PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW By Isacant A. CRUZ Associate Justice (1986-1994) Supreme Court of the Philippines CARLO L. Cruz Professorial Lecturer College of Law, Lyceum of the Philippines University College of Law, University of the Philippines Bar Review Lecturer Jurists Bar Review Center College of Law, Lyceum of the Philippines University UP Law Center 2014 EditionPhilippine Copyright, 1989, 1991, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2002, 2014 by. Isaganr A. CRUZ and CARLO L. Cruz ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Any book without the correlative number and not bearing the signature of the author shall be denounced 1s proceeding from an illegal source. Cal— _ ISBN 978-971-011-761-1 Printed by CENTRAL BOOK SUPPLY, INC. 927 Quezon Avene, Quezon City Philippines central_bks@yahoo.comFOREWORD ON FEBRUARY 22, 1986, after almost thirteen years of oppression and repressior, the light at the end of the tunnel glowed fitfully but hopefully to signal the advent of @ new liberation for the Filipino people. That was the day Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, General Fidel V. Ramos, burrowed themselves at Camp Crame and proclaimed their defiance of President Mar- cos, whom they accused oF rigging the election held on February 7, 1986. The real winner, they said, was Cora- zon C. Aquino, the unassuming widow who had launched a charismatic campaign against the Marcos regime and received throughout the land a response that can only be described as phenomenal. Marcos was asked to respect the mandate of the electorate and step down in favor of the legitimate choice of the people. The announcement stunned, then electrified, the nation. Before long, a crowd of civilians from all walks of life—the rich mingling with the slum-dwellers, children in the care of grandparents, nuns and housewives hold- ing vigil with doctors and jeepney drivers, students pitching makeshift tents with their professors, every single one of them sharing a common obsession for free- dom—gathered in front of the military camp to give support and protection to the men inside. The military was no less affected and inspired. Generals began de- fecting with their men to the endangered citadel. The onlookers were at first alarmed, then thrilled, when several helicopters landed, not to fight, as it turned out, but to pledge their support for the outnumbered rebels. Soon millions had massed at the gates of Camp Crame and the nearby Camp Aguinaldo, to form a human shield and buffer against the expected onslaughts of the‘Marcos loyalists. They came soon enough, their mighty tanks rumbling along Epifanio de los Santos Avenue, tracks and trucks of combatants in battle gear and ready for the Kill. But the tanks were stopped on their tracks and the soldiers themselves were disarmed, ren- dered hors de combat even before the first shot could be fired. How? With the opposite of everything the would- be attackers threatened: peace, not war; love for hate; flowers instead of bloodshed; rosaries draped on the barrel of a gun; an old woman in a wheelchair on the path of the advancing tank—liberty for the long, long night of enslavement and loss of human dignity. The choice was obvious. As the whole world watched in admiration and wonder, the Revolution was won in the jubilant wash of what came proudly to be called “people power.” On February 25, 1986, Corazon C, Aquino and Sal- vador H. Laurel were sworn in at the Club Filipino as President und Vice-President of the Philippines respec- tively. Their induction was held under the auspices of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines in a festive air of vietory and hope. Meanwhile, Ferdinand Mareos, who had been proclaimed winner by the Batasang Pam- bansa, took his own oath in Malacanang before a jittery group of loyalists which, significantly, did not include his vice-presidential running-mate, Arturo Tolentino. ‘There was a show of bravado, but the mood was gener- ally despondent because the angry mob was at that time practically at the gates of the palace. It was almost anti- climatic only when the happy news spread that the ‘Mareoses had fled in a U.S. helicopter that took them to Hawaii. There was, literally, dancing in the streets. One of President Aquino's first official acts was the proclamation of a Freedom Constitution to become opo- rative until the adoption of a new Constitution.‘Toward this end, she created a Constitutional Com- mission which undertook the framing of a new charter “truly reflective of the ideals and aspirations of the Fili- pino people.” The draft charter, hammered out for more than four months, was submitted to the electorate in a plebiscite held on February 2, 1987, and was ratified with @ comfortable margir, due largely to a desire for stability and normal government rather than to the intrinsic merits of the document. It is this Constitution of 1987 that will serve as the basis of the eighth revisior of this book on the political structure of the Republic of the Philippines. If there were these many revisions before, it was because the old Constitution changed with the fickle whims and designs of the deposed dictator. It is hoped that this time, there will be more permanence in the new Constitution, and it will remain, as it ought to be, “firm and immovable, like mountain amidst the strife of storms or a rock in the ‘ocean amidst the ranging of the waves.” In a way then, this Look is beginning again, not with a mere revision but with a first edition. ISAGANI A. CRUZ ‘May 8, 1987For My Children with the hope that they will help burnish the nation’s future with their inviolate ideals, their unflappable faith, and their not impossible dreams.and for SALLY beautiful and beloved ..from the blessed and bountiful beyond,PREFACE TO THE 2014 EDITION ‘THIS edition comes after the demise of the author, Jus- tice Isagani A. Cruz, who, prior to his passing, instructed the undersigned to undertake the changes required to make this text both current and comprehensive, He hesitated for many years to make this revision himself because of his well-founded apprehension that our Constitution would be changed, considering the stubborn and selfish efforts of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to perpetuate herself in power with the conversion of our political structure from presidential to parliamen- tary, thereby enabling her to slide into the premiership of'a new government. By the time it became certain that, she would not succeed, the author, although possessing still both wisdom and wit, had become weak and thus physically unable to write. Had he written this edition himself, he would have, without doubt, discussed the most recent developments in the realm of Philippine Political Law with his charac- teristic incisive commentaries presented in his inimita- ble and unparalleled writing flair which earned for him the richly deserved and uncontested title of Lyricist of the Court. Nonetheless, this edition is based largely on the discussions of the undersigned with the author on the significant cases and laws which merit discussion, and therefore inclusion, in this book. As ever, it is intended to aid, more than anyone else, the student of law in his better understanding, and appreciation, of this subject. Featured prominently in this edition would be the most recent, and often conflicting, if not confusing, pro- nouncements of the Supreme Court on the three branches of government, with particular emphasis on the Judiciary, which, in recent years, has grown to bemore assertive of its independence and role as “not only the highest arbiter of legal questions but also the con- science of the government.” Important new decisions on executive privilege, as invoked against the legislative prerogative of investiga tion, the President's appointment, control, diplomatic and military powers, and the Legislature's exercise of its law- making and non-legislative powers, including its power of impeachment, are also discussed in this edition. Principles pertinent to the Constitutional Commis- sions, as either promulgated or clarified by the Supreme Court, are likewise presented along with segments on the greater participation of the people in our democratic government, as intended in our Constitution. ‘The undersigned has written these changes in this, book with every intention of remaining consistent with, if not absolutely faithful to, the views of the author, his teacher and idol, us expressed and discussed by him during his final years. It is hoped that the reader would consider this new edition as a continuation of the au- thor’s legacy of masterful mentorship in the field of Phil- ippine Political Law, which he started in his first edition of this book almost forty years ago. That first edition was dedicated by the author to his children. He there, and then, expressed his hope that they will help burnish the nation’s future with their in- violate ideals, their unflappable faith, and their not im- possible dreams. That dedication is retained in this edi- tion as his continuing prayer for his offspring, and, in turn, as their affirmation, made with profound grati- tude, that, as to the hopes their father held for them when they were young, all is well. CARLO L. CRUZ October 11, 2013PREFACE TO THE 2002 EDITION MANY significant events have happened during the last two years that have affected the polities of our nation and will certainly influence our future. The impeach- ment of President Joseph Estrada, his replacement by Vice-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the validity of the constitutional succession, and the current prosecu- tion of the former President, the first in the history of our country, are among the important recent develop- ments that have been the subject of deliberation and decision by the Supreme Court. The corresponding cases are discussed in this latest edition of this book, now on its 27th year, to update the reader on the evolving end- less narrative of Philippine political law. I express my warm greetings and appreciation to those who, through my books on the Corstitution as interpreted (or misinterpreted) by the Supreme Court, have joined me as kindred spirils in the study of the republican government under the aegis of the Rule of Law. ISAGANI A. CRUZ May 3, 2002PRAYER delivered on July 23, 1986 at the Constitutimal Commission. by J.B. LAUREL, Jr. Commissioner Almighty God, even as the eagle flies at will in the in finite reaches of the skies, let our vision soar untrammeled as we seck that radiant future we hope to ensure for our people in the Constitution we are writing. Let it be a future where all persons are born free, rel- ishing their rights but always with deference to the rights of others and recognizing authority as long as its highest com- ‘mitment is to the strengthening and defense of liberty. Grant that the spirit of ireedom shall always reign in our land, touching one and all like a benediction and igniting that divine spark in every human being that can make him, indeed, slightly “lower than angels" in this imperfect world, Grant us courage, that we may face up to the powerfull and defend those who are weak and oppressed Grant us wisdom, that we may distinguish between what is right and what is just, for they are not always the same. Grant us candor, that we may be true to ourselves and so not be false to others, Grant us strength when we are assailed by despair, or self-doubt, or temptation, And finally, Lord, grant the new Constitution grace and beauty of language, so that generations from now, when all of us here are gone, our people will still be moving reverently to the cadence of its thoughts, Bless us all, Eternal Spirit. and keep us free, forever and ever. Amen,TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter 1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ‘Scope of the Study... 1 Necessity for the Study. 1 Basis ofthe Study 2 Background of the Study 8 Chapter 2 ‘THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES Outstanding Features... i ‘The Supremacy of the Constitution... 16 Prospects of thie Cuustibutin 18 Chapter 8 ‘THE CONCEPT OF THE STATE Definition ——— Ww Blements.... — cry (1) People: aL @) Territory . 22 (Government. . 33 ‘A. Ponetione = 33 B. Doctrine of Parent Patriae 37 ©. Dedure and De Facto Goveruments 40 D. Government of the Philippines a2 E. Administration cu a2 a 43 cat‘Taste oF Conrenss Page Chapter 4 ‘THE DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNTTY Basis 48 ‘Application a Waiver of Immunity 58 Forms of Consent. 59 Suits Against Government Agencies . 70 Exemption from Legal Requirements, a Suability vs. Liability... “T7 Chapter 5: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES Proamble ve 83 Republicanism, . 87 ‘The Defence ofthe State. 92 Peace and Order. 96 "The Incorporation Clause ve 8B Rearing of the Youth oe : 02 Women, . : 109 Social Justice : 110 Separation of Ghureh and State, 15 ‘Supremacy of Civilian Authority us Local Autonomy vonmne AIS Economy 120 Miscellaneous 126 Chapter 6 SEPARATION OF POWERS: Purposes. Blending of Powers Chocks and Balances: "The Role ofthe Judiciary ‘Jasticiable and Political Questions. Application of the Doctrine ...nm Political Questions Under te New Constitution‘TaBLE OF Contests Chapter 7 DELEGATION OF POWERS Permissible Delegation G) Tariff Powers - (@) Emergency Powers. () Delegation to the People (4) Delegation to Local Governments, (6)_ Delegation to Administrative Bodies ‘Teste of Delegation, (1) ‘The Completeness Test (2) The Sufficient Stand ‘The Pelaer Case. ‘Test Chapter 8 ‘THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT The Semate. enn (1) Composition @) Qualifications Teron ‘The House of Representatives Q) Composition (A) The District Representatives... (B) The Party.list Representatives @) Qualifications. () Term, - Election, : Salaries, Parliamentary immunities. (1) Privilege from Arrest (2) _ Privilege of Speech and Debate Conflict of Interest. ' ‘Incompatible and Forbidden Offices Inhibitions and Disqualifications.. Sessions : Officers Quorum. Discipline of Members Journals, Page 162 ez 168 im 13 15 416 178 182 186 188 187 196 200 200‘Tam oF Coxrenrs Adjournment. ‘The Electoral Tribunals... ‘ee Corinion on Apcininnts Organization Chapter 9 POWERS OF THE CONGRESS Legislative Power in General Procedure Origin of Bills Prohibited Measures, Title of Bille Formalities Approval of Bills. Legislative Inquiries Appearance of Department Heads ‘he Power of Appropriation Q) Appropriation Defined @) Implied Limitations (@) Constitutional Limitations : (@) Appropriations for Sectarian Purposes, (5) Automatic Re-appropriation (6) Special Funds... ‘The Power of Taxation, ‘The Power of Concurrence, ‘The War Powers Referendum and Initiative Chapter 10 ‘THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Bxecutive Power Qualifications... Blection and Proclamation ‘Term. ‘The Vice-President. Presidontial Succession Oath of Uttice Perquisites and Inhibitions‘Tasue oF Conrents Executive Privilege Presidential Immunity Chapter 11 POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT ‘The Appointing Power (The Removal Power. ‘The Control Power ... ‘The “Teke-Care” Clause ‘The Military Power. (1) Command of the Armed Forces .. @) Habeas Corps (@) Martial Law .. (4) Limitations on the Miltary Powers ‘The Pandoning Power Q) Definitions, e @) Limitations - (3) Kinds of Pardon... (4) Bifects of Pardon () Distinctions. (6) Amnesty. ‘The Borrowing Pawer ‘The Diplomatie Power ‘The Budgetary Power... ‘The Informing Power, Other Powers . Resumé Chapter 12 ‘THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Independence of the Judiciary Judicial Power. Surisdiction Appointments... @) Qualifications (2) ‘The Judicial and Bar Council Fiseal Autonomy ‘Composition of the Supreme Court... Page 366 376 389 407 409 419 421 az 434 438, 439 443 44 485 448 453, 453, 455, 1462 463 464 467 414 a4 45 476‘TasLe oF Contents Q) Be Bane cases... (Division Cases. equi of Judai (Actual Case : 491 (2) Proper Party. 508 (@) Earliest Opportunity. 520 (4) _ Necessity of Deciding Constitutional 521 Bifects of a Declaration of Unconstitutionality 1526 (1) Partial Unconstitutionality : 533 Powers of the Supreme Court. . 534 Q) Original Jurisdietion, (2) Appellate Jurisdiction (@) Temporary Assignment of Judges (4) Change of Venue or Place of Trial (5) Rule-making Power (6) Appointment of Court Personnel. (7) Administrative Supervision or Courts Tenure of Judges Consultations of the Court Decisions of the Court Salaries of Judges Periods for Desisiont ‘Annual Report Chapter 13 ‘THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS Salaries, Disqualifcations Staggering of Terms. ‘Reappointment, Other Perquisites Proceedings Chapter 14 ‘THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Composition and Qualifications ... Scope of the Civil Ber Appointments.‘TABLE OF ConreNts (2) _ Exceptions Security of Tenure. 2 Partisan Political Activity... Selforganization = ‘Temporary Employees: Objectives ofthe Civil Service Ounpeaes = Disqualifications ~ Standardization of Compensation Double Compensation. : (Chapter 15, ‘THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Composition and Qualifications Powers and Functions. (1) Enforcament of Blection Laws... (2) Decision of Election Contests (@) Decision of Administrative Questions (4) Depatization of Law-Baforcement Agencies (6) Registration of Political Parties (6)__ Improvement of Elections. Election Period Chapter 16 ‘THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT Composition and Qualifieations Powers and Funetions. Chapter 17 ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS Impeachment . 652 654 681 620 691 701 702 104 705 709 710 725 mt 730‘TABLE OF ConrENTS (2) Impeachable Officers (2) Grounds for Impeachment, (3) Procedure @ _ Judgment. ‘The Sandiganbayan . ‘The Ombudsman, ) Composition B Guaiiaton a Appsiniect @ Term (4) Powers and Functions, (8) Salary (6) Deputy Ombudeman and Personnel of the Office of the Ombudsman ‘The Special Prosecutor gotten Wealth Loans. Assets and Liabilities. Change of Citizenship. Chapter 18 AMENDMENT OR REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION Kinds of Constitutions o . 805, Permanence of the Constitution von 806 Amendment and Revision. en 807 Procedure vo . 807 (2) Proposal 808 (A) _ Position of the Constitutional Convention 819 (2) Ratification 820 Judicial Review of Amendmente 924 Chapter 19 ‘TRANSITORY PROVISIONS. Bleetions 827 Existing Laws and Treaties 829) Reserved Executive Powers. 830 Court and Judges 832 Constitutional Commissions. 882, Career Civil ServicePriority Measures. ‘Sequestration. Salaries emp "TABLE OF ConraNTs APPENDICES ‘The Constitution of the Republi ofthe Philippines, ‘The 1973 Constitution, Ordinance Appended to the Constitution Apportioning he Members of the Batasang Pambansa to the Differ- feat Provinces with their Component Cities, Highly ‘Urbanized Cities, and the Distrets of Metropolitan ‘The 1985 Constitution, ass 85 a7 17‘TABLE OF CASES Page A Abainza v. Arellano, G.R. No. 181644, December 8, 2008, 573 SORA 332 662 Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, G.R. Nos. 168066, ‘September 1, 2005, 469 SCRA 1... 160, 177, 178, 179 ‘Abakada Guro Party List v. Porisima, G.R. No. 166715 ‘August 14, 2008, 562 SCRA 261. 276, 290, 729 Abanilla v. Commission on Audit, GR. No. 162347, Au- gust 25, 2008, 468 SCRA 87... 721 Abayon v. COMELEC and Raul Daza, G. Rt. No, 181295, ‘April 2, 2008, 583 SCRA 473, 663 Abayon v. HRET, G.R, No. 189466, Sebruary 11, 2010, 612 SCRA 375, : 2M ‘Abbas v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, 164 SCRA 651 252 ABC Party List v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 199256, March 22, 2011, 616 SCRA 88 oor 698 Abella v. Larrazabal, G.R. Nos, 8721-0 & 88004, December 21, 1989, 180 SCRA 609, 658 Abella vs. COMELEC, G-R. No, 100710, September 3, 1991, 201 SORA 253... 664 ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Office ofthe Ombudsman, G. No, 188347, October 15, 2008, 1569 SCRA 89. ABS-CBN Broadeasting Corporation. Phil. Multi-Media Tne, GR Nos, LPTE-0, Janary 39, 2006, 876 SCRA 262. ron 129, 520, 524 ‘Abueva v. Wood, 45 Phil. 612... 