COURSE OUTLINE and Case List

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
Arellano University School of Law
Atty. Roel Pulido

I. Introduction (Session 1)

A. Nature of the Constitution

B. Changing the Constitution
 Lambino v Comelec, G.R. 174153 (2006)

II. Interpreting the Constitution (Session 2)

A. Role of the Judiciary as interpreter of laws

 Constitution, Article VIII, Sections 1 and 5
 Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137
 Angara v Electoral Commission, 63 Phil 139 (1936)
 .

B. Rules of Interpretation
 Francisco v House of Representatives, G.R. 160261 (Nov. 10, 2003)

C. Requisites of Judicial Review

 Actual case or controversy

 Mariano v Comelec, G.R. 118577

 Montesclaros vs Comelec, G.R. 152295 (2002)

o Facial Challenge

 Estrada v Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560 (2001)

o Political Question
 Emilio A. Gonzales III v. Office of the President, etc., et
al./Wendell Bareras-Sulit v. Atty. Paquito N. Ochoa,
Jr., et al., G.R. No. 196231/G.R. No. 196232, January
28, 2014.

o Moot and academic
 Gonzales v Narvasa, G.R. 140835 (2000)
 Lacson v Perez, GR 147780 (2001)
 Defunis v Odegard 416 US 312 (1974)
 o Exceptions to the moot and academic rule

 David v Arroyo

 Standing
o KMU Labor Center v Garcia, G.R. 115381 (1994)
o IBP v Zamora GR 141284 (2000)
o Tanada v Tuvera 136 SCRA 27 (1985)
o Ople v Torres 293N SCRA 141 (1998)

o Standing as a “Technicality”
 Information Technology Foundation v Comelec, GR
159139 (2004)
 Kilosbayan v Guingona, 232 SCRA 110 (1994)
 Earliest Opportunity
o Need to notify Solicitor General
 Mirasol vs CA GR 128448 (2001)
o Symbolic Decisions
 Salonga v Cruz Pano 134 SCRA 438
D. Effects of declaration of unconstitutionality
 Serrano de Agbayani vs PNB, 38 SCRA 429 (1972)
 Salazar v Achacoso, 183 SCRA 145

III. The Philippines as a State (Session 3)

A. Elements of a State

B. The Philippines as a State

1. Territory
 Article I
 Reagan v CIR, 30 SCRA 968 (1969)
 People v Gozo 53 SCRA 476

2. People
 Article II, Sections 1, 4, 15, 16
 Article III, Sections 1,2 and 7
 Article VII Section 4
 Article XVI Section 2
 Article XVIII Section 25
3. Government
 Section 2, Administrative Code
 People v Sandiganbayan, GR 145951 (2003)
 MIAA v Court of Appeals GR No. 155650 (2006)
 o Constituent v Ministrant Functions
 Valmonte v Belmonte, 170 SCRA 256
o The Concept of Parens Patriae
 Cabanas v Pilapil, 58 SCRA 94
4. Sovereignty
 Macariola v Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77
 Harvey v Commissioner, 162 SCRA 840

C. Philippine Citizenship

 Lee v Director of Lands, G.R. 128195 (2001)

 Republic v Chule Lim, GR No. 153883
 Calilung v Datumanong, GR 160869
 Republic v Nora Sagun, GR 187567 (2012)
 In Re Ching, Bar Matter 914 (1999)
 Co v HRET 199 SCRA 692
 Bengson v HRET, GR 142840
 Frivaldo vs COMELEC 257 SCRA 727(1996)
 Nicholas-Lewis v Comelec, GR No. 162759 (2006)
 Aznar v Comelec, GR No. 83820, (1990)
 Valles v Comelec GR No. 137000 (2000)
 Poe v Comelec, G.R. 221697 (2016)

D. The Doctrine of State Immunity (Session 4)

1. Suits vs the Philippine State

 Article XVI, Section 3

 Republic v Feliciano, 148 SCRA 424 (1987)
 Philippine Agila Satellite v Lichauco, G.R. No. 134887 (2006)
 Sayson v Singson 54 SCRA 282)
 Republic v Purisima 78 SCRA 470 (1977)
 PNB v CIR, 81 SCRA 314 (1978)
 SSS v CA, 120 SCRA 707 (1983)
 Rayo v CFI, 110 SCRA 450 (1981)
 Farolan v CTA, 217 SCRA 298 (1993)
 Republic v Sandiganbayan, GR No. 85384 (1990)
 Froilan v Pan Oriental Shipping , 95 Phil 905 (1954)G.R. L-6060
 Lim v Brownell 107 Phil 344 (1960)
 Santiago v Republic, 87 SCRA 294 (1978)
 Amigable v Cuenca 43 SCRA 360 (1972)
 Torio v Fontanilla 85 SCRA 99 (1978)
 2. Suits vs Foreign States

