative Center for Orgl Reforms and Devt, Inc. vs. Zamora, GR No. 144256, June 8, 2005
# Local government units shall have a just share, as determined by law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to
Pimentel vs. Aguirre, GR No. 132988, July 19, 2000
# Local government units enjoy fiscal autonomy. The automatic release of its share in the Internal Revenue Allotment is provided for by
the Constitution and the Local Government Code. The president, exercising his power of supervision, cannot adjust the LGUs shares in the
IRA without first consulting Congress and the LGUs.
Term Limits
Borja vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 133495, Sept 3, 1998
#To prevent the establishment of political dynasties is not the only policy embodied in Article X, Sec 8 of the Constitutionthe other
policy is that of enhancing the freedom of choice of the people. That being said, a term served in this article necessarily means for which
[the official concerned] was elected. Conversely, if he is not serving a term for which he was elected because he is simply continuing the
service of the official he succeeds, such official cannot be considered to have fully served the term notwithstanding his voluntary
renunciation of office prior to its expiration.
Lonzanida vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 135150, July 28, 1999
#Comelec can still resolve a petition for disqualification (if it was filed before election day) even after the candidate has been proclaimed
winner by the board of canvassers.
#An elective official will be disqualified (by the 3-term rule) if 2 requisites are satisfied: 1. The official was elected for three consecutive
terms and 2. The official fully served those terms
Adormeo vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 147927, Feb 4, 2002
Involuntary severance from office for any length of time short of the full term provided by law amounts to an interruption of continuity of
service. Winning a recall election does not constitute one term and is not counted against the three-term limit.
Socrates vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 154512, Sept 3, 2002, Nov 12, 2002
# The limitation on running for a fourth consecutive term only prohibits reelection on a regular election. A candidate who has served for
three consecutive terms is allowed to run in a recall election as the time from which he last served till the time he runs for the recall
counts as an involuntary renunciation of his term.
Ong vs. Alegre, GR No. 163295, Jan 23, 2006
#The three-term limit includes the service of a full term despite the declaration of the nullity of ones election into such position

Latasa vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 154829, Dec 10, 2003

While a new component city which was converted from a municipality acquires a new corporate existence separate and distinct from that
of the municipality, THIS DOES NOT MEAN, however, that for the purpose of applying the constitutional provision on term limits, THE
*Abundo vs. COMELEC, GR No. 201716, Jan 8, 2013
Three consecutive terms may be broken or interrupted by involuntary interruption. Involuntary interruption is claimed to result from any
of these events of causes: succession of office; preventive suspension; declaration of defeated candidate as the winner in an election or
declaration of the proclaimed candidate as the losing party in an election contest; recall election; and removal of official by operation of
Naval vs. COMELEC, GR No. 207851, July 8, 2014
Reapportionment of districts is not an interruption of the three-term limit rule.
Goh v Bayron, GR No. 212584, Nov. 25, 2014
When COMELEC receives a budgetary appropriation for its Current Operating Expenditures, such appropriation includes expenditures to
carry out its constitutional functions including the conduct of recall elections. In addition, aside from COMELECs fiscal autonomy, its head
is authorized by law to augment items in its appropriations from its savings.
Alvarado v Comelec, GR No. 216457, Feb. 17, 2015
Creation/Division/Merger/Abolition of LGU
Tan vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 73155, July 11, 1986
Case was about Negros Occidental wanting to divide, creating a new Negros Del Norte. Petitioners were from old Negros, and petitioned
that they were not included during the plebiscite and is therefore invalid. Parent and new municipality/city/barrio needs to be part of
the plebiscite, as both are affected of the change (merge, creation, abolished, divided).
Also, territory area does not include territorial waters. Only land.
Tobias vs. Abalos, GR No. L-114783, Dec 8, 1994
# The principal subject involved in the plebiscite was the conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city. The matter of separate
district representation (Mandaluyong and San Juan) was only ancillary thereto. Hence, the inhabitants of San Juan were properly excluded
from the said plebiscite as they had nothing to do with the change of status of neighboring Mandaluyong.
Cawaling vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 146319, Oct 26, 2001
#The creation of an entirely new local government unit through a division or a merger of existing local government units is recognized
under the Constitution, provided that such merger or division shall comply with the requirements prescribed by the Local Government
Miranda vs. Aguirre, GR No. 133064, Sept 16, 1999
League of Cities of the Phils. vs. COMELEC, GR Nos. 176951, 177499, 178056, Nov 18, 2008; Dec 21, 2009; Aug 24, 2010; Feb 15, 2011; Apr
12, 2011; June 28, 2011)
The creation of local government units must follow the criteria established in the Local Government Code and not in any other law.
Navarro vs. Exec Sec, GR No. 180050, Feb 10 2010, May 12 2010, July 20, 2010, Apr 12 2011, Sep 11 2012
Autonomous Regions
Ordillo vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 93054, Dec 4, 1990
# A lone province cannot constitute an autonomous region.
*The Province of North Cotabato vs. The Govt of the Rep of the Phil Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, GR No. 183591, Oct. 14, 2008, Nov
11, 2008
Recognition of the Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities
Cruz vs. Secretary of Environment & Natural Resources, GR No. 135385, Apr 13, 1999, Dec 6, 2000
Cario vs. Insular Government, 212 U.S. 449, Feb 23, 1909
Statute of Limitations: a statute prescribing a period of limitation for bringing of certain kinds of legal action.
Honest Public Service and Full Public Disclosure