144 Abundo v. COMELEC GR. No. 201716, January 8, 2013, 688 SCRA 149. = 223 ACCFA v. Federation of Labor Unions, 30 SCRA 649. 35 ‘Achacoso v. Macaraig, G-R. No. 98028, March 13, 1991, 1195 SORA 235, sos 821 Adaza v. Pacana, 135 SCRA 431.00. 284 Ada CEI afdamble, GR No 680, Sly 3, 1970, 34 SCRA 166. : 460‘Taaue OF Cases Anillo v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, GR. No. 17856, Soptember 27, 2007, 594 SCRA 228 Antolin v, Demondon, G.R. No, 165036, July 6, 2010, 623 SCRA 163, Antonino v. Ombudsman, G.R. No, 144492, December is” 2008, 574 SCRA 403... Aparri v, Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA 281. ‘Apox Mining Co,, Inc. v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation, G-R. Nos. 152613 & 152628, November 20, 2009, 605 SCRA 100 rs 520 ‘Apo Fruits Corporation v, Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164195, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 200. 583 Aquino v. Corumission on Elections, 818 Phil. $67 (1995) «0... 668 ‘Aquino v. Commission on Elections, G-R. No. 120266, September 18, 1995, 248 SCRA 400 vn 658, 664 Aquino v. Commission on Electiona, G.R. No, 189798, ‘April 7, 2010, 617 SCRA 623, 203, Aquino v. Enrile, 89 SCRA 183 7,438 ‘Aquino v. Military Commission No. 2, 68 SCRA 548. vn BD ‘Aquino, Jr. v. Military Commission No. 2, G-R. No. L-37364, May 9, 1975, 68 SCRA 546, eae] Araneta v. Dinglasan, 84 Phi, 388... 165, 241, BU ‘Aranota v. Gatmaitan, 101 Phil. 328, . 78, 415 ‘Arasola v. Trinidad, 40 Phil. 252 n ‘Aratea v. Commission on Blections, G.R. No. 195229, October 9, 2012, 688 SCRA 105. [Aratue v. COMBLEC, 88 SCRA 251 .. ‘Arcega v. Court of Appeals, 66 SCRA 229 ‘Amault v. Balagtas, 97 Phil. 358. ‘Arnault v. Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29.. ‘Arquero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168053, September 21, 2011, 658 SCRA 70.. Arroyo v. De Venecia, 277 SORA 268... ‘Arroyo v. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 199082, ‘September 18, 2012, 681 SCRA 181... 502, 589, 658, 676, 679 ‘Asoan Pacific Planners v. City of Urdaneta, G.R. No. 162525, September 23, 2008, 566 SCRA 219 510 Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288 (1986) nen 525 ‘Ascociation of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Ine. v, Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 348. 115, 270, 281 Astonga v. Villegas, 56 SCRA Tid es 248,"TABLE OF Cases Page Along v COMBLEG, GR. No, 18800, Pebroary 1 2010, 612 SCRA 761 seve . 699 Atienza v. Villarosa, GR No, 161081, May 10, 2008, 458 SCRA 385 0. 508 Atizado v. People, G.R. No. 173822, October 13, 2010, 633, ‘SCRA 105, 278 Atizado v. People, GR. No. 173822, October 13, 2010, ‘SCRA 105, 108 Atong Paglaum, Ine. v. Gommissior on Blections, ‘GR. No. 203766, April 2, 2013, 694 SCRA 477 158, 206, 209, 215, 473, 696 Atty. De Vera v. Judge Layague, 3% Phil. 253 (2000) 780 ‘Austria v. Amante, 79 Phil. 780. 390 ‘Avelino v. Cuenco, 83 Phil. 17 150, 242 ‘Aytona w. Castillo, 4 SCRA 1 146, 405, ‘Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 116088, February 26, 1997, 268 SCRA 747. sn TBR ‘Aaar v. HRET, G-R. No, 65000, Januaty 9, 1900 254 B Bacolod City Water District v. Bayyna, G.R, No, 168780, ‘November 23, 2007, 588 SCRA 518 sue 810 Bagabuyo v. COMELEC, G.R. No, 176970, December 8, 2008, 578 SCRA 280. 204, 638, Balaba v. People, G.R. No. 169618, July 17, 2008, 583 SCRA 210... 754 Balao v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 186050, December 18, 2011, 662 SCRA 312 494 Balbasiro v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No, 171481, ‘June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 729... 178 Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation v. Pacana, GR. No. 171673, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 196. 15 BANAT v. COMELEC, G.R, No. 177508, August 7, 2008, 595 SORA 477 268, 281, 677, 678 BANAT v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 178271, April 21, 2009, 586 SCRA 210... 24 BANAT. COMELEG, GRR. No. 170271, July 8, 2009, 592 SORA 294... 208, 212, 697 Banda v. Ermita, G.R. No. 166620, April 20, 2010, 618 SCRA 488. 384‘Taste oF Cases Page Bank of Commerce v. Planters Development Bank, GAR. Nos. 154470-71, September 24, 2012, 681 SCRA B21 even 655 Bank of the Philippine islands v. Lecbreva, Git. No. 197147, January 28, 2002, 375 SCRA 81 Bantay Republic Act v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 177371, ‘May 4, 2007, 523 SCRA 1. Barbo v. Commission on Audit, GR. No. 187642, October 10, 2008, 568 SCRA 802... Bareelon v. Baker, § Phil. 87 Barrameda v. Moir, 5 Phil. 4a ‘Bases Conversion and Development Authority ¥. ‘Commission on Audit, G.R. No, 178160, February 26, 2009, 580 SCRA 296... sone 91, 8B Bautista v. Commission on Elections, 460 Phil. 459, 478 (2003)... Bautista v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 133840, ‘November 18, 1998, 298 SCRA 480.. Bautista v. Salonga, 172 SCRA 169. Bayan Muna v. Romulo, G.R, No, 159618, February 1, 2011, 641 SCRA 17, 100, 458, 460, 488 Baylosis v. Chavez, Jr, G.R. No, 96136, October 3, 1991, 202 SCRA 405. Bayot v. Sandiganbayan, No. L-61776 to No, L-61861, ‘March 23, 1984, 128 SCRA 383 .. Bedol v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179830, December 3, 2009, 608 SCRA 554. Bejaraseo, Jr v. Buenconsejo, AM, No. MTJ-02-1417, 54 "766 754 689 ‘May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 212. 768, Belgica v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013, 156 Bello v. COMELEC, GR. No, 191998, December 7, 2010, (687 SCRA 89. on en 4 Belongilot v. Cua, G.R. No, 160983, November 24, 2010, 688 SCRA $4... 187 Bengzon v. Drilon, G.R. No. 103524, April 15, 1982, 208 SCRA 133., 189, 482, 483 Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice, 229 US. 410... 275 ‘Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA 767-299 Benito vs. COMELEC, G.R.No. 106058, August 17, 1994, 235 SCRA 436. 664 Bermoy v. Philippine Normal Callege, 99 Phil. 1032 nm Bernabe v. Geraldez, 51 SCRA 869... sora ‘srTasue oF Cases Besa v. PNB, $8 SCRA 830, Botay v. Board of Directors, National Power Corporation, GR Nos, 156556-57, Octobor 4, 2011, 658 SCRA. 420 363, 999, 628 Bibas v. Ombudsman, GR. No. 172580, July 25, 2008, 559SCRA 591. 730 Binamira v. Garrucho, 188 SUA 164... 302 Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, GR. No. 192935, December 7, 2010, 637 SCRA 78, 420 Blanco v. COMELEG, G.R. No. 180164, June 17, 2008, 564 SCRA 755, 605, 680 Bolastig v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No, 110503, August 4, 1994, 235 SCRA 103. 754 Bolinao Electronics Corp. v. Valeacia, 11 SCRA 486. 1 288 Boncalon v. Ombudsman, G-R. No, 171812, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA 449.. m3 Bondoc v. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792 ve BBB, Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. The Province of. ‘No, 198870, Juno 26, 2012, 374 SCRA 6: 473 Borja v. People, GR. No. 166298, April 30, 2008, 1558 SCRA 250. . 610 Borlongan v. Buenaventura, G.R. No, 16723 27, 2008, 483 SCRA 405... 7180 Borromeo v. Court of Appeals, 186 SCRA 1 515 Boy Scouts of the Philippines v, Commission on Audit, GR No. 177131, June 7, 2011, 651 SCRA 146... 728 Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. National Labor Relations Commission, GR. No. 80767, April 22, 1991, 196 SORA 176. 615 Brillante v. Puyat-Royes, House Flectoral Tribunal ‘Case No, 81 (1988) 188, 216 Brillantes v. Yorae, 192 SCRA 356 os 600 British American Tobacco v. Camacho, G.R. No. 163683, ‘August 20, 562 SORA 511 seven 320, 546 British American Tobacco v. Camacho, GR. No. 163583, ‘April 15, 2009, 885 SCRA 36, 320 Buac v, COMELEC, 465 Phil. 800,810 (2004) . 341 Buehs v. Bacatan, A.C. No. 6674, June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 217. : 563 Buencamino v. Court of Appeals, @.R. No. 175895, 12 ‘April 2007, 520 SCRA 7 79 Buldod ng Kawaning ENB v. Zamora, G.1 Nos. 142801- £802, July 10, 2001, 360 SCRA 718. vr 385‘Tasue oF Cases Page Bulilis v. Nuez, G-R. No, 195953, August 9, 2011, 655 SORA 241... 685 Burdick v. United States, 235 US. 416 on ABB Bureau of Customs Employees Association v ‘Teves, G-R. No. 181704, December 6, 2011, 661 SCRA 589. 189, 160, 179, 183 Bureau of Fisheries v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 169815, August 13, 2008, 562 SCRA 134. 31, 82 Bureau of Printing, Born of Printing Emplyees ‘Association, 1 SCRA 340 13 Buseayno v. Enrile, 102 SORA 7. 578 c Cabalit v. Commission on Audit, GR. No, 180236, January 17, 2012, 668 SCRA 183 169 Caballero v. Philippine Coaat Guard, GR. No. 174312, ‘September 22, 2008, 568 SCRA 186 von Caballero v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos, 137355-58, Sep- ‘tember 25, 2007, 684 SCRA 30, Gabanas v. Pilapil, 58 SCRA 94. Gadtente v. Santos, 142 SCRA 250 Cagas v. Commission on Elections, @.R. No. 194139, January 24, 2012, 663 SORA 644... 604, 605, 686, 687 agony Acne, AM No, P0026, Jun 1 2012 678. SCRA 352. sa ATE Caillos v. Bonifacio, 65 Phil. 828. 633 Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726... 114, 174, 176, 179, Calano v. Craz, 94 Phil. 230... ae 541 Calderon v. Carale, 208 SCRA 254. 397 Caltex Philippines, Inc v. Commission on Ault G.R. No. 92585, May 8, 1992, 208 SCRA 726. ‘Camacho v. Gloria, 456 Phil. 399 (2003). Campomanes v. Violon, A.M. No. P-11-2083, July 25, 2012, 677 SCRA 483 eae 568 Caoibes v. Ombudsman, 413 Pail, 717 (2001)... 560 Caplla v COMELEC, GR, No, 20112, une 18, 2038, 673 SCRA 1 519 Carandang v. Desierto, Git. No. 148076, Samay 1 Ti 627 2011, 639 SCRA 293. 752 Cardona v. Binangonan, 96 Phil. 687 182 Gavaga Peon GR: No, 180010, Jly 80,2010 626 SCRA 231 ons 154"TaBLe oF Cases Page ‘Casco Phil. Chemical Co. v. Gimenez, 7 SCRA 374 246 Casibang v. Aquino, 92 SCRA 642 140 Casing v. Ombudsman, G.R, No, 192894, June 13, 2012, (672 SCRA 500, 766 Casino Labor Association v. Court of Appeals, G-R. No. 141020, June 12, 2008, 564 SORA 323, 610 Castillo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 187281, June 22, 2010, 621 SCRA 489. 155, 684 Castriciones v. Chief of Stait Armed Forces ofthe Philippines, G-R. No. 65731, September 28, 1989 (finute Resolution) sn AST Castro v. Deloria, G-R, No, 169586, January 27, 2008, 577 SCRA 20, 530 Castro, Jr. etal. v. Castatieda and Liceralde, 111 Phil. “785 (1961), 7166 Cavite Crusade for Good Government v. Cajigal, 422 Phil. 1, 9 (2001). o 795 Cayat v. Commission on Electiona, G.R. No, 168776, April 24, 2007, 522 SCRA 23. 666, 668 Cayetano v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No, 193646, April 12,2011, 648 SCRA 661. 804, 886, 687, 707 Cervantes v. Auditor General, 91 Phil 35 119 esa v. Ombudsman, GR. No. 166658, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 357. 718 Chaves v. Goneales, G.R. No. 168988, February 15, 2008, 545 SCRA 441. 517 Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, GR. No. 202242, July 17, 2012, 676 SORA 579. 477, 519, ‘Chaves v. Presidential Commission on Good Govern ment, GR. No. 180716, December 9, 1998, 299 SORA 744. : 370 Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No, 138250, ‘aly 9, 2002, 483 Phil. 506, 594 (2002), 384 Soka 152, . Chevron Philippines, Ine. v. Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs, G.R. No, 178759, August 11, 2008, 561 SORA 710... 548 ‘China National Machinery & Equipment Corporation 299, 371 v. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 185572, February 7, 2012, 885 SORA 1A9. £0, 51, 82, 68, 66, 458 nua Qua, Cave, GR. No 49645, Angus 90,190, 189 SORA IT vernon aT‘TaaLe oF Cases Page ‘Chung v. Mondragon, G.R.No. 179754, November 21, 2012, 686 SCRA 112. 513 Cipriano v. COMELEC, 479 Phil. 677 (2004) 692 City Government of Makati v. Civil Serviee Commission, 426 Phil. 631, 644 (2002). eat) ity Government of Quezon City v. Bayan Telecommuni- cations, Inc., 484 SCRA 168... vent 328 City Government of Tuguegarao v. Ting, G-R. Nos. 192435-36, September 14, 2011, 657 SCRA 760 756, 768 City of Cebu v. Dedamo, G.R. No, 172852, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 547... e581 City of Iriga v. Camarines Sur Ill Electrie Cooperative, GR. No, 192945, September 8, 2012 oon Gity of Pasig v. Republic ofthe Philippines, GR. No, 185023, August 24, 2011, 656 SCRA 271... Civil Liherties Union v. Executive Secretary, 394 SORA 317 Civil Service Commission v. Aifonso, GR. No. 179452, Jane 11, 2009, 589 SCRA 86. i Service Commission v. Andal, GR. No. 186748, December 16, 2009. 608 SCRA 370. 562, 628 Civil Service Commission v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No, 176162, October 9, 2012, 682 SCRA 353 Civil Service Commission v. Javier, G.R.No, 178268, February 22, 2008, 546 SORA 485... Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, Gi. No. 164521, ‘September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 589. Civil Service Commission v. Pillla Water District, GR. ‘No. 190147, March 5, 2013, 692 SORA 406.. Civil Service Commission v. Pobre, 488 SCRA 334 Civil Service Commission v. Salas, 274 SCRA 414 Civil Service Commission v. Sor, G.R. No, 168766, May 22, 2008, 554 SCRA 160 ou. . 27 Go Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keb 75 Phil. 118 ..ccncssn- 40, 44,98 Coffin v. Coffin, 4 Mass 1. . 229 Cojuangeo v. Republic, G.t. No. 180708, November 27, 2012, 686 SCRA 472... . Cojuangeo, Jr. v. Presidential jon on Good Gov ernment, G.R. Nos. 92819-20, October 2, 1990, 190 173 622, 625, 624 ez 619, 622, 624 755; SCRA 226... oe) Commission on Appointments v. Paler, @.R. No, 172623, ‘Mareh 8, 2010, 614 SCRA 127 sn 0‘Tamu cP Cases Page Commission on Elections v. Cruz, @.R.No. 186616, November 20, 2009, 605 SCRA 167, 152, 282, 472 ‘Commission on Elections v, Hspasol, G.R. Nos. 140164. 78, Decomber 10, 2003, 417 SCRA 554, 565, 619 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeal 240 SCRA 368 (1995), 639 Commussioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, GR. No, 107135, February 28, 1999, $08 SCRA. 508... 312 Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Bastern Telecom- ‘munications Phils, Inc, G.R, No, 163836, 7 July 2010, 624 SCRA 40. : 323 Comaissioner of Internal Revenue v. General Foods Phils.), Ine,, 401 SCRA 546... 547 Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Philippine American Acient Insurance Company, ney 453 SCRA 668, 548 Connally v. Scudder, 160 NB. 655, 134 Constantino v. People, G-R, No. 140656, September 1, 2007, 683 SCRA 205, 501, 508 Continentai Stes! Manufacturing Corporation v. ‘Montano, G-R. No. 182836, October 13, 2009, 603 SORA 621... tot Cordillera Broad Coalition v. Commission on Audit, 181 SORA 495. 522 Cornejo. Gabriel, 41 Phil. 188, 199-104 (1920). 128 Corona v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R, No. 200242, July 17, 2012, 676 SCRA 563... 730, 749 Corpus v. Cuaderno, G-R, No, 1-23721, March 31, 1965, 13 SCRA 691, 629 Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Kemper Insurance ‘Company, G.R. No. 179488, April 23, 2012, 670 SCRA 343... : 521 CREBA v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, GR. No, 183409, June 18, 2010, 621 SCRA 296, 1 887, 598 (Crespo v. Mogul, No. E-68373, June 30, 1987, 181 SORA 482. osescn ~ 761 Cruz v. Youngherg, 56 Phil. 234 175, 176 Cua v. COMELEC, 156 SCRA 582. 605 (Cuenco v, Fernan, A.C. No, 3135, February 17, 1988, 158 SCRA 29. 738 Culanag v. Director of Prisons, 20 SCRA 1128 446 Cunanan v. Tan, 8 SCRA 1, 265 Custodio v. Sonate President, 42 0.6, 1243 147, 509‘TABLE OF Cases Page Cuyegkeng v. Cruz, 108 Phil, 1147 508 D D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Esguerra, 328 Phil. 1168 (1996). 165 Dabalos v. Regional Trial Court, G.R. No. 193960, ‘January 7, 2018, 686 SCRA 64 0 Dadubo v. Civil Service Commission, 228 SCRA 747 619 Dario v. Mison, 176 SCRA 83 628 Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate ofthe Philippines, GR. No, 196271, October 18, 2011, 659 SCRA 210. . 120, 242, 270, 284, 396, 403, 674 Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philip- pines, G.R. No, 196271, Pebruary 28, 2012, 677 SCRA 200. : 489, 828, 829 David v. Arroyo, G-R. No, 171396, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 161 nnn A69, 270, 979, 988, 387, 490, 4439, 501, 510, 511, 517, 519, 851 Dayao v. Commission on Blections, G.R, No. 198643, ‘January 29, 2013, 689 SCRA 412. 698 Daza v. Singson, 180 SCRA 496... sarees 144, 265, 471 De Castro v. Committee an tnstica, Git No, 71688, Sept. 3, 1985 ..... 49, 748 De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, GR. No. 191003, ‘March 17, 2010, 615 SCRA 666 406, 486 De Guzman v. COMELEC, G.R. No, 180048, June 19, 2009, 590 SORA 149 sor De Guzman v. People, 119 SCRA 237... De Haber v. Queen of Portugal, 17 QB. 171. De Jesus v. Commission on Audit, 451 Phil. 19 (2003), Dedesus v. Commission on Audit, 486 Phil. 912 (2004) De Jesus v. Commission on Audit, 471 SCRA 624... De Jesus v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R, No, 140240, October 18, 2007, 586 SCRA 547 . De Jesus v. People, 120 SCRA 760.. = Dela Cruz v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 192221, November 13, 2012, 685 SCRA 347. 656, 660, 661, 668 Dela Cruz v. Gracia, G.R. No, 177728, July 31, 2009, 594 SCRA 6468. ne) Dela Liana v. Alba, 112 SCRA 294 sone 196, 180, 567 Dela Liana v. COMELEC, 82 SCRA 30 147 Dela Llana v. Chairman, Commission on Audit, Git No, 180989, February 7, 2012, 685 SCRA 176... -e.-611, 719‘Taste OF Cases Page Dela Paz v, Senate, G.R. No, 184849, February 18, 2009, 579 SCRA 621.. : rs 298, 300 De Leon v. Carpio, 178 SCRA 457... a8 De los Santos v. Intermediate Appallate Cour, 223 SORA 1 = 51, 61, 62, 63 De los Santos v. Mallare, 87 Phil. 269 , 624 Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos, P.E.7. Case No, 001, February 18, 1996, 253 SCRA 569, oo BA Dolector v. Ogayan, 123 SCRA 774, a 636 Deloso v, Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 86899.903, ‘May 15, 1989, 178 SCRA 409, 419. 152 Demetria v, Alba, 148 SCRA 208 ve B11, 525, Dept. of Education v. San Diego, 180 SCRA 633. ones 107 Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon v. Franciso, G.R. No 172553, December 14, 2011, 682 SCRA 439, 76 Deputy Ombudsman v. Abugan, G.R. No. 168692, ‘March 24, 2008, 549 SCRA 34 ns re TTB Doutsche Gesellschaft Far Technisshe Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) v. Court of Appeals, G.2. No. 152318, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA'150, 52, 58, Dimagiba v. Eopartoro, G.R. No, 154962, duly 10, 2012, 876 SCRA 420. 650, 777 Dimapore v. COMELEC, 544 SCRA 381 259 Dimayuga v. Commission on Elections, Gilt. No. 174763, ‘April 24, 2007, 522 SCRA 220. 687 Dino v. Olivarez, GR. No. 170447, Devemiber 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 251 on 679 Dinsay v. Cioco, 264 SCRA 703 (1986). sone TBO Distriet of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 US 203 85 Divinagracia v. Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. GR. No. 162272, April 7, 2008, 584 SCRA 213, 170, 383, Domingo v. Zamore, G-R. No, 142285, February 6, 200% 397 SCRA 56, 1 385 ‘Domino vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 184015, July 19, 1999, 310 SCRA 546. 7 189, 664 Dru Bayon Ft HadingInellignnce Bren +442 Phil 217 (2002), é 584 Drillon v. Lim, 285 SCRA 198 vse sores "410 Duarte v. Dade, 82 Phil, 36, 49 (1915). 22 Duenas v, HRET, G.R. No, 186401, July 21, 2000, 593 SCRA 316..... 254 Duenas v. HRET, G.R. Ne. 191560, iar "2010, 620 SCRA 78. 254‘TABLE oF Cases Dumarpa v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No, 192249, “April 2, 2013, 694 SCRA 403, Dumlao v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 892... Dungog v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. -77860-51, March 25, 1988, 169 SCRA 145, 148.. 