 The Holy See v Rosario, (December 17, 1994)

 USA v Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487 (1985)
 Minucher v CA, GR No. 76609 (1990)
 Rep. of Indonesia v Vinzon, GR 154705 (2003)
 WHO v Aquino, GR No. L-35131 (1972)
 DFA v NLRC, GR No. 113191 (1997)

3. Suits against Public Officers

 Animas vs PVAO, 174 SCRA 214

 USA v Reyes, GR No. 79233 (1993)
 Shauf v CA 191 SCRA 713 (1990)

4. Execution vs the State

 Nessia v Fermin, 220 SCRA 615 (1993)
 Caloocan City v Allarde, GR No. 107721 (2003)

IV. Philippine Principles and Policies (Session 5)

A. Preamble

B. Principles and Policies (Article II, Philippine Constitution)

 Pable Ocampo v HRET, GR No. 158466 (2004)

 Maquiling v COMELEC, G.R. 195649 (2013)
 Villavicencio v Lukban, 39 Phil 778 (1919)
 Agustin v Edu, 88 SCRA 195 (1979)
 Ichong v Hernandez, 101 Phil 115 (1957)
 In RE Garcia, 2 SCRA 984
 Lagman v Zosa, 66 Phil 13 (1938)
 Estrada v Escritor AM No. P-02-1651 (2006)
 Bayan v Exec Secretary, GR No. 138570 (2000)
 Pamatong v Comelec GR No. 161872 (2004)
 Maquera v Borja, GR No L-24761 (1965)
 Calalang v Williams 70 Phil 726 (1940)
 APCD v PCA, GR No. 110526
 Simon v CHR, GR No. 100150 (1994)
 PASEI v Drilon, 163 SCRA 386 (1988)
 UP BOR v CA, GR No. 134629 (1999)
 Camacho v Coresis, GR No. 134372 (2002)
 SSS Employees Assn. vs CA, 175 SCRA 686
 Roe v Wade, 410 US 113
  Pierce v Society of Sisters, 262 US 510
 Tanada v Angara, GR 118295 (1997)

V. The Exercise of Government Power (Session 6)

 In RE Laureta and Maravilla 148 SCRA 382

 INS v Chadha, 462 US 919 (1983)
 Arnault v Balagtas, 97 Phil 358 (1955)
 Goldwater v Carter, 444 US 996
 Garcia v Executive Secretary, 211 SCRA 219
 US v Tang Ho 43 Phil 1
 Conference v POEA, 243 SCRA 666
 Pelaez v Auditor General, 15 SCRA 569
 People v Judge Dacuycuy, 173 SCRA 90

VI. Structure and Powers of Government

A. The Legislative Branch

 Article VI, Philippine Constitution

 Powell v McCormack, 395 US 486
 Macias v Comelec. 3 SCRA 1
 Tan v COMELEC, 142 SCRA 727 (1986)
 Banat v Comelec, GR 179271 (2009)
 Ang Ladlad v Comelec, GR 190582 (2010)
 Walden Bello v Comelec GR 191998 (2010)
 Atong Paglaum v Comelec, GR 203766
 Aquino v Comelec, 248 SCRA 400 (1995)

B. Legislative Branch (continued: Organization) [Session 7]

 Santiago v Guingona, G.R. 134577, (1998)

 Avelino v Cuenco, 83 Phil 17 (1949)
 Alejandrino v Quezon, 46 Phil 83 (1924)
 De Venecia v SB, G.R. No. 130240 (2002)
 Casco Chemical v Gimenez, 7 SCRA 347 (1963)
 Philconsa v Mathay, 18 SCRA 300 (1966)
 Ligot v Mathay, 56 SCRA 823 (1974)
 People v Jalosjos, G.R. NO. 132875
 Adaza v Pacana, 135 SCRA 431 (1985)
 Puyat v De Guzman 113 SCRA 31 (1982)
 Abbas v SET, 166 SCRA 651 (1988)
 Bondoc v Pineda, 201 SCRA 732
 Codilla v De Venecia, G.R. 150605 (2002)
  Cunanan v Tan 5 SCRA 1 (1962)
 Tio v Videogram Regulatory Board, 151 SCRA 208
 Araullo v Abad, G.R. 209287 (2014)
 Belgica v Ochoa, G.R. 208566 (2013)
 ABAKADA Guro v Ermita, G.R. No. 168207 (2005)
 Fabian v Desierto, G.R. No. 129742 (1998)
 Gonzales v Macaraig, G.R. No. 87636, (1990)
 Tanada v Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 (1985)