*The Province of North Cotabato vs. The Govt of the Rep of the Phil Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, GR No. 183591, Oct. 14, 2008, Nov
11, 2008
The MOA-AD is a oa subject of public concern, involving as it does the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State, which directly
affects the lives of the public at large. Matters of public concern covered by the right of information include steps and negotiations leading
to the consummation of the contract.
Valmonte vs. Belmonte, GR No. 74930, Feb 13, 1989
*Legaspi vs. CSC, GR No. L-72119, May 29, 1987
Bantay Republic Act vs. COMELEC, GR No. 177314, May 4, 2007, May 11, 2007
The right to information is a public right where the real parties in interest are the public, or the citizens to be precise. And for every right
of the people recognized as fundamental lies a corresponding duty on the part of those who govern to respect and protect that right. This
is the essence of the Bill of Rights in a constitutional regime.
Galeos vs. People, GR Nos. 174730-37, Feb 9, 2011
# Withholding of material fact, such as knowledge of relatives in government, is still considered as falsification of Public Document.
Re: Request for Copy of 2008 SALN and Personal Data Sheet or CV of the Justices of the SC and Officers and Employees of the Judiciary,
AM No. 09-8-6-SC, June 13, 2012
[T]he right to information, with its companion right of access to official records, is not absolute. While providing guaranty for that right,
the Constitution also provides that the peoples right to know is limited to "matters of public concern" and is further subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.
Jurisprudence has provided the following limitations to the right to information:
National security matters and intelligence information
Trade secrets and banking transactions
Criminal matters
Other confidential information such as confidential or classified information officially known to public officers and employees by reason of
their office and not made available to the public as well as diplomatic correspondence, closed door Cabinet meetings and executive
sessions of either house of Congress, and the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court.
[W]hile the Constitution holds dear the right of the people to have access to matters of concern, the Constitution also holds sacred the
independence of the Judiciary. Thus, [] the disclosure must be made in accord with the guidelines set by the Court and under such
circumstances that would not undermine the independence of the Judiciary.
Philippine Constitution Assn., vs. Enriquez, GR No. 113105, Aug 19, 1994
LAMP vs. Sec of Budget, GR No. 164987, Apr 24 2012
Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR No. 208566, Nov 19, 2013
Articles and insertions which authorize legislators to intervene in post-enactment stages of the budget execution as well as those which
confer personal lump-sum allocations to legislators from which they are able to fund projects which they determined themselves, are
Araullo vs. Aquino III, GR No. 209287, July 1, 2014, Feb 3, 2015
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. [DAP was repugnant to the principle of public
accountability enshrined in the Constitution, because the legislators relinquished the power of appropriation to the Executive, and
exhibited a reluctance to inquire into the legality of the DAP.]
Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 79690-707, Apr 27, 1988, Oct 7, 1988, Feb 1, 1989, Apr 7, 1993
Perez vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 166062, Sept 26, 2006
#Doctrine of qualified political agency
the acts of a subordinate bears the implied approval of his superior, unless actually disapproved by the latter
Article XI, Sec 7 of the 1987 Constitution:
Sec. 7. The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the Office of the Special Prosecutor. It shall continue to function and exercise
its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law, except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under this
Note: Under the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman is charged with the duty to -- Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person,
any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
inefficient. (Sec. 13, par. 1)