167 Duque v. Veloso, G.R. No. 196201, June 19, 2012, ‘873 SCRA 676. Duty Free Philippines v. Mojica, G.it. No, 166965, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 776 E Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Ltd. v, Surio, G.R. No, 154213, August 23, 2012, 679 SCRA 21... astern Shipping Lines, Inc, vs. POEA, No. L-76633, AI October 18, 1988, 166 SCRA 693 on. 178 Eehegaray v. Secretary of Justice, 861 Phil "e.do00), '301 SCRA 96 554 Edu vs, Rrieta, No. 1-32086, October 24, 1970, 35. SCRA 481, 497... Endencia v. David, 93 Phil. 696. qui-Asia Placement, Inc v. Department of Foreign ‘Aflairs G.R. No, 152214, September 19, 2006, 1502 SCRA 295, Briguel v. COMELEC, G.R. No, 190526, Febraary 26, 2010 (January 26, 2010), 618 SCRA 809 sven ‘spina v. Zamora, G.R, No. 148856, September 21, 2010, Emnace v. Court of Appeals, 422 Phil. 10 681 SCRA 17 : aaa Espinosa v, Aquino, El. Case No, 9, Senate Electoral ‘Tribunal... 188 Espinosa v. Office of the Ombudsman, 397 Phil. 829, 881 (2000) sore 7 164 Espinosa v. Office of the Ombudaman, G-R. No. Jas, October 19, 2000, 343 SCRA 744 768 Espiritu v. Fugoso, 81 Phil. 687 anes Espuelas v. Provincial Warden of Bohol, 108 Phil. 963, 447 Estandarte v. People, G.R. Nos, 156861-55, February 18, 2008, 546 SCRA 130... Estarija v. Ranada, G.R. No, 159814, June 36, 2006, 492 SCRA 652. Esteves v. Sarmionto, G.R. No. 182374, November 11, 2008, 570 SCRA 656 ven 686‘Tass oF Cases Page Estrada v. Arroyo, G-R. No, 146738, Mar. 2, 2001, 858 SORA AB2. cen : 962 Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos, 146710-16, March 2, 2001, 368 SCRA 452... ns sense 916, 1687 Estrada v. Desierto, GR. No. 146710-16, April 3, 2001, 496 Phil. 1 (2001), 856 SCRA 108. 159,472 Hstrade v. Eseritor, A.M. No, P-02-1651, June 29, 2008, 492 SCRA 1. aoa 86 Estrella v. COMBLEC, GR. No. 160465, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 789. ae 608, 659 Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp, v. Court of Appeals, 247 Phil. 887, 394 (1986), 598, [Bverson v. Board of Education, 390 US 1 85 Executive Judge Basia v. Judge Becamon, 487 Phil. 490 (2008), 780 Executive Secretary v. Southwing Heavy Industries, Ine, GR. No. 164171, March 1, 2006, 482 SCRA 673, 115 Bx-Parte Levitt, 808 US, 638 wo ve 606, 508 ‘Bx-Parte Milligan, 4 Wall, 127, L.Ed. 297. 428, 435, F Fabells v. Court of Appeals, 346 Phil. 940 (1997) sono ™ Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No, 129742, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 470... : 218, 776 Facura v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166498, February 16, 2011, 643 SCRA 427..... 78,779, 780 Far Bast Bank and Trust Company v. Court of Appeals 477 SCRA 49... : 547 Farifias v. Executive Secretary, 417 SCRA 603, 282 Farolan v. Court of Tax Appeal, 217 SCRA 298 73,75 Fodoration of Free Farmers v. CA, G.R. No. L-41222, ‘November 13, 1985 «.-. 587 Federico v. Commission on Biections, 0.R. No. 198612, January 22, 2013, 689 SCRA 4... 661 Feliciano v. Aranez, GR. No. 165641, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 103., 723 Feliciano v, Commission on Audit, 464 Phil. 439) 236 Feria v. Court of Appeais, etal, G.R. No, 132964, February 15, 2000, 325 SCRA 525, es 487 Fermin v. Commission on Elections, GR. Nos. 179695 and 182369, December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 782 .......660, 676‘TABLE OF Cases Page Fermin v. People, G-R.No. 157643, 28 March 2008, 560 SCRA 132. 582 Fernandez v. COMELEC, GR. No. $7096, Jane 3, 2008, 556 SCRA 765. = 684 Festajo v. Femando, 50.0.4. 1656 tenn Fetalino v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 191890, December 4, 2012, 686 SCRA 813, eae ara Filipinas Enginecring & Machine Shop v. Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25, ea 707 Filipino v. Macabuhay, G.R. No. 158960, November 24, 2006, 508 SORA 50 168 Flauta v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 184586, July 29, 2009, 1598 SCRA 504.. 662 Flora v. Pajarillaga, G-R. No. 1-24806, January 22, 1980, 195 SCRA 100. Flores v. COMELBG, 184 SCRA 484 Flores v. Layosa, G.R. No. 154714, August 12, 2004, 1486 SORA 837. 758 Flores v. Montemayor, G.R. No. 170148, August 25, 2010, €29SCRA TTB ens eee) Fonacier v. Court of Appeals, 96 Phil. 417 (1958) reve AIT Fontanilla v. Maliaman, G.R. No. 178969 Deveuiber 1, 1989, 179 SCRA 686. 610 Forbes v. Chuoco Tiaco, 16 Phil. 534 : 46 Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v. Comms sioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No, 173425, September 4, 2012, 679 SCRA 566 133 Fortich v. Corona, 312 SCRA 751. 490 Fortan v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 190295, March 20, 2012, 1668 SCRA 504, o 4a Francia v, Municipality of Meyeauayan, GR. No. 170432, ‘March 24, 2008, 549 SCRA 52 173 Francisco v. Fernando, G.R. No, 168501, November 16, 2006, 507 SORA V8 rrr 518 Francisco v. The House of Representatives, GR. No. 160261 November 10, 2003, 415 SCRA 44 517, 742, 747 Frantz v. Autry, 91 Pae, 198... se B20 Freedom from Debt Coalition v. Metropolitan Water ‘works and Sewerage System, G.R, No. 173044, December 10, 2007, 839 SORA 621. Frias, Sr.v, People, G-R. No. 171487, Octoher 4, 2007, ‘584 SCRA 654. vs‘TasLie oF Cases Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, G.. Nos. 120295 & 123755, June 26, 1996, 257 SCRA 727, G.R. No. 87193, June 28, 1989, 174 SCRA 245... 658 Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping Co,, G.R, No. L-8060, ‘September $0, 1950, 63 Fuentes v. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, GR. 124295, October 23, 2001, 338 SCRA 36 : 561 Funa v. Agra, GR. No. 191644, February 19, 2013, 691 SCRA 196, 363 Puna v. Ermita, G.R. No. 184740, February 11, 2010, ‘812SCRA 308. 362, 605 Funa v. The Chairman, Commission on Audit, No, 192791, April 24, 2012, 870 SCRA 679... 501, 698 e Gachon v. Devera, Jr., G-R. No. 116696, June 20, 1997, 274 SCRA 540. 587 Galang v. Geronimo, G.R. No, 192795, February 22, 2011, 643 SCRA 631 ane Galoro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No, 151331, July 21, 2008, 559 SCRA 11.. 78 Galicto v. Aquino, G.R. No. 193978, February 28, 2012, 667 SCRA 150... 188, 986, 498, 520 Gallardo-Corro v. Gallardo, G-R. No, 136228, January 30, 2001, 350 SCRA B68... Gamboa v. Finance Seeretary, G.R, No, 176579, ‘June 28, 2011, 652 SCRA 69). 123 Gamogamo v. PNOC Shipping and Transport Corpora tion, G.R. No. 141707, May 7, 2002, 451 Phil. 510, 583 881 SCRA 742 core 617 Gonaden v. Ombudsman, GR. Nos. 169369-61, June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 76. 765 Garces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510. 16 Garcia v. Chairman, Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 75025, September 14, 1993, 226 SCRA 356 Garcia v. Chiof of Staff, 16 SCRA 120. ' 54 Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. No, 179267, June 25, 2013. 85, 110 Garcia v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 157584, April 2, 2009, 588 SCRA 119. 491, 622 Garcia v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 198554, uly 30, 2012, 677 SCRA 760 0.119, 237, 425, 429, 548, 544 Garcia v. Mata, 65 SCRA 520. sn 309‘TABLE OF Cases Page Garcia v. Miro, G.R. No, 167409, March 20, 2009, '582.SCRA 127. so 587, 561, 562 Garcia v. Molina, G.R. Nos. 157389 & 174137, ‘August 10, 2010, 627 SCRA 540. sn 626 Gareia-Padilla v. Bnrile, 121 SCRA 472 seen 151, 487 Garcillano v. House of Representatives, ‘GR_No. 170338, December 23, 2008, B75 SCRA 170. 197, 198, 297, 495, 603, 516 Garvida v. Sales, Jr, 398 Phil. 484 (1997), 1685 Gascon v. Arroyo, 178 SCRA 582 vel Gaston v, Republic Planters Bank, 249 Pail. 877 (1988)... 722, 726 Gayo v. Vereeles, G.R, No. 150477, February 28, 2005, 452.SORA 504. wen 608 General v. Urro, G-R No. 191560, March 29, 2011, 646 ‘SCRA 667. 390, 524, 621 German Agency fur Technical Cooperation ¥. Court ‘of Appeals, G-R. No. 152318, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 150 52, 58, Gerochi v. Department of Energy, G.R. No, 159796, ‘uly 17, 2007, 627 SCRA 696. 174, 176 Geronimo v. Ramos, G-R. Nos. L-60504, 1-60591, 60732-89, May 14, 1985, 196 SCRA 436. 664 Giron v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 188179, January 22, 2018, 689 SCRA 97 von 282 Go v. Sunbanun, GR. No. 168240, February 9, 2011, 642. SCRA 67. 556 Gobenciong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No, 159883, March 1, 2008, 550 SCRA 502 Gonzales v. Abaya, G.R. No, 164007, August 10, 2006, 498 SCRA 445... 1 33 TI Gonzales v. COMBLEG, 21 SCRA 774. 21 Gonzales v. COMELEC, 644 SCRA 761, "257, 660, 668 Gonzales v. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 280 save a) Gonzales v. Narvasa, @R. No, 140835, 992 Phil. 518 (2000) se 51 Gonzales v. Office ofthe President, GR. ‘No. 196231, September 4, 2012, 679 SCRA 614. 141, 408, 488, 737, 740, ‘757, 764, 776, 783, 184, 790 Gonzales v. Prov. Auditor of Hilo, 12 SCRA TLL, 72 ov, of the Phil. Islands v. Monte de Piedad, 36 Phil. 728....-37, 77 Governor Sahali v. Commission on Blections, G.R. ‘No. 201796, January 15, 2018, 688 SCRA S82... 682, 686, 688‘TasLE OF Cases Page Grego v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No, 125955, June 19, 1997, 274 SORA 481 ‘602, 639, 685 Grino v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No, 91602, 194 SCRA 458. ne 622 GSIS v. Group Management Corporation, GR. No, 167000, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 279... 80 GSIS v. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa GSis, GR No. 170132, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 622 635 GSIS v. Villaviza, GR. No, 180291, July 21, 2010, 625 SCRA 689.. . 685, Guazon v. De Villa, 181 SCRA 623 515 Gudani v. Senga, G.R, No, 170166, August 15, 3006, 498 SCRA 671... 119, 299, 433 Guerrero v. COMELEC, 391 Phil. $44, 352 (2000) vorovnnnee 257 Guevara v. COMELEC, 104 Phil. 269. sess 689 Guovara v. Gimenez, 6 SCRA 813... ve THB Guevara v. Inocentes, GR. No. L-25577, March 15, 1966, 1B SCRA 879. 268, 400 Guiao v. Figueroa, 04 Phil. 1018 (1954)... vee 66, Guingona v. Commission on Hlections, G-R. No. 191846, ‘May 6, 2010, 620 SCRA 448, 519 Cuma, Quin State College, Gi No 164196, ne 22, 2007, 525 SCRA 412 secre snes 8B Gunsi v. COMELBC, G.R. No, 168792, February 23, £2009, 580 SCRA 70 nn Gutierrez v. The House of Representatives, G.R. No. 193459, February 15, 2011, 43 SCRA 198... 658, 743, 744, 747 Gutierrez v. The House of Representatives, G.R. No, 198459, March 8, 2011, 644 SCRA 804. : 44 495, 501, 658 n Hacienda Luisita Incorporated v. Luisita Industrial ‘Park Corporation, G.R.No, 171101, July 6, 2011, 658 SCRA 154.. 148, 496, 520, 522 ‘Hacienda Luisita, Incorporated v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, G.R. No. 171101, Novernber 22, 2011, 660 SORA 525. . 530, 734 Hagad v. Gozo Dadole, 821 Phil. 6¢4 (1995) 626, 775, 776 Halley v. Printwell, Inc., GR. No. 157549, May 30, 2011, 649 SURA 116. 8% Hogerty v. Court of Appeals, 456 Pail. 842 (2003) «1s svsoone 765TABLE OF CASES Page Heirs of Aurelio Reyes v. Garilao, G.R. No. 136466, ‘November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 294... 270 Heirs of Mamerto Manguiat v. Court of Appeals, GR. Nos. 150768 and 160176, August 20, 2008, 562 SCRA 422, 61 Heirs of Maura So v. Obliosea, GR. No. 147082, January 28, 2008, 542 SCRA 408) 583 Heirs of Wilson Gamboa v. Finance Secretary, GR. 'No. 176579, October 9, 2012, 682 SCRA 897 o.oo 126 Herrera v. COMBLEC, G.R.'No. 131499, November 17, 1988, 18 SCRA 336...... 1-208, Hidalgo v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179783, ‘uly 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 391 615 Hilado v. David, 84 Phil. 573... 556 Hilado v. Judge Amor A. Reyes, 496 Phil, 85 (2006)... 196 Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 99. 119 Holy See v. Rosario, 288 SCRA 624 51, 58 Honasan v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors Department of Justice, G-R.No. 159747, April 13, 2004, 427 SCRA 46. 70 Houston v. Hormes, 252 US. 669 56 1 Tprahim v. Commission on Blections, G.R. No. 192289, January 8, 2013, 688 SCRA 128. son 604, 663, 681, 685, 707 Tedang v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 185960, 0 Jannary 25, 2012, 664 SCRA 253 Iehong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155 Imbong v. COMBLEC, 35 SCRA 28 In Re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562. In re Appointment of Mateo A. Valenzuela and Placido B. Vallarte, 208 SCRA 408. In Re Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534 Jn Re Dick, 38 Phil. 41. In Re Bdillon, 84 SCRA 554 In Re Garcia, 2 SCRA 984 .. In Re Mateo A. Valenzuela and Placido B. Via 298 SCRA 408. In Re Patterson, 1 Phil. 93 In Re: Saturnino V. Bermudez, GR. No. 76180, October 24, 1986, 145 SCRA 160. 186 98 12 56 486 289, 584, 556 1138, 145 "551, 558 99, 558 aii‘TABLE OF Cases Page In Re Sotto, 82 Phil. 596.. 139 In Re Torres, G.R. No. 122588, Dec. 29, 1996 .. 447 In Re: Exemption of the National Power Corporation ‘rom Payment of Filing/Decket Fees, A.M. No. 05-10-20-SC, March 10, 2610, 615 SCRA 1 76, 555 In Re: Raul M. Gonzales, A.M. No, 88-4-5483, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 771. 738 In the Matter of Clarification of Exemption from Pay- ‘ent of All Court and Sheriffs Fees, A.M. No. 12-2-08-0, March 13, 2012, 688 SCRA 1 488, 555 In the Matter ofthe Petition for Disqualification of Tess Dumpit Michelona, G.R. Nos. 163619-20, November 17, 2005, 475 SCRA 290, 203, 189 In the Matter of the Petition for the Writ of Amparo ‘and the Writ of Habeas Deta in Favor of Francis Saez v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No, 183583, September 25, 2012, 681 SCRA 678. 377, 483, Infante v. Prov. Warden, 92 Phi. 310, 86 Ingles v. Mutu, 135 Phil. 177 (1968) : 624 Ingles v. Mutue, 26 SORA 17. 409 Integrated Rar of the Philippines v. Ationza, GR. No 175241, February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 623. 505 Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, 388 SCRA Bl... 490, 471, 515 Integrated Bar ofthe Philippines v. Zamora, 992 Phil. 618, 634 (2000).. 539 Inting v. Tanodbayan, 97 SCRA 494... 789) a Jacob v. Puno, 191 SCRA 144, soe 1B Jacot v. Dal, G.R.No. 179848, November 27, 2008, 572 SCRA 286... 218, 802 Jalosjos v. Commission on Elections, Gt. No. 192474, ‘June 26, 2012, 674 SCRA 530. Jalosjos v. Commission on Elections, Gt. No. 192474, 287 October 9, 2012, 683 SCRA 1 257, 659, 668 Jamero v. Melicor, G.R. No. 140929, May 26, 2005, 459 SCRA 113. 554 Japzon v. Commission on Elections, GR. No. 180088, January 19, 2009, 576 SCRA 333 189, 218 Jardiel v. COMELEC, 124 SCRA 650, 678, 788Tanz oF Cases Page Jarque v. Desierto, A.C. No. 4509, 6 December 1995, 250 SCRA xi, xv, 738 ‘Javellana v. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 33 6, 146, 823 ‘avellana v. Tayo, 6 SORA 1048 sn AD ‘Javier v. Commission on Blections, 14d SCRA 194. 190, 683, ‘Javier v. Fly Ace Corporation, G.R. No, 192558, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 382. ernst) Javier v. Reyes, 170 SCRA 360... : 402 ‘Jimenez v. Cabangbang, 17 SORA 714 so B29 ‘Judge Angoles v. Gutierrez, G.R. Nos. 189161 & 189173, ‘March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 03... 164 ‘Jumamil v. Commission on Elections, G-R. Nos. 167989- ‘93, March 6, 2007, 517 SCRA 563 687 SJUSMAG v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. ‘No. 108813, 15 December 1994, 239 SCRA 224... 50 ‘dJustimbaste v. COMELEC, G.R.No. 179418, November 28, 2008, 572. SCRA 736. srsonss 658, 680 K Kalaw v. Commission on Elections, @.R, No, 80218, ‘Munute Kesolution dated Novomber 5, 1987. ‘Kapunan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 148213-17, March 18, 2009, 581 SCRA 42 : Kawanakoa v. Polybank, 205 US. 349 ... Kho v. Commission on Blections; G.R. No. 124088, September 25, 1997, 279 SCRA 46: lostugan Brie, No 17772, July 8 2007, 526 SCRA 353..... KGilosbayan v. Guingona, 235 SCRA 630, Kilosbayan v. Morato, 240 SCRA 640. Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Director-General, National Economic Development Authority, G.R. No. 167798, April 19, 2006, 487 SCRA 623, Kulayan vs. Tan, GR. No. 187298, July 2, 2012, 675.SCRA 482... Kuroda v. Jalandoni, 42 0.4, 4282. L Laban ng Demokatikong Pilipino v. Comission ‘on Elections, 468 Phil. 70 (2004) 699 Labo, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 257 Phil. 1 (1989) liv‘TABLE oF Cases Page Labo, Jt. v. Commission on Hlections, @.R, Nos. 105111 ‘& 105884, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA 297 658, 665 Labo, Jr. vs. COMELEC, GR. No, 86564, August 1, 1989, 176 SORA... 664 Lacson v. COMELEC, GR. No, L-16261, Dee. 28, 1951 655, Lneson v. Executive Socretary, G.R, Nos, 165899 and 165475, May 30, 2011, 649 SCKA 142 so TO Lacson v. Romero, 84 Phil. 740 402 Lacson v. Roquo, 91 Phil. 456... 381 Lacson v. Sec. Peres, 410 Phil. 78, 93 (2001), 887 SCRA 756. : 4a Lacson-Magallanes Co., Ine. v. Pano, 21 SCRA 895 416 Lahm v. Mayor, A.C. No. 7490, February 16, 2012, 666 SCRA 1, $ 563 Lamb v. Phipps, 22 Phil. 473, 72 Lambino v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 174183, October 25, 2006, 605 SCRA 160... sa 828, 809, 813 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Arceo, G.R. No. 168270, ‘aly 21, 2008, 559 SCRA 85... 583 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Rivera, GR. No, 182431, November 17, 2010, 685 SCRA 285, 76 Lanot v. COMELEC, GR. No, 164858, November 16, 2006, 507 SCRA 114. 680 Lansang v. Garcia, 42 SCRA 443 oo 150, 436 Lantaco, Sr. v. Hamas, 195 Phil. $25, 394 (1981). 798 Lapid v. Court of Appeals, 390 Phil 286 (2000) ' ‘770 Lastimosa v. Vasquez, 313 Phil. 358 (1995)... 776 Laurel v, Garcia, 187 SCRA 757 ..... ‘962, 522 Laurel v. Misa, 76 Phil. 272, 978 (1946) ne BBA Laurel v. Misa, 77 Phil. 856 43, 45 Lawyers Against Monopoly and Peverty v. Secretary ‘of Budget, G.R. No, 164987, April 24, 2012, 670 SCRA S75... 155, 498 Lawyers League v. Aquino, GR. No. 78748, May 23, 1986 al Layos v. Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Ine., G.R. No. 150470, August 6, 2008, 561SCRA 75... = 581 Layug v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No, 192984, February 28, 2012, 687 SCRA 136. 164, 682, 687, 698 Lazatin v. Desierto, G.R. No, 147087, 6 June 2009, 588 SCRA 285... 582 Lazatin v, House Blectoral Tribunal, 16 SCRA 891. 254 League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC, GR. ‘No. 176951, November 18, 2008, 571 SCRA 263..w- 197, 249 xy‘TABLE OF Cases Page League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC, G.R. ‘No. 176951, August 24, 2010, 628 SCRA 819... 529 League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176951, February 15, 2011, 643 SCRA 150 . cso 272 Leave Division v. Heusdens, AM. No, P-11-2927, December 18, 2011, 682 SCRA 126, 1-563 ‘Ledesma v. Court of Appoals, G.R. No, 161629, July 29, 2006, 465 SCRA 437 768 Legarda v. de Castro, P-E-T. Case No, 008, January 18, 2008, 542 SCRA 125, os 345 Legaspi Towers 300 v. Muer, G.R. No. 170789, June 18, 2012, 673 SCRA 482. 473 Leongson v. CA, 49 SCRA 219. 542 Liban v. Gordon, G.R. No. 175852, January 18, 2011, 699 SCRA 709. 238 Liban v. Gordon, G.R-No. 178382, July 15, 2008, 599 SCRA 68... snes 298, O12 Liberal Party v. COMELEG, GR. No. 191771, 6 ‘May 2010, 620 SCRA 893. 695 Lidasan v. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 498 279 Liga ng mga Barangay National v. City Mayor of Manila, 405 Phil. 529 (2004) 158 Lim v. Brownell, 107 Phil. 345 64 ‘Lim v. Pelaez, House Electoral Tribunal Case No, 86 (1947)... 188 Lim v. Zosa, 146 SCRA 366 559 Limbona v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 181097, June 25, 2008, 565 SCRA 391... 191, 659 Limbona v, COMELEC, G-R. No, 186006, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 240 it Limkaichong v. Comelee, GR. No, 164978, October 13, 2005, 472 SCRA 587 192 Limkaichong v. COMELEG, GR. Nos. 178891-22, ‘April 1, 2009, 583 SCRA 1 a Limkaichong v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 178831-39, ‘July 80, 2008, 594 SCRA 434. snes 219, 569 LLladoe v. Commissioner of Internal Revensie, 14 SCRA 292 vou. 921 Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency, Ine. v University of the Philippines, G.R. No. 185918, April 18, 2012, 670 SCRA 206. 