Legislative Branch (Session 8); Start of Executive Department

 Tan v Del Rosario, 237 SCRA 324 (2000)

 Lung Center v QC, G.R. No. 144104 (2004)
 First Lepanto Ceramics v CA, 237 SCRA 519 (1994)
 Tolentino v Secretary of Finance, G.R. 115455 (1994)
 Bengzon v Blue Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA 767
 Senate v Ermita, G.R. 169777 (2006)
 Belgica (G.R. 208566, 2013)
 Araullo v Abad (G.R. 209287)
 Arnault v Balagtas, 97 Phil 358
 Article VII, Philippine Constitution
 Republic v Sandiganbayan, GR 152154 (2003)
 Estrada v Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738 (2001)

C. Executive Department (Session 9)

 CLU v Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317

 Cruz v COA, G.R. No. 138489 (2001)
 NAC v COA G.R. No. 156982 (2004)
 Laurel v Garcia, GR No. 92013 (1990)
 Marcos v Manglapus, 178 SCRA 760
 De Leon v Carpio, 178 SCRA 457
 Blaquera v Alcala, GR 109406 (1998)
 Hutchison Ports v SBMA, GR No 131367 (2000)
 Pimentel v Aguirre, GR 132988 (2000)
 Manalo v Sistosa, GR 107369 (1999)
 Soriano v Lista GR 153881 (2003)
 Pimentel v Ermita, GR 164978
 Echegaray v Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96
 Constantino v Cuisa, GR No. 106064 (2005)
 Gudani v Senga, GR No 170165
 Gloria v CA, GR No. 119903

D. The Judicial Department (Session 10)

  Miranda v Aguirre, G.R. No 133064 (1999)
 MMDA v Jancom, GR 147465
 Tirol v CA, GR No. 133954 (2000)
 Cruz v DENR, GR 135385 (2000)
 Martinez v CA, GR 123547 (2001)
 Aguirre v Rana, Bar matter No. 1036 (2003)
 In RE: IBP Elections Bar Matter No. 491 (1989)
 De La Llana v Alba 122 SCRA 291

E. Constitutional Commissions

 Cayetano v Monsod, GR 100113 (1991)

 Gaminde v COA, GR No. 140335 (2000)
 Brillantes v Yorac, GR No. 93867 (1990)
 CSC v DBM, GR 158791
 Sarmiento v COMELEC, 212 SCRA 307
 Ambil v Comelec GR No. 143398

1. The CSC
 Camporedondo v NLRC, GR No. 129049
 General v Roco, GR No. 143366 (2001)
 CSC v Salas, GR 123708
 Office of the Ombudsman vs CSC, GR No. 159940 (2005)
 Vistan v Nicolas 201 SCRA 524
 Domingo v Zamora, GR 142283 (2003)
 OP v Buenaobra, GR 170021 (2006)
 Central Bank v CSC, 171 SCRA 744

2. The COMELEC
 Brillantes v Comelec, GR 163193 (2004)
 Sandoval v Comelec, GR 133842
 Al Haj v Comelec, GR No. 151046
 Guevarra v Comelec, 104 Phil 269
 Jaramilla v Comelec, GR No, 155717 (2003)
 Baytan v Comelec, GR No. 153945 (2003)

3. The COA
 DBP v COA, 231 SCRA 202
 Bustamante v COA, 216 SCRA 164
 DBP v COA, GR No. 88435 (2002)

4. Sandiganbayan
 PD 1606
  Nunez v Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433

5. Ombudsman
 Roxas v Vasquez, GR No 114944
 People v Velez, GR No. 138093
 Ledesma v CA GR No. 161629
 Ombudsman v Madriaga, GR No. 164316
 Ombudsman vs CA, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015

6. Office of the Special Prosecutor

 Zaldiva v SB, 160 SCRA 843
 Orap v Sandiganbayan, 139 SCRA 252

7. National Commissions
 Carino v CHR, GR 96681
 Canonizado v Aguirre, GR No. 133132 (2000)