Almonte vs. Vasquez, GR No. 95367, May 23, 1995

*Raro vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 108431, July 14, 2000
Gonzales III vs. Office of the Pres., GR No. 196231, Sep 4 2012, Jan 28, 2014
The court held that the Special Prosecutor and Deputies of the office of the Ombudsman can be investigated by the President for they
were appointed by him as well. However, Deputy Gonzales III was reinstated because the court found that the grounds for his removal neglect of duty - was insufficiently founded. However, that fact doesnt preclude any future investigations.
Deloso vs. Domingo, GR No. 90591, Nov 21, 1990
the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance that have been committed by
any officer or employee [] during his tenure of office (Sec. 16, R.A. 6770).
Laxina vs. Office of the Ombudsman, GR No. 153155, Sept 30, 2005
# Doctrine: Ombudsman has a mandate to investigate complaints against erring public officials, derived from both the Constitution and
the law. To fulfill this mandate, R.A. No. 6770, or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, was enacted, giving the Ombudsman or his Deputies
jurisdiction over complaints on all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance against officers or employees of the government,
or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality therefor, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and the disciplinary
authority over all elective and appointive officials, except those who may be removed only by impeachment or over members of Congress
and the Judiciary.
*Office of the Ombudsman vs. Madriaga, GR No. 164316, Sept 27, 2006
Office of the OMBs authority to impose administrative penalty and enforce compliance therewith is not merely
recommendatory/advisory; it is mandatory within the bounds of law. It has long been settled that the power of the Ombudsman to
investigate and prosecute any illegal act or omission of any public official is not an exclusive authority but a shared or concurrent authority
in respect of the offense charged. By stating therefore that the Ombudsman recommends the action to be taken against an erring officer
or employee, the provisions in the Constitution and in RA 6770 intended that the implementation of the order be coursed through the
proper officer.
Macalino vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 140199-200, Feb 6, 2002
Presl Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Comm. on Behest Loans vs. Desierto, GR No. 130140, Oct 25, 1999
Section 15 of Article XI of the Constitution applies only to civil actions for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, and not to criminal cases
Prosecution of offenses arising from or involving ill-gotten wealth contemplated in Art. XI Sec. 15 may be barred by prescription. The
prescriptive period for the filing of the criminal action should commence from the discovery of the offense
Foreign Loans
Constantino vs. Cuisia, GR No. 106064, Oct 13, 2005
#Doctrine of Political Agency
Art. VII, Sec. 20. of the Constitution allocates to the President the exercise of the foreign borrowing power subject to such limitations as
may be provided under law. Said presidential prerogative may be exercised by the Presidents alter ego, who in this case is the Secretary
of Finance.
Section 1 of R.A. No. 245 empowers the Secretary of Finance with the approval of the President and after consultation of the Monetary
Board, to borrow from time to time on the credit of the Republic of the Philippines such sum or sums as in his judgment may be
necessary, and to issue therefor evidences of indebtedness of the Philippine Government.
While the President wields the borrowing power it is the Secretary of Finance who normally carries out its thrusts.