60, 68, 614, 720 ‘Lokin v. Commission on Elections, GR. No. 180443, June ‘22, 2010, 621 SCRA 386. oe BLL, 312, 676 Lokin v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 193808, June 26, 2012, 674 SCRA 538, son 211, 604, 681, 699, 707 102, 257, 268, 505 xi‘TaBLe oF Cases Page Lonzanida v. COMELEC, 311 SCRA 602 fart 46) Loomis v. Jackson, 6W, Va. 61 319 Loong v. Commission on Elections, G.R, No. 93986, December 22, 1992, 216 SCRA 760...» see 888 Lopez v. Civil Service Commission, 194 SCRA 269. 402 Lopez v. De los Reyes, 55 Phil. 170 : 301 Lope v. Roxas, 17 SCRA 756. 428 Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman, GR. No. 139996, ‘August 15, 2000, 888 SCRA 62 764 Lorenzo v. Lopez, A.M. No, 2006-02-SC, October 15, 2007, 536 SCRA 11.. so 6B Lorada v. Arroyo, G.R. Nos. 184379.80, April 24, 4.2018, 670 SCRA 645. 376 Lozada v. COMELEC, 120 SCRA 337 515 Laciano v. Mariano, 148-B Phil. 178 G97) 158 Luego v. Civil Service Commission, 143 SCRA 327 wvs-vevcn0.. 402 Luison v. Garcia, 101 Phi 1218 rr 705 ‘Lung Ceator ofthe Philippines v. Quezon City, 439 SCRA 119. : 322 Luz Farms, Ine. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 192 SCRA 51 (1990) orunon 504 Lyons v. United States of America, 104 Phil. 698 ven M ‘Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1... .- 248, 820, 824 Macalintal v. COMELEC, G.R. 157013, July 10, 2003, 453 Phil. 886 (2003), 405 SCRA 614... 221, 290 Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No, 191618, June 7, 2011, 651 SCRA 239... 182, 256, 243, 479, 580 ‘Macalintal v. Presidential Blectoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 191618, November 23, 2010, 685 SCRA 78 nmol 2, 256, 840, 943, 944, 479 Macariola v. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77, vn A ‘Maceda v. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464 (1993) 560 ‘Macias v. Commission on Elections, 3 SCRA 1 203 Madarang v. Sandiganbayan, G.R, No, 112314, ‘March 28, 2001, 355 SCRA 526... sn 5 Madriaga v. China Banking Corperation, G.R. No. 192377, July 25, 2012, 87 SORA Hn 495, 501 ‘Magallona v. Ermita, G-R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011, 655 SCRA 476, smn 24, BT, 81, 99 Magarang v, Jardin, Sr., 386 Phil. 273, 284 (2000)... 795 abvTABLE OF Cases Page Magilalo Para sa Pagbabago v. Commission on Elections, G-R. No. 190793, June 19, 2012, 613 SORA 651 oe 455, 505, 692, 695 ‘Maglalas v. National Housing Authority, GR. No. 188823, September 17, 2008, 565 SCRA 379 v8 Magno v. People, G.R. No. 171642, April 6, 2011, 647 SCRA 362, 155 ‘Mahawan v. People, G.R. No. 176609, December 18, 2008, 874 SCRA 737... nents 8B Malacora v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-51042, September 30, 1982, 117 SCRA 435 588 Maliksi v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 308803, “Apri 11, 2013, 698 SCRA 214. 684 ‘Mamba v. Lara, G.R. No, 165109, December 14, 2008, 608 SORA 149... a 510 Manalang-Demigillo v. Trade and Investment Develop. ‘ment Corporation of the Philippines, G.R. No, 168613, March 5, 2013, 692 SCRA 859 on. 412, 611 ‘Manalo v. Calderon, G-R. No, 178920, October 15, 2007, 1596 SCRA 290. 437 Mangea v. COMELEC, 112 SCRA 270, ‘Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Trans. Co, 87 Phil. 825, Manila Electric Company v. Atilano, GR. No. 166758, 579 11 ‘June 27, 2012, 675 SCRA 112. 519 ‘Manila International Airport Authority v. City of Pasay, GR. No. 163072, April 2, 2009, 683 SCRA 234, 8328, 614 ‘Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of ‘Appeals, G.R. No, 155650, July 20, 2006, 495 SCRA 591, sone 612, 614 Manila Motors Co. v. Flores, 99 Phil. 798 von 527 ‘Manila Public Sehool Teachers Assotiation v. Laguio, 200 SCRA 823. a Manubay v. Garilao GR. No. 140717, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 134, 4d Mapa v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 100296, April 26, 1994, 281 SCRA 785. 21%, 387 ‘Maquiling v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013 : sn 198, 668, 669, 709) ‘Mareelino v. Cruz, 121 SCRA 61. 587 ‘Mareolota v. Borra, A.C. No. 7782, March 20, 2009, 682 SORA 474... 1 883, 738 Marenetav, COMELEC, Gi No 18197, April 34, 2009, 586 SCRA 765. 606, 053 xvii‘TaLe OF Cases ‘Mareopper Mining Corporation v. Briones, No. L-77210, ‘September 19, 1988, 165 SCRA 464 ‘Marcos v. Chief of Staff, 89 Phil, 246 (1951), ‘Mareos v. COMELEC, $18 Phil. $28, 397 (1995). ‘Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668. Mari v. Gonzales, G-R. No. 187723, September 12, 2011, 607 SUKA 414... Mariano v. COMELEC, GR. No. 118677 March 7, 1996, 2ABSORA Boos ‘Maribago Bluewater Beach Resort v. Dual, G.R. No 1180660, July 20, 2040, 625 SCRA 147 7 ‘Marchomaalie v. Cale, G.R. No. 169918, February 27, 2008, 547 SCRA 98 Martine II v. House of Reprosertatives Blectoral ‘Tribunal, G.R. No. 189034, January 12, 2010, 610 SCRA 53, Matibag v. Benipayo, 429 SORA 554... ‘Matute y. Hernandez, 66 Phil. 65 ‘Medina v. Commission on Audit, G.. No. 176478, February 4, 2008, 543 SCRA 634... Melchor v, Gironella, G.R. No. 151138, February 2005, 451 SCRA 476. Mendoza v. Court of First instance, 65 SCRA 96, ‘Mendoza v. Quisumbing, 186 SCRA. 108 ‘Mercado v. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999, 367 Phil. 182 (1989), : ‘Mercury Drug Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No, 75663, September 15, 1989, TIT SCRA 580... Merritt v. Gov't of the Phil. Islands, 34 Phil. S11 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Comapany v. Reynada, G.R. No, 164538, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 88... ‘Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Tobias, G.R. ‘No, 177780, January 25, 2012, 664 SCRA 165, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, Miguel v. Honorable Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172035, Suly 4, 2012, 675 SCRA 560. ‘Mijares v. Ranada, G-R. No. 199835, April 12, 200s, 455 SCRA 397. ‘Ministerio v. City of Cebu, 40 SUKA 46a, ‘Miranda v. Abaya, G.R. No. 186351, July 28, 1999, S1LSCRA 617, ‘No, 149086, April 2, 2002, atx 473 387, Baa 589 208, ua 78 656 401, woe 112 61, 78 766 154 "104 153 61 661, 666‘TABLE OF Cases Page Mitra v. COMELEC, G-R. No. 191988, July 2, 2010, 622 SCRA 744. 191, 216 Mitra v. COMELEC, Gt No. 191938, October 19, 2010, 683 SCRA 580. 191, 216 ‘Mizvaki Takenouchi v. Cristi, @.R. No, 82292, July 25, 1988 (Minute Resolution)... 437 MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48, February 15, 2011, 648 SCRA 90, 127, 473, Mobil Phil. Exploration, Ine. v. Customs Arrastre Service, 18 SCRA 1120. ™ ‘Mocorro v. Ramirez, G.&. No. 178866, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 362. i] ‘Molen, Jr. v. Commission on Audit, 498 Phil. 874 (2005). 724 ‘Mondana v. SiWvasa, 97 Phil. 143 “381, 410 Monsanto v. Factoran, 170 SCRA 190 443 Montemayor v. Bundalian, GR. No, 149995, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 264 719 Montenegro v. Castaneda, 91 Phil. 882 . 150, 436 Morrero w. Bocar, 66 Phil. 429, 258 ‘Moya v. del Fierro, 69 Phil. 199 80 ‘Mun, of Moncada v. Cajuigan, 21 Phil. 184 mene TD ‘Munder v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 194076, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 256... : ‘Municipality of Malabang v. Benito, G.R. No, L-28113, 658, 676 ‘March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 533 529 Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Firme, 195 SCRA 692.. 8 ‘Mutue v. Commission on Elections, 190 Phil. 603, 672 (1968) 267 ‘Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 381 N Nacionalista Party v. Bautista, 85 Phil. 101 Nacionalista Party v. De Vera, 35 Phil. 126. Nadeco v. Tobias, 7 SCRA 692 : NASECO v. NLRC, GR. No. L-69870, November 29, 1988, 250 Phil. 129 (1988), 168 SCRA 122. National Airports Corp. v. Teodoro, 91 Phil. 203. National Amnesty Commission v. Commission on Audit, 481 Phil. 279, 204 (2004) 303 National Electrification Administration v. Commission. ‘on Audit, 427 Phil. 464, 481 (2002), nt‘TABLE oF Cases Page National Electrification Administration v. Morales, G.R. ‘No. 154200, July 24, 2007, 528 SCRA 79.......60, 68, 610, 720 ‘National Housing Authority v. City of Moilo, G.R. No. 172267, August 20, 2008, 562 SORA 237 a4 ‘National Housing Corporation v. Juco, 134 SORA 172. 609 National Service Corp. v. NLRC, 168 SCRA 122 : 608 ‘Nava v. National Bureau of Investigation, Regional Office No. X1, Davao City, GR. No. 134509, April 12, 2008, 455 SCRA 377. 167 Navarro v. Ermita, G.R, No, 180050, April 12, 2011, (648 SCRA 400, : 202 Navarro v. Ermita, G.R. No. 180080, February 10, 2010, 612 SCRA 131. 202 Navia v. Pardico, G.R. No. 184467, June 19, 2012, 673 SCRA 618. sonnntne Nazareth v. Villar, GR. No. 188635, January 29, 2015, 689 SCRA 885 ron soon 804, 811, 312 Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, G.R. No. 180843, March 25, 2008, 549 SCRA 77... 164, 198, 298, 369, 375 Neri v. Senate Committoc on Accountability of Public Officers, G.R. No. 180843, September 4, 2008, 664 SCRA 152.. 197, 298, $04, 972, 487 New Frontier Mines v. NLRC, 129 SCRA 502. “587 NHMEC v. Abayari, G.R. No, 166508, October 2, 2009, 602 SORA 242 720 Nicolas v. Romulo, @.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009, 578 SCRA 438 . 458, 557 ‘Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 162759, ‘August 4, 2006, 497 SCRA 619. 221 ‘Nicos Industrial Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 127 BT1, 572 ‘Nieves v. Blanco, G.R. No. 190422, June 19, 201 (675 SCRA 638. 1 840 ‘Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 152 SCRA 286.. : 585 Noblejas v. Salas, 67 SCRA 47 .. : cal Noblejas v. Teehankee, 28 SCRA 405 nnn IBA Noceda y, Arbize Direct, G.R- No. 78406, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 472. et Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US. 425 526‘Taos oF Casts ° Ocampo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-18168, Dee. 6, 1957. Ocampo v. House of Representatives Electoral ‘Tribunal, G.R, No, 168466, June 15, 2004, 482 SCRA 144 .curnnnnmnnnnn campo v. See. of Justice, L-7918, Jan. 18, 1955, BLOG. 1 : Oceena v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 755, . Odchigue-Bondoe v. Tan Tiong Bio, G.R. No. 186652, October 6, 2010, 682 SCRA 457 Office of the Court Administrator v. Javellana, {481 Phil, $15 (200) nr Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Fuentes, ‘AM, No, RTU-13-2342, March 6, 2013, 692 SCRA 429... Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Indar, ‘AM, No, RTJ-10-2232, April 10, 2012, 669 SCRA 24. Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Usman, ‘AM, No, SCC-08-12, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 41D on Office of the Ombudsman v. Andutan, GR. No. 164679, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 599. Office of the Ombudsman w. Apolonio, G-R. No. 165132, March 7, 2012, SCRA 883 Office of the Ombudsman v. Civil Service Commis- sion, 451 SCRA 570 nn Office of the Ombudsman v. Cordova, G.Rt. No. 188650, October 6, 2010, 682 SCRA 465 Office of the Ombudsman v. Court af Appeals, G-R. 'No. 159395, May 7, 2008, 654 SCRA 75, Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, G-R. 'No. 167844, November 22, 2006, 507 SCRA 593.. Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, G.R. ‘No. 168079, July 17, 2007, 527 SCRA 798. Office of the Ombudsman v. de Sahagun, G-R. No, 167952, August 18, 2008, 562 SCRA 122 Office of the Ombudsman v. Delijero, Jr G.R. No. 172835, October 20, 2010, 684 SCRA 135. Office of the Ombudsman v. Evangelista, G:R. No. 177211, March 18, 2009, 581 SCRA 360 . 136, 623, 565 Page or 664 823 519 588 568, 730 7168 768 782 115 730,778 769 769 730, 769 168, 771, 775 718‘TABLE OF Cases Page Office of the Ombudsman v. Galicia, G.R. No 167711, October 10, 2008, 538 SCRA 327 ™ Office of the Ombudsman v. Lucero, G.R. No, 168718, November 24, 2006, 508 SCRA 108 768 Office of the Ombudsman v. Masing, G.R, No. 165416, January 22, 2008, 642 SCRA 253 768, 771 ‘Office of the Ombudsman v. Medrano, G.K. No. 177580, October 17, 2008, 539 SCRA 747 ™ Office of the Ombudsman v. Redrguer, GR. No. 172700, July 23, 2010, 625 SCRA 209, 758, 762, 768, 769, 774 Office of the Ombudeman v. Samaniego, GR. No, 175678, October 5, 2010, 632 SCRA 140. 11,719 Office of the Ombudsman v. Santiago, G.R. No. 161098, September 13, 2007, 583 SCRA 305 768, 769 Office of the Ombudsman v. Torres, G-R. No. 168309, January 29, 2008, 543 SCRA 46 730 Office ofthe President v. Cataquiz, G.R. No, 183445, September 14, 2011, 657 SCRA 681 672 Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34, 150 SCRA 144... 427, 528, Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 172224, January 28, 2011, 640 SCRA 544. 1 Ombudsman v. Pelifo, G.R, No, 179261, April 18, 2008, 552 SORA 208... 76 Ombudsman v. Racho, G.R. No, 185685, January 81, 2011, 641 SORA 148 nnn 760, 794 ‘Ondoy v. Ignacio, 97 SCRA 252... ul Ople v. Torres, G.R. No, 127685, July 23, 1998, 364 Phil. 948 (1998), 298 SCRA 141. sn 9, 988 Oposa v. Pactoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993, 224 SCRA 792... 36, 88, 127 Orap v. Sandiganbayan, 139 SCRA 252 "754, 769, 790 Orosa v. Roa, 527 Phil. 847, 358-954 (2008) . 418, Osmetia v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 188818, May 81, 2011, 649 SCRA 654... 724 ‘Osmetia v. Orbos, G.R. No, 99886, March 81, 1993, 220 SCRA 703. 729, 727 ‘Osmena v. Pendatun, 108 Phil. 863. 147, 230, 244 Oxales v. United Laboratories, Ine, GR. No. 152991, July 21, 2008, 559 SCRA 26. a2‘TABLE oF Cases Page P PLB, Domingo & Co. v. Zari, 159 SCRA 171 552 Pacete v. Commission on Audit, 185 SCRA 1 1622, 719) Pacifieador v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 178259, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 372 vn 886, 704 Pacoy v. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472, September 28, 2007, 534 SCRA 338. 539 PACU v. Secretary of Education, 97 Phil. 806 48 Pagano v. Nazarvo, G.R No. 149072, September 21, 2007, 538 SORA 622... 506 PAGCOR v. Aumentado, G3. No. 173684, July 22, 2010, 625 SORA 241, 604 PAGCOR v. BIR, G.R. No. 172087, March 16, 2011, ‘645 SCRA 838. . 323 Paguia v. Office of the President Gt. No. 176278, Tune 25, 2010, 621 SCRA 600. ses BOB Palafox v. Province of Hocos Norte, 10% nnn) Palmares v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. ‘8617-78, Minute Resolution dated August 81, 1988. 699 Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maymila v. IAC, 140 ‘SORA 22. 401 Pangasinan Transportation Co, vs. Public Service ‘Commission, No. 47065, June 26, 1940, 70 il. 221. ssn 188, 184, 175 Pascual v. See. of Publie Works & Communications, 10 Phil. 331 PCGG Chairman v. Jacobi, GR. No. 155986, June 27, 2012, (675 SCRA 20... Pelacz vs. Auditor General, No, L-2885, December 24, 1965, 122 Phil. 985, 15 SCRA 569, Polobello v. Palatino, 72 Phil. 441... Pefiera v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 181613, November 25, 2008, 605 SCRA B74... 102 People v. Alban, G.R. Nos. 1-45876-77, duly 26, 1088, 163 SCRA 611 153 People v. Bello, GR. Nos, 166048-59, August 29, ‘2012, 679 SCRA 208, 752 People v. Benipayo, G.R. No, 154473, April 24, +2009, 686 SORA 420... on 138 People v. Bosi, G.R. No. 198686, June 25, 2012, (674 SCRA 411. : 85, 105 liv"TABLE OF CasHs Page People v. Casido, 396 Phil. 344 (1997)... 455 People v. Delgado, 189 SCRA 718 . sw 709 People v. Fernandez, CA-G.R Ne. L-1128 (1945) 316 People v. Gutierrez, 39 SCRA 173 549 People v. Jacinto, G.R. No, 182289, March 16, 2011, 645 SORA 590. i 108 People v. Lagman, 380.6. 1676 People v. Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011, 654 SCRA 188. 108, 278 People v. Monticalvo, G.R. No. 1£3507, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 715... svn 108, 278 People v. Mfunar, 58 SCRA 678 oon... 54 People v. Pacificador, 406 Phil. 774, 782 (2001) 191 People v. Patriarea, 395 Phil.690 2000). 455 People v. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887 rovasonnon . 1,46 People v. Pilotin, 65 SCRA 635 550 People v. Pomar, 48 Phil. 440.0000 ' 805 People v. Ritter, 194 SCRA 690. . 105 People v. Rosenthal, 68 Phil. 328 : 179 People v. Salle, 250 SCRA 681 445; People v. Sandiganbayan, 451 SCRA 113... 11 People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 156394, January 21, 2005, £49 SCRA 205 156 People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164185, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 449. 64s, People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169004, Sep- ‘tember 15, 2010, 630 SCRA 489 751 People v. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2008, 699 SCRA 20. 1108, 273, People v. Sesbreno, G.R. No. L-62449 July 16, 1984, 190 SCRA 465, 563 People v. Vora, 65 Phil. 6. 71, 173, 176, 180, 507, 521 People v. Zosa, 38 0.G. 1676 . 93 PEPSICO, Inc v. Lacanilao, 524 Phil. 147 (2006).. 588 Peralta v. Auditor General, 148 Fhil. 261 (1971)... 648 Peralta v. COMELEC, 82 SCRA $0 .... 702, Peralta v. Director of Prisons, 75 Phil. 285 44, 45 ener: Commission on Elston 975 Pil 1108, 1116-1116 (1999) o sane 987 Perfecto v. Meer, 85 Phil 552... 7 585, Perkins vs. Haywood, 31. E., 670, 672. 585, PERTCPM Manpower ExponentCo., Ine. v. Vinuya, G.R. No. 197528, September 5, 2012, 680 SCRA 284. 273‘TABLE OF Cases Page Potition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin 'M, Dacanay, B.M. No, 1678, December 17, 2007, 540 SCRA 424 556 Petitioner Organizations v. Bxecutive Secretary, GR. Nos. 147036-37, April 10, 2012, 669 SCRA 49 so Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association v. Health Secretary, G.R-No, 173034, October 9, 2007, 535 SCRA 265... Phil. Bar Association v. COMBLEC, GR. No. 72915, Dec. 20, 1985. Phil. National Bank v. Pabalan, 83 SCRA 595. Phil. National Railways v. IAC, 217 SCRA 401. = Phil. Press Institute v, COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272 sss 674 Phileomsat Holdings Corporation v. Senate, G.R. ‘No. 180308, June 19, 2012, 678 SCRA 611 PHILCONSA v. Gimenea, 15 SCRA 479. PHILCONSA v. Villareal, 52 SCRA 477, Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v 88, 157, 478, 889, 725 ‘Angara, 475 SCRA 41. 622 Philippine Amucoment and Gamaing Corporation v Court af Appeals, G-R. No. 98396, September 80, 1991, 202 SCRA 191.. 610 Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation vs. Rilloraza, GR. No. 141141, June 25, 2001, 359 SCRA 525... 622 Philippine Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G-R. No. 170574, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 366. nes BM Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office Board of Directors v. Lapid, G.R. No, 191940, April 12, 2011, 648 SCRA 546... 637 Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, ‘ne. v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. ‘Nos, 177857-58, January 24, 2012, 663 SORA 514 sven 582, 546, 724, 728, 755 Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Ine. v. ‘Republic, G.R. Nos. 177857-58, September 17, 2008, 600 SCRA 102... 132, 148 Philippine Coconut Producers Feeration, Ine. v. ‘Republic, G.R. Nos. 177857-58, February 11, 2010, 612 SCRA 255. 1 B82 wi‘Tanta cP Cases Page Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113108, August 19, 1994, 235 SCRA 506... 155, 311, 912 Philippine Export Processing Zone Authority v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No, 189767, July 3, 2012, 675 SCRA 518... Philippine Fisherios Development Authority v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, G.R, No. 178030, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 644, ss 828 Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Ine. (PGBI) v. ‘Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 190529, 29 April 2010, 619 SCRA 585, 582 Philippine International Air Terminals Co, Ine. v. ‘Takenaka Corporation, G-R. No. 180245, July 1384 4, 2012, 675 SCRA 674. 503 Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Commission on Audit, 461 Phil. 787 (2003) 24 Philippine Judges Association v, Prado, G.R. No. 105371 November 11, 1993, 227 SCRA 208 . 247, 286 Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co, v. NLRC, 247 Phil. 641 (1988)... us Philippine National Bank v. Palme, G.R. No. 157279, August 9, 2005, 466 SCRA 307 sone 520, 622 Philippine Rock Industries, Inc. v. Board of Liquidators, 259 Phil. 650, 655-656 (1989)... : n Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement v. Virgilio B, Pulgar, GR. No, 169227, culy 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 244 uz Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to ‘Animals v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 169752, September 25, 2007, 534 SCRA 112 278 Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. ‘No. 192561, June 30, 2005, 452 SCRA 336 520 Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. Board of Investments, G.R. No, 175787, February 4, 2009, 578 SCRA 113. 412 Pichay v, Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary {for Legal Affairs Investigative and Adjudica- tion Division, GR. No. 196425, July 24, 2012, 677 SCRA 408. nnn 31S, 985, 421, 462 Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 262 U.S. 390... 104 Pimentel v. Aguirre, G.R. No, 132938, July 19, 2000, 886 SCRA 201... 493‘TaBLE OF Cases Page Pimentel v. Ermita, G.R. No. 164978, October 13, 2005, 472 SCRA 587 272, 398, 504 Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No, 158088, ‘uly 16, 2008, 482 SORA 622. rors t 460 Pinero v. Hechanova, 18 SCRA 417... 622 PIRMA v, COMELEC, G.R. No, 129754, Sept. 23, 1997, 826 Planas v. Commission on Elections, 19 Pail. 06, 512 (2006) ae snes 58. Planas v. Gil, 67 Phil. 62 380 Planters Products Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation, GR. No. 166006, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 485. Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, G.R. No. 819, 516, 528, 546 169982, November 28, 2007, 538 SCRA 534 se TI. Plintv. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107. . 276 Pobre v. Defensor Santiago, A.C. No. 7398, ‘sagas 25, 2009, 597 SCRA Toc ase 280 Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 US. 270 vn 88 Pormento v. Ustrada, G.R. No. 191988, August 81, 2010, 629 SCRA 530. non SAT, 496 Presbiterio v. COMELIG, GI No, 1788854, June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 816... snne OTB Primicias v. Ocampo, 98 Phil. 451 852 Protacio v. Laya Mananghaya & Co., G.R. No, 168654, March 25, 2009, 582 SCRA 411... 578 Prudente v. Genuino, GR. No. 1-5222, Nov. 6, 1951. 655, Prudential Bank v. Castro, 158 SCRA 646. eT Public Interest Center, Inc. v. Elma, G.R. No. 138965, June 30, 2008, 494 SCRA B8.....c.nse 643 Public Interest Center, Inc. v. Elma, G-R. No. 188965, March 5, 2007, 617 SORA 396. 504, 644 Pundaodaya v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179313, September 17, 2009, 800 SCRA 178, 191 Puyat v. De Guzman, 118 SCRA 33... 238 PVTA v. CIR, 65 SCRA 416 35 Qa Quarto v. The Honorable Ombudsman Simeon ‘Marcelo, G-R, Nu, 109042, October 5, 2011, 58 SCRA 580. . 271, 981, 168 wii‘Taste oF Casts Querubin v. Regional Cluster Director, Legal and ‘Adjudication Office, COA Regional Office VI, Pavia, Iloilo City, G.R. No. 159299, July 7, 2004, 483 SCRA 769... Quezon City v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, GR. No, 166408, October 6, 2008, 567 SCRA 496, Quiao v. Quiao, GR. No. 176556, July 4, 2012, 675 SCRA 642. Quimzon v. Ozaeta, 98 Phil. 705.. Quinto v. Commission on Biections, G.R. Ne. 189698, February 22, 2010, 618 SCRA 386. Quintos-Deles v. Commission on Appointments, 177 SCRA 259. Quizon v. COMELEC, GR. No, 177927, February 15, 2008, 545 SCRA 635. R Radaza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 177135, ‘October 15, 2008, 968 SCRA 223 Ramiseal v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 172476-99, ‘September 15, 2010, 630 SCRA 505. Ramos v. Ramos, 447 Phil. 114 (2009), Rapsing v. Ables, G.R. No. £71855, October 15, 2012, 684 SCRA 195. Raro v. Sandiganbayan, 890 Phil. 917 (2000), Rayo v. CFI of Bulacan, 110 SCRA 460 Rayo v. Metropolitan Bank, G.R. No. 165142, December 10, 2007, 89 SCRA 571. Razon, Jr. v, Tagitis, G.R, No, 182498, December 3, 2008, 606 SCRA 598 Re: COA Opinion on the Computation of the Ap- praised Value of the Properties Purchased by the retired Chie/Associate Justices of the Su- preme Court, A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC, July 31, 2012, 678 SCRA 1... Re: Complaint against the Honorable Chiet Justice Renato C. Corona datod September 14, 2011 filed by Inter-Patal Recreationsl Corporation, AMM. No. 12-6-10-SC, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 62. nn Re: Request of Jose M. Alejandrino, 672 SCRA 27 4 323 103 644, 651 32 298 495, 501 766 BBS a4 765, 7 522 98 158, 483, 732‘Tape oF Cases Re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) for Payment of Logal Fees, A.M. No. 08-2-01-0, 11 February 2010, 612 SCRA 193... Re: Request for Copy of 2008 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) and Per- sonal Data Sheet or Curriculum Vitae of the ‘Justices of the Supreme Court and Officers ‘and Bmaployees of the Judiciary, A.M. No. 08- 8.6.80, June 18, 2012, 672 SCRA 27. Re: Request of Philippine Center for Investigative ‘Journalism for the 2008 SALNé and Personal Data Sheets of Court of Appeals Justices, AM, No. 09-8-07-CA, June 18, 2012, 672 SCRA 27 ‘Re: Vehicular Accident invaiving SC Shuttle Bua No. 3 with Plate No, SEG-57 driven by Gerry B. ‘Moral, Driver II-Casual, A.M. No. 2008-18-SC, November 19, 2008, 571 SCRA 352 ‘Re: Verified Complaint of Engr. Osear L. Ongjaco, ‘AM. OCA IPI No. 11-184-CA-5, January 31 2012, 664 SCRA 465 Repol v. Commission on Elections, G-R. No. 161418, April 28, 2004, 428 SCRA 321, Republic of the Philippines v. Badjao, G.R. No. 160596, March 20, 2009, 582 SCRA 63 Republic v. Caguioa, G.R. No. 168584, October 16, 2007, 538 SCRA 193 Republic v_ City of Paraaque, G.R. No. 191109, ‘Joly 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 246. Republic v. Cojuangeo, G.R. No, 189980, Jane 26, 2012, 674 SCRA 492 Ropublie v. De la Cruz, 118 SCRA 18 Republic v. De la Rosa, GR, Noa, 104654, 105716 & 105725, June 6, 1994, 252 SCRA 785. Republic v. Desierto, 416 Phil. 59, 77-78 (2001) Republic v. Desierto, 438 Phil. 201, 212 (2002)... Republic v. Domingo, G-R. No. 175299, September 14, 2011, 657 SCRA 621. Republic v. Franciseo, G.R. No. 168089, December 6, 2008, 510 SCRA 877 nn Republie v. Garcia, 76 SCRA 47... Republic v. Imperial, 96 Phil. 770. 76, 483, 855 796, 798 1560, 798, 799 637 571, 578 605,687 1768, 769, 778 525 612, 615 791, 792 553 658 1 TL 61,72 118 oer 596, 597‘TABLE oF Cases Page Republic v. Investa Corporation, G.R. No. 185466, ‘May 7, 2008, 554 SCRA 29... 785 Ropublie v. National Labor Relatims Commission, 263 SCRA 290 9 Republic v, Purisima, 78 SCRA 410. 61 Republic v. Sandiganbayan (First Div), 525 Phil 1803 (2008). cas Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 162 SCRA 911 ~. et ‘Republie v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 90478, ‘November 2, 1991, 204 SCRA 212 63 Ropublie v. Valencia, 141 SCRA 462... . 558 Republi v. Vilasor, 54 SCRA 84 66,78 Resolution dated May 2, 1989, cited in Re: Request for Copy of 2008 Statement of Assets, Liabili- ties and Net Worth (SALN) and Personal Data Sheet or Curriculum Vitae of the Jus- tices ofthe Supreme Court and Officers of the Judiciary, A.M. No. 08-8-6-80, June 13, 2012, 612. SORA 27 or 798 Review Center Association ofthe Philippines v. Bxecutive Secretary, G-R. No. 180046, April 2, 2008, 583 SCRA 428 270, 888 Reyes ¥. Commission or Audit, GR. No. 125129, ‘March 29, 1999, 05 SCRA 812, 516 sn 608 Reyes v. Commission on Blections, G-R. No. 207264, Jime 25, 2013. 198, 267, 260, 682, 800 Reyes v. Lim, GR. No, 134241, August 11, 20 408 SCRA 560.. 554 Reyna v. Commission on Audit, Git. No. 167219, February 8, 2011, 642 SCR& 210... 124 Riel v, Wright, 49 Phil. 195 158, 713, Robles v. HRET, 181 SCRA 780 ee BA Rodrigues v. Gella, 92 Phil. 603 sue 165, 167 Rodriguez v. Macapagal Arroyo, G.R. No. 191805, ‘November 15, 2011, 660 SCRA 84 877, 878, 433 Romero v. Estrada, GR. No. 174105, April 2, 2009, 583 SCRA 896. so 299, BB1 Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, 479 Phil. 265, 294 (2004) 791 Romulo v. Yniguez, 141 SCRA 263, : 149, 743 Roque v. COMELEG, G-R. No. 183456, September 10, 2009, 699 SCRA 09. so 705 Rubrico v. Arroyo, GR. No. 183871, February 18, 2010, 613 SCRA 233, snes TB‘TABLE OF Cases Ruf v. Chief of Staff, 25 Phil. 875. Ruivivar v. Ombudsman, G-R.No. 165012, September 16, 2008, 565 SORA 324 Rui v. Cabahug, 54 0.G. 351 Ruiz v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 105824, March 11, 1998 s Sabio v. Gordon, G.R. No. 174940, October 17, 2006, 504 SCRA 704.0... 291, 299 Salalima v. Guingona, GR. No. 117689-82, May 22, 1906, 257 SCRA 55. : 408 Salcedo Iv, Commission on Blections, G.R. No. 185886, August 16, 1999, $12 SCRA 447... 4 Salenga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 174941, February 1, 2012, 664 SCRA 685... 616 Sales v. COMELEC, G.R. No, 174668, September 12, 2007, 688 SCRA 173. ABB Salva v. Valle, GR, No. 19878, April 2, 2013, 604 ‘SORA 422. Salvador v. Serrano, AM. No, P.06-2104 Formerly ‘OCA LP. No. 02-1484-P), January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 85.0 Samson v, Court of Appeals, Gui, No. L-43183, 473 ‘November 25, 1986, 145 SCRA 654. 312 ‘Samson v. Restrivera, G.R. No. 178454, March 28, 2011, 646 SCRA 481 768 ‘San Miguel Corporation v. Sandiganbayan, 394 Phil, 608, 896-637 (2000)... 766 San Miguel Corporation v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 104687-88, September 14, 2000, 340 SCRA 289 .....rsrn 765: Sana v. Career Executive Service Board, G.R. No. 192926, November 15, 2011, 660 SCRA 130. Sanchez v. COMELEC, 114 SCRA 454 Sanchez v. Commission on Audit, G.R.No. 127545, ‘April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 471... sone SUL, THT, 72 497 613 Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, 452 Phil. 665, 674 (2008)... 584 Sanches v. Demetriou, G-R. Nos. 111771-77, November 9, 1999, 227 SCRA 62 : 770 ‘Sanders v, Veridiano, 162 SCRA 54 ‘Sangeopan v. COMELEC, GR. No, 170216, March 12, 2008, 548 SCRA 148. 613‘Taate oP Cases Sangguniang Barangay of Don Mariano Marcos v, ‘Martinez, @.R. No, 170626, March 8, 2008, 547 SCRA 416. Sanidad v, COMELEG, 78 SORA 833. Sanlakas v, Bxecutive Secretary, G-R.No. 159085, February 9, 2004, 421 SCRA 656. Page 4038 143, 512, 824 387 Sanrio Company Limited v. Lim, G.R. No. 168662, February 19, 2008, 546 SCRA 808. Santiago v. COMELEC, GR, No, 127325, March 19, 1997, 270 SCRA 106. Santiago v. Republic, 87 SCRA 294 «neuen Santos v, Commission on Elections, G.R. No, 155618, March 26, 2003, 399 SCRA 611. Santos v,Raalan, GR, No, 165749, February 8, 2007, 515 SCRA 97 Santos v, Santos, 92 Phil. 261 Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SORA 549. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. US, 285 SCRA 495, Scott v. Inciong, 68 SCRA 473... ‘Scoty’s Dep't. Store v. Micaller, 99 Phil. 762 ‘SearLauud Secvive, hac. v. Covrt of Appeals, ‘357 SCRA 441... Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, GR. No, 1180906, October 7, 2008, 568 SCRA 1 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Interport Resources Corporation, G-R No. 135808, October 6, 2008, 567 SCRA 354... Segovia v. Sandiganbayan, G-R. No, 124067, March 27, 1998, 288 SCRA $28, ‘Sema v, COMELEC, G.R. No, 177597, July 16, 2008, 558 SCRA 700. Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign ‘Activities v. Nixon, 498 F. 24 725, 162 U.S. App. D.C. 183 Senate v. Ermita, GAR. No. 169777, ‘pal 20, 2006, 488 SCRA 1. 165 828, 813, 825 63 688 768, 64 396 175 542 428 AT 551 521 153 205, 3m. 299, 908, 367, 871, 972 491, 499, 512, 514 Seneres v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 178678, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 557 so Serrano v. Ambossactor Hotel, @ R. No. 197008, February 11, 2018, 690 SCRA 226. Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Ine, GR. ‘No. 167614, March 24, 2008, 582 SCRA Iai 210, 681 583 97, 273‘TaBLe oF Cases Page Sesbreito v. Court of Appeals, G.R, No, 161390, April 16, 2008, 651 SCRA 524. 7 588 Severino v. Governor-General, 16 Phil. $66, vos HA Shell Philippines Exploration BV v. Jalos, @.R. No. 179918, September &, 2010, 630 SCRA 399... 1.78; Shepard v. Barren, 194 U.S, 553. eer Shimizu Philippine Contractors, Ine. v. Magsalin, G.R. ‘No. 170026, June 20, 2012, 674 SCRA 85...» 572 ‘Singson v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 159355, Angust 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 36. : er ‘Smart Communications, Ine. v. ity of Davao, GR. No. 155491, September 16, 2008, 565 SORA 287 cus B24 ‘Smith Bell & Co. (Phila.), Ine. v. Court of Appeals, 214 Phil. 472, 479 (1991), 197 SCRA 201 BT6 ‘Sobejana-Condon v. Commission on Elections, GR. ‘No. 198742, August 10, 2012, 878 SCRA 267.......218, 688, 800 Social Justice Society v. Atienza, GR. No. 156052, February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 92... 178 Social Justice Society v, Dangerous Drugs Board, GR, No, 157870, November 3, 2008, 670, SCRA 410... 193, 676 Solid Homes, Inc. v. Laserna, G.R. No. 1664 April 8, 2008, 550 SCRA 613..orocoon 579, 580 Sombong v. Court of Appeals, etal, G 111876, January 31, 1996, 252 SCRA 668... 1481 Soriano Ill v. Lista, 398 SCRA 497... 1-385 Soriano v. Cabais, G.R. No. 157176, June 21, 2007, '525 SCRA 261. 778 Soriano v. Laguardia, G.Rt No. 164785, April 29, 2009, 587 SCRA 79... ‘Spouses Balangauan v. Court of Appeals, Special Nineteenth Division, Cebu City, G.R. No. 1174350, August 13, 2008, 562 SCRA 184. 579, 781 ‘Spouses Dacudao v. Secretary of Justice, G.R, No. 188056, January 8, 2013, 688 SCRA 109 419 ‘Spouses Fortaleza v. Sps. Lapitan, GR. No. 178288, ‘August 15, 2012, 678 SCRA 469 554 ‘Spouses Francisco and Merced Rabat v. Philippine National Bank, G-R. No. 158755, June 18, 2012, 673 SCRA 388 crane sn AB Spouses Mirasol v. Court of Appeals, 0 Phil. 760 (2001) 522 iv‘TaBLe oF Cases Page ‘Spouses Serfino v. Far East Bank and Trust Company, Ine, G-R. No. 171845, October 10, 2012, 683 SCRA 880... 7 8 Springer v. Gov‘. ofthe Phil. Islands, 277 U.S. 189. 184, 527 ‘SBS Employeos Assn. v. Court of Appeals, 175 SCRA 686 634 Sta, Lucia Realty & Development, Ine. v, Municipality of | ‘Cainta, G.R. No. 160838, June 15, 2011, 652 SCRA 44.873 ‘Sta, Maria v. Ubay, AM. No, 695-CFI, December U1, 1978, 87 SORA 179 vere 473 Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate Commitive on Banks, Financial Institutions and Currencies, G.R. No. 167173, December 27, 2097, 541 SCRA 456. 299, 300, Sterling v. Constantin, 287 US. 378. nn) Stronghold Insurance Company, Ine. v. Cuenea, GR. No, 173297, March 6, 2013, 692 SCRA 473 507 Suanes v. Disbursing Officer of the Senate, 81 Phil 818 254 ‘Summit Guaranty & Insurance Co. v. CA, 110 SCRA 241 521 ‘Sumulong v. COMELEC, 73 Phil. 288, 294-295 (1941)... 676 ‘Sumulong v. Gontalee, 152 SCRA 272 447 ‘Sunga v. COMBLEC, GR. No. 125629, March 25, 1998, 288 SCRA 76...» sen 864 Suplico v. National Heonomie Development Authority, GR, No. 178830, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 329. 496 ‘Syquia v. Almeda Lopet, 84 Phil. 312... 49, 56 1 ‘Tadlip v. Atty. Borres, Jr., 511 Phil, 56 (2005) f 563 Tegmnaty Emlaes, GE No, 480, Soptanber 2, 2008, 410 SCRA 237 581 ‘Tagolino v. HRET and Lucy Torres, G.R. No. 202202, March 19, 2013, 693 SCRA 574 661 ‘Tagum Doctors Enterprises v. Apsay, G.R. No, 81188, August SCRA 471, 48¢ nt ‘Talabon v. Warden, 44 0. 4326 ... = BTL ‘Talaga v. Commission oa Elections, G.RNo. 1196804, October 9, 2012, 683 SCRA 197 659, 661, 664 ‘Talaga, Jr. . Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169888, ‘November 11, 2008, 670 SCRA 622, 692... 153 ‘Tan v. Barrios, GR. Nos. 85481-82, October 18, 1990, 190 SCRA 86, oe 528, BUY ‘Tafiada v. Angara, 898 Phil, 646, 574 (1997), 272 SCRA 18. B1, 144, 471, 499, 539‘TaBLe oF Cases ‘Tanada v. Cueneo, 100 Phil. 1101 ‘Tanchanco v. Sandiganbayan (Second Division), 512 Phil 590 (2005). ‘Tare v. Bishop De la Crue, 493 Phil. 299 (2008).. ‘Tawang Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. La Trinidad Water District, G.R. No, 168471, March 22, 2011, 648 SCRA 21 ‘Taxpayers’ League of Cargon Gounty v. McPherson, 54 P. 24. 897, 901: 49 Wy. 26; 106 ALR. 767. ‘Teeson v. Commission on Blections, G.R. Nos. 161434, 161634, and 161824, March 3, 2004, 424 SCRA 277, . ‘Tejan v. Cusi, 57 SCRA 154 ‘Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines v. COMELBC, 289 SCRA 337. ‘The Heirs of Jolly R. Bugarin v. Republic, G.R. No. 174481, August 6, 2012, 678 SCRA 209, ‘The Heritage Hotel Manila v. NUWHRAIN, G-R. ‘No. 178296, January 12, 2011-08-26, 639 SCRA 420. ‘The Presidential Ad Hoc Pact-Finding Committee ‘on Behust Louis v. Desierto, @.R. Nu. 130140, ‘October 25, 1999, 317 SCRA 272.. ‘The Presidential Ad Hoe Fact-Finding Committee ‘on Behost Loans v. Desierto, G-R. No. 138142, September 19, 2007, 683 SCRA 571 ‘The Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding Committee ‘on Behest Loans v. Desierto, G.R. No. 145184, ‘March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 295 ‘The Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding Committes ‘on Behest Loans v. Desierto, G.R. No, 196225, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 613. o ‘The Presidential Ad-Hoe Fact-Finding Committes on Behest Loans v. Tabasondra, G.R. No. Page 142, 251, 824 om 7 272 357 341 556 615 756 416 Te 1-763, 791 1782, 791 79 133756, July 4, 2008, 857 SCRA 81 eco 791 ‘The Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, G.R. No, 183591, October 14, 2008, 568 SCRA 402.. 1-18, 19, 37, 83, 102, 128, 987, 432 ‘494, 502, 510, 511, 512, 515, 617, 519 ‘Tichangeo v. Bnriquos, @.R. No, 150628, Juno 30, 2004, 438 SCRA 325 578 ‘Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 38 SCRA 29 B21, 545, Devi‘Tasiz oF Cases Page ‘Tilendo v. Ombudsman, G-R. No. 165975, Septem- ber 18, 2007, 883 SCRA $31 son. . 760, 162 ‘Tileston v. Ullmann, $18 US. 448 voces 507 ‘Tobias v, Abalos, 239 SCRA 106, 204, 280 Tolentino v. COMELBC, 41 SCRA 702. 511, 822 Tolentino v. Sec, of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 .. 247, 276, 285, 286, 320 ‘Topacio Nueno v. Angeles, 76 Phil. 12, 21-22 (1946), 234 Topacio v. Ong, G.R. No. 179895, December 18, 2008, 574 SORA 817.. 508 ‘Topacio v. Paredes, 23 Phil. 238 (1912) 603 Torio v. Fontanilla, 5 SCRA 599 eon 19 ‘Torres v. People, G.R. No, 175074, ‘gust 3, 2011, 656 SCRA 486, 54 ‘Toth v. Quarles, 350 US. 5 428 ‘Trade and Investment Development Corporation of | ‘te Philippines v. Civil Servies Commission, GR. No, 182249, March 5, 2013, 681 SCRA 27 639 ‘Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines v. Manalang-Demigilio, G.R. No, 176349, September 18, 2012, 681 SCRA 27 eu. "Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines v. Manalang-Demigillo, G.R. ‘No. 185571, March 5, 2013, 6£2 SCRA 359. 412 ‘Tria v. Sto, Tomas, 276 Phil. 923 (1981) ot ‘Trinidad v, Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 166088, December 4, 2007, 539 SCRA 415, 781 ‘Tudor v. Board of Education, 1 NI 81 vor 85 ‘yv.Baneo Plipine Savings nd Mortgage Bank, 511 Phil. 510 (2008), 582 vu Ugdoracion v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179861, April 18, 2008, 552 SCRA 231. 658 U.S. v. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil. 1 17 US v. Dorr, 2 Pil. 832..... 42 USS. v: Guinto, 182 SORA 644... 57, 66 US. v. Nixon, 418 US, 683 (1974), 367, 464 U.S. v. Norton, 91 US. 568 : 275 TIS v Pons, 84 Phil. 729 245 USS. v. Ruiz, 196 SORA 487. = 64 Ugdoracion v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179881, April 18, 2008, 552 SORA 231-.ounun 658 bei‘TABLE OF CASES Page United Church of Christ in the Philippines, Inc. v. Bradford United Church of Christ, Ine., GR. ‘No. 171908, June 20, 2012, 674 SCRA 92 seen LUT United Claimants Association of NEA v. National Electrification Administration, G.R. No. 187107, January 31, 2012, 664 SCRA 483 628 United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union (UPSU) v. Laguesma, 351 Phil, 244, 260 (1998)... 1-780 United States vs. Barrias, No. 4349, September 24, 1908, 11 Phil. 827 an 1160 ‘University of the Philippines v, Dizon, G.R. No. YI1182, August 28, 2012, 679 SCRA 54... 58, 69,7, 79, 554, 1572, 584, 614, 720, 722 ‘Ursal v. Court of Tex Appesls, 101 Phil. 209 a7 Ututalum v. COMELEC, 122 Phil. 880 su TZ Uy v. Sandiganbayan, 407 Phil. 164 (2003) 0 Uy v. Sandiganbayan, G.R No. 105965-70, March 20, 2001, 354 SCRA 651. 162 ‘Uy Sandiganbayan, Gi. No, 111644, Joly 6. 2004, 433 SCRA 424 ot v ‘Valdez v. Ocumen, 106 Phil. 929, 993 (1960) Valdes Teret, AM No. MTI-L-1796, Jae 1, 2012, 672 SORA 89... Valencia v, Peralta, 8 SCRA 692. Vargas v. Rilloraza, 80 Phil. 297, Vasquez v. Hobilla-Alinio, G.R, Nos, 118813-14, ‘April 8, 1997, 271 SCRA 67, : ‘Veloso v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No, 193677, ‘September 6, 2011, 658 SCRA 767....... 120, 649, 722, 723, 724 Vera v. Avelino, 77 Phil. 191 - 147, 271, 701 Vera v. People, 7 Phil. 152.. : ABS Vergara v. Ombudsman, @.R. No, 174567, March 12, 2009, 580 SORA 693. 7 1-765 Versoza v. Carague, G.R. No. 157888, March 8, 2011, 644 SCRA 679, (604, 682, 718, 720, 724 Versoza v. Carague, G.R. No. 157838, Febromy 2012, 685 SCRA 124... ns‘Tanue oF Cases Page Veterans Federation Party v. Commission on Elections, 396 Phil. 419, 424-425 (2000). 616 Vilando v. HRET, G.R, Nos. 192147 & 192149, ‘August 28, 2011, 656 SCRA 17 192, 50: Vilas v. City of Manila, 229 US. 245 aA Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 188830, February 23, 2011, 644 SORA 358. 758 Villasenor v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180700, ‘March 4, 2008, 547 SCRA 658, 153 Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778. 91 Villena v. Secretary of the Interior, 67 Phil. 451 379, 411, Vinzons-Chato v. Commission on Elections, 620 SCRA 166........ 258 Vios v. Pantangeo, G.R. No. 168103, February 6, 2008, ‘578 SCRA 129. 582 Virtuoso v. Municipal Judge, 82 SORA 191 108 w ‘Western Mindanao Power Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G-R. Ne. 181136, June 18, 2012, 672 SCRA 350... 824, 548 Wilmerding vs. Corbin Banking Co,, 28 South, 640, 641; 126 Ala,, 268 584 ‘Wood's Appeal, 79 Pa 59. si9 Y Yamane v, BA Lepanto Condominium Corporation, ATA SORA 258 cn 548 ‘Yamashita v. tyor, 75 Phil. 563. 427 Yap v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 158562, April 23, 2010, 619 SORA 154... 718 Yap v. Thenamaris Ship's Management, G.R. No. 1179582, May 80, 2011, 649 SORA 369. 273 ‘Yiek Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356. 92 Ynchausti v. Wright, 47 Phil. 886. 12 ‘Ynot v. TAG, 148 SCRA 659 175, 181, 545 ‘Youngstown Tube and Sheet Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US. 519 wae 381‘TaBLe oF CASES Page z Zaldivar v. Gonzales, 160 SORA 843 nnn 189 Zamboanga City Water District v. Buat, G.R. No. 104389, May 27, 1994, 282. SCRA 587. 1 10 Zandueta v. de le Costa, 68 PRI LAB vnnn 523, 505 oo —Chapter 1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Scope of the Study POLITICAL LAW is that branch of public law which deals with the organization and operations of the gov- ernmental organs of the State and defines the relations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory. In the present law curriculum prescribed by the Su- preme Court, Political Law embraces Constitutional Law I and II, Administrative Law, the Law of Public Officers, Election Law and the Law on Municipal Corpo- rations. Constitutional Law I, which is the particular sub- ject of this work, is a study of the structure and powers of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. It, also deals with certain basic concopts of Political Law, such as the nature of the State, the supremacy of the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of the majority. Necessity for the Study ‘The inclusion of Political Law as a required subject in the law course is only one of the reasons for its study, "People v. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 8872 Panuireie PouinicaL LAW Every citizen, regardless of calling, should under- stand the mechanics and motivations of his government. This must be so because “sovereignty resides in the peo- ple and all government authority emanates from them." It is upon the active involvement in public affairs of every Filipino that the success of the Republic of the Philippines will depend, ‘The fundamental law provides that “all educational institutions shall include the study of the Constitution as part of the curricula.” Basis of the Study ‘The principal basis of the study of Constitutional Law I is the present Constitution of the Philippines as adopted on February 2, 1987. In addition, the student should consider pertinent statutes, executive orders and decrees, and judicial decisions, as well as current politi- cal events in which the purposes of the law are applied (or misapplied). Particularly with regard to those of their provisions that have been retained in toto or with modifications in the new Constitution, the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973, which served as its working drafts, are an integral part of this study. So too is the Constitution of the United States, along with relevant rulings of its Supreme Court, in connection with the parts of that document, like the Bill of Rights, that have been incorporated in the present Constitution of the Philippines. ‘The reason is that im- ported provisions of law are, as a general rule, inter- * Constitution of 1987, Art. Il, Sec. 1 * Bid, Art. XIV, See, 20).(GaNERAL. CovsiDERATIONS 3 preted in the light of their understanding in the country of origin. Background of the Study The inhabitants of the Philippines originally con- sisted of disparate tribes scattered throughout its more than seven thousand islands. These tribes were gener- ally free and were each governed by a system of laws promulgated by the daiu or a council of elders. Except when they fell under the sway of a foreign power, like the Madjapahit and Sri-Vishayan empires, these tribes ‘were bound mainly, if not only, by commercial ties. ‘The discovery of the Philippines by Magellan in 1521 brought the people of the territory under the com- mon rule of Spain. This rule lasted for more than three hundred years, during which the abuses of the govern- ment and the friars gradually developed a sense of unity among the natives. Rizal and the other propagandists ‘were later to ignite the spirit of nationalism that was to fuel the Philippine Revolution. Started by the fiery Bonifacio and won under the able generalship of Emilio Aguinaldo, the Philippine Revolution finally ended Spanish sovereignty in the Philippines. On June 12, 1898, Philippine independence was proclaimed; and on January 21, 1899, the First Philippine Republic was established with Aguinaldo as its President. The Malolos Constitution, under which the new government was established, was the first de- mocratic constitution ever to be promulgated in the whole of Asia. Significantly, it established a parliamen- tary system, but with the President and not the Prime Minister as head of the government.4 Pauippie: Pousrical, LAW The first Republic of the Philippines was to be short-lived for even as the Philippine State was being erected, the United States was already planting the seeds of another sovereignty in our country. The Filipi- nos were deluded into believing that the Americans, ‘who were then at war with Spain, were their allies. But it was soon revealed that the United States had its own imperialistie designs on the Philippines. Disregarding the declaration of independence by the Filipinos, the erstwhile belligerents concluded the ‘Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898, which provided for the cession of the Philippine Islands by Spain to the United States. To the credit of the Filipinos, they re- sisted the new threat to their freedom with undimin- ished valor. However, the superior forces of the invader easily put an end to the Philippine-American War, pav- ing the way for the new colonization of our country. The Americans first organized a military govern- ment, but consolidation of executive, legislative and judicial authority in the military governor provoked protests from American libertarians concerned over the non-observance of the doctrine of separation of powers. As a result, steps were taken for the transition from military to civilian rule, The first of these steps was the creation of the Schurman Commission, otherwise known as the First Philippine Commission, to make a fact-finding survey of the Philippine Islands and submit appropriate recom- mendations to the U.S. Congress. This was substituted later by the Taft Commission, also known as the Second Philippine Commission, which took over alll the legisla- tive powers and some of the exeentive and jndicial pow- ers of the military governor. Thereafter, on July 4, 1901, pursuant to the Spooner Amendment, civil government(GENERAL ConsIDERATIONS 5 was established in the Philippine Islands, with William Howard Taft as the first governor. By virtue of the Philippine Bill of 1902, the Philip- pine Assembly was created in 1907 to sit with the Phil- ippine Commission in a bicameral legislature. Sergio Osmeiia was initially and successively elected Speaker of the Philippine Assembly until its dissolution in 1916. In that year was promulgated the Philippine Autonomy Act, popularly known as the Jones Law, which estab- lished inter alia a Philippine Legislature consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Manuel L. Que- zon and Sergio Osmefia were elected President and Speaker, respectively. ‘The Jones Law continued until 1935, when it was supplanted by the Tydings-McDuffie Act, which author- ized the cotablishment of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Toward this end, a Constitutional Conven- tion framed the Constitution of 1935, which was ratified ‘on May 14 of that year and led to the inauguration of the Commonwealth Government on November 15, 1936. Quezon was the first President, with Osmefia as Vice President. ‘The Tydings-McDuffie Act promised independence to the Filipinos if they could prove their capacity for democratic government during a ten-year transition period. As it turned out, they were to demonstrate this ‘competence not only in the councils of peace but also in the barricades of World War II, and no less gallantly in the Second Republic of the Philippines headed by Presi- dent Jose P, Laurel during the Japanese occupation of our country. Accordingly, on July 4, 1946, the United States for- mally withdrew it sovereignty over the Philippines President Manuel A. Roxas thereupon asserted the6 PUILIPPINE PouITical Law freedom of the Filipino people and proclaimed the Re- public of the Philippines. ‘The Republic of the Philippines was to pursue an erratic course that was ultimately to transform it into a near-anarchic system corrupted on the one hand by the decadent “haves” and subverted on the other by the dis- contented “have-nots.” Conditions continued to deterio- rate until the pent-up resentments of the people erupted in a number of mass demonstrations, some of them vio- lent, and the so-called “parliament of the streets” organ- ized particularly by the student groups. It was at the height of this unrest that the Consti- tutional Convention of 1971 was convoked and started deliberations on the revision of the 1935 Constitution and the fashioning of the Constitution of 1973. Ou September 21, 1972, following an intensification of the subversive movement by Communist-oriented groups, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Procla- mation No. 1081 placing the entire Philippines under martial law, Shortly thereafter, on November 30, 1972, the draft of the 1973 Constitution was formally ap- proved by the Constitutional Convention and, during a series of meetings held on January 10-15, 1973, was submitted to the Citizens Assemblies for ratification. On January 17, 1973, President Marcos issued Proclama- tion No. 1102, in which he announced that the Constitu- tion of 1973 had been ratified by an overwhelming ma- jority of the people and had thus become effective. ‘The issue of the validity of the 1973 Constitution was later raised in what are known as the Ratification Cases,‘ which were dismissed by the Supreme Court. * Javellana v, Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 83 (1973).Ganerat. ConsienaTiONs 7 Subsequently, in the Hateas Corpus Cases,” the Su- preme Court unanimously upheld the proclamation of martial law by the President of the Philippines. On January 17, 1981, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 2045 lifting martial law. However, he retained what he called his “standby legislative powers” under several decrees he had promulgated earlier, prin- cipally the National Security Code and the Public Order Act. In 1985, to seek a “fresh mandate” from the people, President Marcos submitted a questionable resignation that was to be effective on the tenth day following the proclamation of the winners in the “snap” election to be called by the legislature on the strength of such resigna- tion, The election was challenged in the case of Philip- pine Bar Association v. Commission on Elections* on the ground inter alia that the vacancy contemplated in Arti- cle VIL, Section 9, of the 1973 Constitution which would justify the call of a special presidential election before the expiration of Presiden: Marcos’s term in 1987 was supposed to occur before and not after the said election. Predictably, the then Supreme Court denied the petition and sustained the resignation and the call The election was held on February 7, 1986, as scheduled, and resulted, amid charges of wholesale ir- regularities committed by the ruling party, in the proc- lamation of Marcos and his running-mate, Arturo Tolen- tino, as President-elect and Vice-President-lect of the Philippines, respectively. This was followed by a mas- sive outery from the people who felt that the real win- ners were the Opposition candidates. * Aquino v, Bnrile, 59 SCRA 183 (1974) * GR.No. 72916, Dee. 20, 1985, 140 SORA 453.8 PHILIPPINE POLITICAL Law On February 22, 1986, Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and General Fidel V. Ramos began, per- haps unwittingly, what later came to be known as the “people power” revolution that led to the ouster of President Marcos and his replacement by President Corazon C. Aquino, who, with Vice-President Salvador 1H. Laurel, her running-mate, were inducted on Febru- ary 25, 1986. One of the first acts of the new President was the promulgation of a provisional or “Freedom Constitution” which was to be in foree pending the adoption of a new Constitution to be drafted by a Constitutional Commis- sion, which she also created. This body approved the draft of the new charter which was submitted to the people at a plebiscite held on February 2, 1987, and was ratified by a vote of 16,605,425 in favor and 4,949,901 againat. Pursuant to this Constitution, elections for the re- vived Congress of the Philippines were held on May 11, 1988, and those for the local offices were scheduled later that year. The rest of the government underwent reor- ganization conformably to the changes prescribed in the new fundamental law. On May 11, 1992, general elections were held for the President and Vice-President of the Philippines, 24 senators, all elective members of the House of Represen- tatives and local officials, Fidel V. Ramos and Joseph Estrada were elected President and Vice-President, respectively. In 1998, Joseph Estrada was elected President of the Philippines but was impeached two years later and forced out of office by a massive people power demon- stration at EDSA on January 20, 2001. Vice-PresidentGeNeRAL Cowsinenarions 9 Gloria Macapagal Arroyo took the oath the same day as his constitutional successor. Estrada lost no time in challenging before the Su- preme Court Arroyo's right to succeed him, claiming that he had neither resigned nor abandoned his office, and that he left, Malacafiang only to appease the demon- strators who clamored for his resignation. The Court dismissed his petition, ruling that his public statements made upon and the circumstances leading to his depar- ture from Malacafiang clearly showed that he had re- signed. Accordingly, it considered his presidency as “now in the past tense” and Arroyo's ascendancy to the Presidency as lawful. Within months after Arroyo's assumption into of- fice, Estrada was arrested for plunder amidst the noisy objections of thousands of his sympathizers who waged still another people power protest. The attempt of said protesters to storm Malacafang and the violence which erupted in the process prompted Arroyo to declare a state of rebellion. Notwithstanding said protests, Estrada was eventually tried and convicted by the Sandiganbayan, only to be later pardoned by Arroyo. During her first term, Arroyo also faced but quickly quelled the Oakwood Mutiny mounted by disgruntled military officers on corruption issues. She sought another term in 2004, reneging on an earlier promise that she would not do so. She was pro- claimed the winner of said election, notwithstanding allegations of widespread cheating or electoral fraud. "These charges hounded her for most of her second term. Street protests particularly escalated after the release of the infamous Garci Tapes, which included her alleged telephone conversations with a former COMELEC Com- missioner, to whom she hed purportedly given explicit10 Prnuppnse PoLITioaL, LAW instructions to rig or fix the results of the 2004 presi- dential elections in her favor. These tapes, as well as charges of corruption, were invoked in at least three impeachment complaints against her, all of which were however quickly dismissed by the House of Representa- tives, which was then composed largely of her political allies. In 2006, Arroyo was besieged by yet another challenge from the military which she invoked as justi- fication for declaring, this time, a state of emergency under her Proclamation No. 1017, on the basis of which several persons were arrested without warrants and at least one newspaper establishment was raided, These acts, as well as several substantial portions of said Proc- lamation, were later nullified by the Supreme Court. Prior to the expiration of her second term, which was marred by constant and persistent charges of graft and corruption as against her claims of economic pro- gress, she ran for and won a seat in the House of Repre- sentatives in 2010 and has since been re-elected to a second term by her constituents in her home district in Pampanga, despite the pendency of formal criminal charges against her for, among other offenses, electoral sabotage and plunder. ‘These cases were instituted shortly after the as- sumption into office of her successor, Benigno Simeon C. Aquino, Jr., only son of former President Corazon C. ‘Aquino, who was elected President in 2010 despite criti- cisms as to his perceived lack of executive experience and abilities and notwithstanding what many consid- ered as his lackluster performance, first, as a Member of the House of Representatives and, later, as a Senator of the Republic. Indeed, it is widely believed that he was elected to office not in acknowledgement of his qualitiesGeNeRAL ConstpsraTiONs ul as a public functionary but more as a rejection of the Arroyo regime or, at least, as an affirmation of the con- tinuing popularity of his mother, who passed away only months before the 2010 elections.Chapter 2 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES THE CONSTITUTION OF 1987 is the fourth fanda- mental law to govern the Philippines since it became independent on July 4, 1946.’ The first was the Com- monwealth Constitution, adopted in 1985, which con- tinued by its provisions to be operative after the proc- lamation of the Republic of the Philippines. The second was the Constitution of 1973, which was enforced dur- jing the Marcos regime following its dubious approval and ratification at a time when the country was already under martial law. On February 25, 1986, as a result of the people power upheaval that deposed President Mar- eos, the new President proclaimed a Freedom Constitu- tion, to be effective pending the adoption of a permanent Constitution aimed at correcting the shortcomings of the previous constitutions and specifically eliminating all the iniquitous vestiges of the past regime. Toward this end, President Corazon C. Aquino, in Proclamation No. 9, created a Constitutional Commis- sion composed of fifty members appointed by her and charged it to frame a new charter not: later than Sep- tember 2, 1986. All but one of those appointed accepted and immediately undertook their mission under the presidency of Justice Cecilia Mufioz-Palma, formerly of the Supreme Court. The members came from various ‘The Constitution promulgated during the Japanese occupa- tion is not included. 12‘Tas CoNSMTUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES 18 sectors and represented diverse persuasions, which is probably one reason why they could not meet their deadline and were able to approve the final draft: of their handiwork only on October 15, 1986. By resolution of the Commission, it was recommended to the Presi- dent that the plebiscite on the proposed Constitution be scheduled, not within sixty days as originally provided. but within three months, to give the people more oppor- tunity to study it. Accordingly, the plebiscite was sched- uled and held on February 2, 1987. ‘The campaign for the ratification of the proposed Constitution was led by President Aquino herself, whose main argument was that it would restrict the powers of the Presidency as provided for in the Freedom Constitu- tion. Opposition to the draft, while spirited, was largely disorganized and consequently ineffective. Many people, while doubtful about some of its provisions and espe- cially of its length, which made it seem like a codifica- tion, nevertheless approved the proposed Constitution in the end because they felt it would provide the stabil- ity the country sorely needed at the time. When the votes were tallied, it appeared that 76.29% of the elec- torate had voted to ratify, with only 22.74% against. Outstanding Features The new Constitution consists of eighteen articles and is excessively long compared to the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973, on which it was largely based. Many of the original provisions of the 1935, particularly those pertaining to the legislative and the executive depart- ments, have been restored becanse of the revival of the bicameral Congress of the Philippines and the strictly presidential system. The independence of the judiciary has been strengthened, with new provisions for ap-4 Puitarpine POuITICAL Law pointment thereto and an increase in its authority, which now covers even political questions formerly be- yond its jurisdiction. Additionally, many provisions of ‘the 1978 Constitution have been retained, like those on the Constitutional Commissions and local governments. ‘The bill of rights of the Commonwealth and Marcos Constitutions has been considerably improved in the Constitution of 1987 and even bolstered with the crea- tion elsewhere in the document of a Commission on Human Rights What has made the present Constitution exces- sively long is the inclusion therein of provisions that should have been embodied only in implementing stat- utes to be enacted by the legislature pursuant to the basic constitutional principles. The most notable flaw of the new charter is its verbosity and consequent prolixity that have dampened popular interest in what should be the common concern of the whole nation. The sheer length of the document has deterred people from reading it, much less trying to understand its contents and moti- vations. It would seem that every one of the members of the Constitutional Commission wanted to put in his two centavos worth and unfortunately succeeded, thereby ballooning the Constitution to unseemly dimensions. ‘Thus, in some portions thereof, the new Constitu- tion sounds like a political speech rather than a formal document stating only basic precepts. It is full of plati- tudes. This is true of the policies on social justice and the national economy, which could have been worded with less loquacity to give the legislature more leeway in their implementation, It is believed that such policies could have been expressed briefly without loss of sub- stance if the framers had more expertise in the art ofTHE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES. 15 constitution-making and less personal vainglory, let alone distrust of the legislature. What is worse is the inclusion of certain topics that, certainly, by any criterion, have no place in a Constitu- tion. Among these are sports, love, drugs, and even ad- vertising; and there is also mention of “the rhythm and harmony of nature.” But what is even worse than all this is the tortuous language of some of its provisions, like the following masterpiece of circumlocution in Arti- cle XVI, Section 10: “The State shall provide the policy environment for the full development of Filipino capability and the emergence of communication structures suitable to the needs and aspira- tions of the nation and the balanced flow of information into, ‘out of, and across the country, in accordance with a policy that respects the freedom of speect: and of the press,” Excuse me? ‘One wonders, given the long-windedness of the pre- sent Constitution, if the people had really read and un- derstood it when they voted ta ratify Even so, it should be remembered that, as its pro- ponents repeatedly argued during the campaign for its ratification, its real and main function was to replace the Freedom Constitution, which was a revolutionary constitution, and so pave the way for stability and nor- mality under a regular Constitution duly approved by the people. Now that that function has been more or less achieved, we may take a second more critical look at the Constitution of 1987, this time with a view to its amendment or revision under its Article XVII, in a less tense and more amiable atmosphere * Constitution, Art. II, See. 16.16 PHILIPPINE POLITICAL Law ‘The Supremacy of the Constitution ‘The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all per- sons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer. No act shall be valid, however noble its inten- tions, if it conflicts with the Constitution, The Constitu- tion must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law. Expediency must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power debase its rectitude. Right or wrong, the Constitution must be upheld as long as it has not been changed by the sovereign people lest its disregard result in the usurpation of the majesty of law by the pretenders to illegitimate power. Prospects of the Constitution “The Constitution must be quintessential rather than superficial, the root and not the blossom, the base and framework only of the edifice that is yet to tise. It is, but the core of the dream that must take shape, not in @ twinkling by mandate of our delegates, but slowly ‘in the crucible of Filipino minds and hearts,’ where it will in time develop its sinews and gradually gather its strength and finally achieve its substance. In fine, the Constitution cannot, like the goddess Athena, rise full- grown from the brow of the Constitutional Convention, nor can it conjure by mere fiat an instant Utopia. It must grow with the society it seeks to re-structure and march apace with the progress of the race, drawing from the vicissitudes of history the dynamism and vitality that will kkeep it, far from becoming a petrified rule, a pulsing, living law attuned to the heartbeat of the nation.” **A Quintessential Constitution,” by Isagani A. Cruz, San Boda Law Journal, April 1972.Chapter 3 ‘THE CONCEPT OF THE STATE Definition “THE STATE is a commurity of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a fixed territory, and possessed of an independent government organized for political ends to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.” ‘The term nation, is used interchangeably with State, eg., the "United Nations or the family of nations, which actually consists of states and not nations. This is a mistake as the two concepts have different connota- tions. Hackworth observes that. “the term nation, strictly speaking, as evidenced by its etymology (nasci, to be born), indicates a relation of birth or origin and implies a common race, usually characterized by com- munity of language and customs.” The State is a legal concept, while the nation is only a racial or ethnic con- cept.” Thus understood, a nation may comprise several states; for example, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, Algeria and Libya, among others, while each separate state, all belong to the Arab nation. On the other hand, it is also possible for a single state to be made up of more than one nation, as in the case of the Garner, Introduction to Political Science, 4 * Digest of International Law (1949), p. 47; Crus, Tnturnational Law, 20 718. PunrriNe PournicaL Law United States, which was a “melting pot” of many na- tions that were eventually amalgamated into the “American nation,” or of Malaysia, whose population consists of Malays and Chinese, or of the United King- dom, which is composed of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Indeed, a nation need not be a state at all, as demonstrated by the Poles after the dis- memberment of their country in 1795 and then again in World War II or by the Jews before the creation of the State of Israel in 1948." The State must also be distinguished from the gov- ernment, The government is only an element of the State, The State is the principal, the government its agent. The State itself is an abstraction; it is the gov- ernment that externalizes the State and articulates its will. Elements The essential elements of a State are people, terri- tory, government and sovereignty. ‘The so-called Montevideo Convention, cited by the ‘Supreme Court in The Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain,* specifies the accepted crite- ria for the establishment of a State, namely, a perma- nent population, a defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states. ‘These elements were among the factors considered by the Supreme Court in declaring unconstitutional the proposed Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral * Tid, 21, “G.R.No. 183591, October 14, 2008, 568 SCRA 402."Da CoNcEPT OF THE STATE 19 Domain between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, which would have paved the way for the conversion of tho Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE), sought to be established under said proposed Agreement, purportedly as an “expanded version” of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao, into a state.” Thus, said proposed Agreement was to acknowl- edge the “birthright of all Moros and all Indigenous peoples of Mindanao to identify themselves and be ac- cepted as ‘Bangsamoros.’ It defined ‘Bangsamoro people’ as the natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao and its adjacent islands including Palawan and the Sulu archipelago at the time of conquest or colonization, and their descendants whether mixed or of full blood, includ- ing their spouses.” It further specified the “territory of the Bang- samoro homeland,” described therein “as the land mass, as well as the maritime, terrestrial, fluvial and alluvial domains, including the aerial domain and the atmos- pherie space above it, embracing the Mindanao-Sulu- Palawan geographic region.” Significantly, it indicated that “the BJE shall have jurisdiction over all natural resources within its ‘interna! waters,’ defined as extend- ing fifteen (16) kilometers from the coastline of the BJE, area; that the BJE shall also have ‘territorial waters,’ which shall stretch beyond the BJE internal waters up to the baselines of the Republic of the Philippines (RP) south east and south west of mainland Mindanao; and that within these territorial waters, the BJE and the ‘Central Government’ (used interchangeably with RP) * Soo The Province of North Cotabato v. The Gavernment of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, [bid.20 PanuipPINE Poirica Law shall exercise joint jurisdiction, authority and manage- ment over all natural resources. Notably, the jurisdic: tion over the internal waters is not similarly described as ‘joint. It further provided for the sharing of minerals on the territorial waters between the Central Government and the BJE, in favor of the latter, through production sharing and economic cooperation agreement. Under the proposed Agreement, the “Bangsamoro people are acknowledged as having the right to self- governance, which right is said to be rooted on ancestral territoriality exercised originally under the suzerain authority of their sultanates and the Pat a Pangampong ku Ranaw.” Moreover, the proposed Agreement stated that “the BJE is free to enter into any economic cooperation and trade relations with foreign countries and shall have the option to establish trade missions in those countries.” ‘These considerations led the Supreme Court to de- scribe the relationship of the “Central Government” or the Republic of the Philippines and the BJE under the proposed Agreement as “associative, characterized by shared authority and responsibility,” stressing that in “international practice, the ‘associated state’ arrange- ment has usually been used as a transitional device of former colonies on their way to full independence.” Thus— “Back to the MOA-AD, it contains many provisions which are consistent with the interoational legal concept of associa- tion, specifically the following: the BJE's eapacity to enter into economic and trade relations with foreign countries, the com- mitment of the Central Government to ensure the BJE’s par- ticipation in meetings and events in the ASBAN and the spe- cialized UN agencies, and tho continuing responsibility of the Central Government over external defense. Moreover, the‘Tus Concert oF THe SraTE 21 [BJE’s right to participate in Philippine offical missions bear- ing on negotiation of border agreements, environmental protec- tion, and sharing of revenues pertaining to the bodies of water adjacent to or between the islands forming part of the ances- tral domain, resembles the right of the governments of FSM and the Marshall Islands t» be consulted by the US. govern- ment on any foreign affairs matter affecting them.” The Supreme Court wont on to state that the BJE “is not merely an expanded version of the ARMM, the status of its relationship with the national government being fundamentally different from that of the ARMM. Indeed, BJE is a state in all but name as it meets the criteria of a state laid down in the Montevideo Conven- tion, namely, a permanent population, a defined terri- tory, a government, and a capacity to enter into rela- tions with other states.” The Court further stressed that the proposed Agreement “cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution and laws. Not only its specific pro- visions but the very concept underlying them, namely, the associative relationship envisioned between the GRP and the BJE, are unconstitutional, for the concept presupposes that the associated entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to independence.” There are some writers who suggest two additional elements, to wit, recognition and possession of a suffi- cient degree of civilization. As these have not been gen- erally accepted, we shall confine this study to the four elements first mentioned. (1) People People refers simply to the inhabitants of the State While there is no legal requirement as to their number, it is generally agreed that they must be nu- merous enough to be self-sufficing and to defend them-22. Punuireine POuITICAL Law selves and small enough to be easily administered and sustained, The populations of States range from the over one billion of China to a few hundred thousand in the case of the so-called mini-States like Qatar. Obvi- ously, the people must come from both sexes to be able to perpetuate themselves. The people are more comprehensive and less cohe- sive than the nation. Starting as an amorphous group of individuals inhabiting the same territory, the people may develop and share certain characteristics and in- terests, such as a common language, a common religion, and a common set of customs and traditions that will unite them into the more closely-knit entity known as the nation. Malcolm defines a nation as “a people bound to- gether by common attractions and repulsions into a living organism possessed of a common pulse, a common intelligence and inspiration, and destined apparently to have a common history and a common fate.” 2) Territory Territory is the fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people of the State. As a practical requirement only, it must be neither too big as to be difficult to administer and defend nor too small as to be unable to provide for the needs of the population. Legally, the territory can extend over a vast expanse, such as those of Russia and China, or cover only a small area, such as that of Abu Dhabi. ‘The components of territory are the land mass, oth- erwise known as the terrestrial domain, the inland and “Government of the Philippine Islands, 11‘THe Concert oF THE STATE 23 external waters, which make up the maritime and flu- vial domain, and the air space above the land and wa- ters, which is called the aerial domain. Article Tof the Const ition provides as follows: “NATIONAL TERRITORY “The national territory comprises the Philippine archi- polago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of ite terrestrial, fluvial, and serial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the cubsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipel- ‘ago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.” ‘The above provision is a substantial reproduction of Article I of the 1973 Constitution with only a few minor changes. Departing from the method employed in the 1935 Constitution, which described the national territory by reference to the pertinent treaties concluded by the United States during its regime in this country, the present rule now physically lists the components of our territory and so de-emphasizes recollections of our colo- nial past. The article has deleted reference to the terri- tories we claim “by historic right or legal title,” but this does not mean an outright or formal abandonment of such claim, which was best left to a judicial body capa~ ble of passing judgment over the issue.” At any rate, it has been pointed out that “the defi- nition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Phil- ippine Archipelago” as provided for in Section 2 of Re- public Act No. 5446 “is without prejudice to the delinea- Res. ofthe Constitutional Commission, July 10, 1986.24 Pamupeme Pouneal, LAW tion of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.” It is to be noted that Sabah is main- tained to be among the territories claimed by the Phil- ippines “by historic right or iegal title." The second sentence is an affirmation of the archi- pelago doctrine, under which we connect the outermost points of our archipelago with straight baselines and consider all the waters enclosed thereby as internal waters. The entire archipelago is regarded as one inte- grated unit instead of being fragmented into so many thousand islands. As for our territorial seas, these are now defined according to the Jamaica Convention on the Law of the Sea, ratified in 1994, of which the Philip- pines is a signatory.® In addition, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Magallona v. Ermita,” the Philippines is a signatory to the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contigu- ous Zone (otherwise referred to as UNCLOS 1), which codified, among_gthers, “the sovereign right of States parties over their ‘territorial sea,’ the breadth of which, however, was left undetermined,” and which served as basis for the passage in 1961 by Congress of Republic Act No. 3046 “demarcating the maritime basolines of the Philippines as an archipelagic State.” Said law “re- mained unchanged for nearly five decades, save for leg- islation passed in 1968 (Republic Act No. 5446 [RA 5446}) correcting typographical errors and reserving the drawing of baselines around Sabah in North Borneo.” * See Magallona v. rmita, G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011, 655 SCRA 476. * Ratified on November 16, 1994, GR No. 187167, August 16, 2011, 655 SCRA 476.‘Tue Concert of THE StATE 25 In 1984, the Philippines ratified the United Na- tions Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS IID, which, among others, “prescribes the water-land ratio, length, and contour of baselines of archipelagic States like the Philippines.” Consistent with the Philippines’ obligations under said agreement, Congress amended RA 8046 by enacting Republic Act No. 9522, which, it ‘was believed, would make RA 3046 “compliant” with the provisions of UNCLOS III insofar as the determination of the ‘water-land ratio, length, and contour of base- lines” of our archipelago is concerned. Accordingly, “RA 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints around the Philippine archipelago and classified adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, as ‘re- gimes of islands’ whose islands generate their own ap- plicable maritime zones.” ‘The petitioners in Magallona challenged “the con- stitutionality of RA 9522 on two principal grounds, namely: (1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime terri- tory, and logically, the reach of the Philippine state’s sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution, embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties, and (2) RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Phil- ippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the country’s nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provi- ‘The petitioners further contended that “RA 9522's treatment of the KIG as ‘regime of islands’ not only re- sults in the loss of a large maritime area but also preju- dices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen. To but-26 Panurpine Pourmc L LAW tress their argument of territorial diminution, petition- ers facially attack RA 9522 for what it excluded and included — its failure to reference either the Treaty of Paris or Sabah and its use of UNCLOS II's framework of regime of islands to determine the maritime zones of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal.” ‘The Supreme Court rejected the petitioners’ claim that RA 9522 had resulted in a reduction of the Philip. pines’ maritime territory and “the reach of the Philip- pine state’s sovereign power,” explaining as follows — “UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime zones (ie., the territorial waters (12 nautical miles from the baselines), contiguous zene {24 nautical miles from the baselines), exclusive economie zone (200 nautical mileo from the baselines), and couliseutal shelves that UNCLOS III delimits. UNCLOS Ill was the cul- ‘mination of decades-long negotiations among United Nations ‘members to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the world’s oceans and submarine areas, recognizing coastal and archipelagic States’ graduated authority over a limited span of waters and submarine lands along their coasts, sx SUNCLOS iff and its ancillary baselines laws play no role in the acquisition, enlargement or, as petitioners claim, diminution of territory. Under traditional international law ty pology, States acquire (or conversely, lose) territory through ‘occupation, accretion, cession and prescription, not by execu ing multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or enacting statutes to comply with the treaty’s terms to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves. Territorial claims to land features are outside UNCLOS Il, and are instead gov- ‘ered by the rules on general international law As to the petitioners’ claims that “RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the baselines to mari- time passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining‘Tue Concer? oF THE STATE 27 Philippine sovereignty and national security, contraven- ing the country’s nuclear-free policy, and damaging ma- rine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions,” and that, said law “unconstitutionally ‘con- verts’ internal waters into archipelagic waters, hence subjecting these waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes passage under UNCLOS I], including overflight,” the Supreme Court had this to say — “As their final argument against the validity of RA 9522, petitioners contend that the law unconstitutionally ‘converts! internal waters into archipelagic waters, hence subjecting ‘these waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes passage un- der UNCLOS II, including overflight. Petitioners extrapolate that these passage rights indubitably expose Philippine inter- tal waters to nuclear and maritime pollution hazards, in viola- tion of the Constitution. “Whether referred to as Philippine ‘internal waters’ un- der Article I of the Constitution or as ‘archipelagie waters’ un- dor UNCLOS IIT (Article 49 [1], the Philippines exoreises sov- ereignty over the body of water lying landward of the base- lines, including the air space over it and the submarine areas underneath. (UNCLOS IIL Article 49] “Article 49 “Legal status of archipelagic waters, ofthe air space over arehipelagic waters and of their bed and subsoil “1. The soversignty of an archipelagic State ex- tends to the waters exclosed by the archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47, described as archi- pelagic waters, regardless of their depth or distance from the oss “2, This soversignty extonds to the air space over the archipelagic waters, as well as to their bed and sub- ‘oil, and the resources contained therein. 3 xxxx “4, The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this Part shall not in other respects affect28 Punuireme Pourrical, Law the status of the archipelagic waters, including the sea lanes, or the exercise by the archipelagie State of its sov- ereigmty over such waters and their air space, bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein, “The fact of sovereignty, however, does not preclude the ‘operation of municipal and international law norms subjecting the territorial sea or archipelagie waters to necessary, if not marginal, burdens in the interest of maintaining unimpeded, expeditious international navigation, consistent with the in ‘ternational law principle of freedom of navigation, Thus, do- ‘mestically, the political branches ofthe Philippine government, in the competent discharge of their constitutional powers, may ass legislation designating routes within the archipelagie wa- ters to regulate innocent and sea lanes passage, Indeed, bills drawing nautical highways for sea lanes passage are now pending in Congress. “In the absence of municipal legislation, international Jaw norms, now codified in UNCLOS II, operate to grant inno- cent passage rights over the territorial seq or archipulagic wa ters, subject to the treaty’s limitations and conditions for their exercise, Significantly, the right of innocent passage is a cus- tomary international iaw, thus automatically incorporated in the corpus of Philippine law. No modern State can validly in- voke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage that is exercised in accordance with eustomary international law without risking retaliatory measures from the international community, “The fact that for archipelagie States, their archipelagic waters are subject to both the right of innocent passage and sea lanes passagedoes not place them in lesser footing vis-@-vis| continental coastal States which are eubject, in their territor sea, to the right of innocent passage and the right of transit passage through international straits. ‘The imposition of these passage rights through archipelagie waters under UNCLOS III was a concession by archipolagie States, in exchange for their right to claim all the waters landward of their baselines, re gardless of their depth or distance from the coast, as archi: pelagic watoro oubject to their errtoriul sovereignty. More ite portantly, the recognition of archipelagic States’ archipelago and the waters enclosed by their baselines as one cohesive en- tity prevents the treatment of their islands as separate islands‘Tue Concert oF THR Stare 29 under UNCLOS III Separate islands generate their own mari- time zones, placing the wsters between islands separated by ‘more than 24 nautical miles beyond the States’ territorial sov- ereignty, subjecting these waters to the rights of other States ‘under UNCLOS INL" The Supreme Court likewise rejected the petition- ers’ arguments on “territorial diminution,” i.e., the loss of our claims to territories under the Treaty of Paris or Sabah as a result of RA 9522's adherence to the UN- CLOS IIs framework on the so-called “regime of is- lands” with its inclusion of the Scarborough Shoal and the KIG as parts of our “regime of islands.” Thus — “Had Congress in RA 9522 enclosed the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as part of the Philippine archipelago, ad- verse legal effects would have ensued. The Philippines would hhave committed a breach af wo provisions of UNCLOS IIT First, Article 47 (8) of UNCLOS III requires that ‘(she drawing of such baselines shall no: depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago” Second, Ar- ticle 47 (2) of UNCLOS II] requires that ‘the length of the base- lines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles’ save for three per cent (8%) of the total number of baselines which can reach up to 125 nautical miles. “Although the Philippines has consistently claimed sov- cereignty over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal for several decades, these outlying areas are located at an appreciable dis- tance from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago, such that any straight baseline loped around them from the nearest basepoint will inevitably ‘depart to an appreciable ex- tent from the general configuration of the archipelago” xxx. “Hence, far from surrendering the Philippines’ claim over the KIG and the Searbarouzh Shosl, Congress’ decision to cl sify the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as ‘Regimots} of Ts lands’ under the Republic af the Philippines consistent with Article 121 of UNCLOS III manifests the Philippine State's res- ponsible observance ofits pzeta sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS IHL. Under Article 121 of UNCLOS IM, any ‘naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above wa-30 Punspenve Pousrical, Law ter at high tide,’ such as portions of the KIG, qualifies under the category of ‘regime of islands,’ whose islands generate their ‘own applicable maritime zones.” ‘The Supreme Court clarified that — “Further, petitioners’ argument that the KIG now lies outside Philippine territory because the baselines that RA 9522 draws do not enclose the KIG is negated by RA 9522 itself. Sec- tion 2 of the law commits to text the Philippines’ continued claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the KIG and the ‘Scarborough Shoal: “SEC. 2. The baselines in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be dotormined as “Regime of Islands” under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Ar ticle 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): *a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No, 1596 and "b) Bajo de Masintoc, algo known as Scarborough Shoal.” ‘The Court, refuting the petitioners’ claims that RA. 9522 not only “results in the loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen,” went on to say that — “In fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to delimit its exclusive eeonomie zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the exploitation of all living and non- living resources within such zone. Such a maritime delineation binds the international community since the delineation is in strict observance of UNCLOS II Ifthe maritime delineation is contrary to UNCLOS If, the international community will of course reject it and will refuse to be bound by it, “UNCLOS III favors States with a long coastline like the Philippines. UNCLOS IIT creates a sui generis maritime space = the exclusive economie zone — in waters previously part of‘Tux Concert of THE Stare a1 the high seas. UNCLOS III grants new rights to coastal States ‘to exclusively exploit the resources found within this zone up to 200 nautical miles. UNCLOS IM, however, preserves the traditional freedom of navigation of ather States that attached tn this zone heyond the tarsitorial nan heforn UNCLOS TIL" Finally, the Supreme Court explained in Magallona that “baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States parties to mark-out specific base- points along their coasts from which baselines are drawn, either straight or contoured, to serve as geo- graphic starting points to measure the breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf. Article 48 of UN- CLOS III on archipelagic States like ours could not be any clearer: “Article 48, Measurement of the breadth of the territo rial sea, the contiguous zore, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf.—The breadth of the torritorial soa, tho contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continen- tal shelf shall be measured from archipelagie baselines drawn in accordance with article 47. “Thus, baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties to delimit, with precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves. In tura, this gives notice to the rest of the international community of the scope of the mari- time space and submarine areas within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights, namely, the exer- cise of sovereignty over territorial waters (Article 2), the Jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitation laws in the contiguous zone (Article 38), and the right to exploit the living and non-living resources in the exclusive economic zone (Article 66) and continental shelf (Article 77).32 Panarpre Pounicat, LAW “Even under petitioners’ theory that the Philippine territory embraces the islands and all the waters within the rectangular area delimited in the Treaty of Paris, the baselines of the Philippines would still have to be drawn in accordance with RA 9522 because this is the only way to draw the baselines in conformity with UN- CLOS II. The baselines cannot be drawn from the boundaries or other portions of the rectangular area delineated in the Treaty of Paris, but from the ‘outer most islands and drying reefs of the archipelago.” The Philippines, like most States now, includes in its territory the insular shelves which, strictly speaking, are under the jurisdiction only, and not the sovereignty, of the coastal state. The definition in Article I now covers the following territories: 1. Those ceded to the United States by virtue of the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898. 2, Those defined in the treaty concluded between the United States and Spain on November 7, 1900, which were not defined in the Treaty of Paris, specifi- cally the islands of Cagayan, Sulu and Sibuto, 3. Those defined in the treaty concluded on Janu- ary 2, 1930, between the United States and Great Brit- ain, specifically the Turtle and Mangsee islands. 4. The island of Batanes, which was covered un- der a general statement in the 1935 Constitution. 5. ‘Those contemplated in the phrase “belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title” in the 1973 Constitution."* " Res, of the Constitutional Commission No, 21, July 1, 1986.‘Tue Concern oF me STATE 38 (8) Government Government is the agency or instrumentality through which the will of the State is formulated, ex- pressed and realized.” From the viewpoint of international law, no par- ticular form of government is prescribed, provided only that the government is able to represent the State in its dealings with other States. Our Constitution, however, requires our government to be democratic and republi- can. It has been said that “che State is an ideal person, invisible, intangible, immutable and existing only in contemplation of law; the government is an agent and, within the sphere of its agency, it is a perfect represen- tative, but outside of that itis a lawless usurpation.” The mandate of the government from the State is to promote the welfare of the people. Accordingly, what- ever good is done by the government is attributed to the State but every harm inflicted on the people is imputed not to the State but to the government alone. Such in- jury may justify the replacement of the government by revolution, theoretically at the behest of the State, in a development known as direct State action." A. Functions ‘The government performs two kinds of functions, to wit, the constituent and the ministrant. Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 US. 270, " Bid. "*Sineo, Phil. Political Law, 8rd ed., 6-7, op. ct.34 Punirrine POLITICAL LAW Constituent functions constitute the very bonds of society and are therefore compulsory. Among the con- stituent functions are the following: (1) The keeping of order and providing for the protection of persons and property from violence and robbery; (2) The fixing of the legal relations between husband and wife and between parents and chil- dren; (3) The regulation of the holding, transmis- sion and interchange of property, and the determi- nation of its liabilities for debt or for crime; (4) The determination of contractual rights between individuals; (5) ‘The definition and punishment of erimes; (6) The administration of justice in civil cases; (7) The administration of political duties, privileges and relations of citizens; and (8) ‘The dealings of the State with foreign powers; the preservation of the State from external danger or encroachment and the advancement of its international interests.” Ministrant funetions are those undertaken to ad- vance the general interests of society, such as public works, public charity, and regulation of trade and indus. try. These functions are merely optional. Significantly, though, it is the performance of ministrant functions that distinguishoe tho patornalistic government from the merely individualistic government, which is con- Maloolm, Gov't. of the Phil. Is, p19.‘Tae Concert oF Tae Stare 35 cerned only with the basic function of maintaining peace and order. To our Supreme Court, however, the distinction be- twoon constituent and ministrant functions is not rele- vant in our jurisdiction, In PVTA v. CIR" it reiterated the ruling in ACCFA v. Federation of Labor Unions” that such distinction has been blurred because of the repudiation of the laissez faire policy in the Constitu- tion. “The irrelevance of such a distinction considering the heeds of the times was clearly pointed out by the present Chief ‘Justice, who took note, speaking of the reconstituted Agricul- tural Credit Administration, that functions of that sort ‘may not be strictly what President Wilson described as ‘constituent’ (as distinguished from ‘ministrant), such as those relating to the maintenance of peace and the prevention of crime, those regulating property and preperty rights, those relating to the ‘administration of justice and the determination of political du- ties of citizens, and those relating to national defense and for- ign relations, Under this traditional classification, such con- stituent funetions are exercised by the State as attributes of sovereignty, and not merely to promote the welfare, progress ‘and prosperity of the people—these latter functions being min- istrant, the exercise of which is optional on the part of the gov- femment.’ Nonetheless, as he explained so persuasively: The growing complexities of modern society, however, have ren dered this traditional classification of the functions of gov- ferment quite unrealistic not to say obsolete. The areas which used to be left to private enterprise and initiative and which the government was called upon to enter optionally and only because it was better equipped to administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and to be aby sorbed within activities that the government must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing social challenges of the times. Here as almost everywhere else, Ue ‘65 SCRA 416, "30 SCRA 649,