You are on page 1of 60


The cause of suspension was

STATE POLICIES unprofessionalism and unethical behavior resulting to
unwed pregnancy. Cadiz filed with Labor Arbiter a
Imbong v Ochoa complaint for unfair Labor Practice, Constructive
Dismissal, Non-payment of wages and Damages with
Issue: Does R.A. 1034 "The responsible parenthood
prayer for reinstatement. It is said that Brent would not
and Reproductive health act of 2012" violate the
reinstate Cadiz until she marries her boyfriend.
principle of separation of church and state.

Ruling: No. Based on section 5 of Article 3 and the non Issue: Is the condition imposed on Cadiz by Brent
establishment clause of the bill of rights which states that Hospital and Colleges that “she subsequently contract
“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of marriage with her then boyfriend for her to be
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free reinstated”--- in consonance with the “policy against
exervise and enjoyment of religious profession and encouraging illicit or common-law relations that would
whoship, without discrimniation or preference, shall subvert the sacrament of marriage”?
forever be allowed" the RH bill does not violate the
separation of church and state, rather it supplements it Ruling: Yes, the condition imposed by Brent Hospital
by building safeguards towards the catholic belief such and Colleges on Cadiz is in consonance with the “policy
as the right of the unborn and the right to religious against encouraging illicit or common-law relations that
freedom, all while maintaining religious neutrality would subvert the sacrament of marriage”. With regard
as mandated by the 1987 Constitution to Cadiz's prayer for moral and exemplary damages, the
Court finds the same without merit. The court finds that
Re: Letter of Valenciano Christine Capiz have been dismissed without just cause.
The said condition for marriage violates the stipulation
Facts: In this letter, Valenciano questioned the regular against marriage under Article 136 of the Labor Code. It
and unabated practice of holding daily Roman Catholic is true that Cadiz failed to be an “epitome of proper
Masses at the basement of Quezon City hall of justice conduct, being the HRO of the institution. However, with
and cites violation of the Constitutional principle of the the condition imposed by Brent, it clearly crosses the line
separation of Church and State per reference to Article on RA No. 9710 which is the Magna Carta for Women
2, section 6 of the 1987 Constitution (Constitution). that protects women and their “right to choose freely a
spouse and to enter into marriage with their free and full
Issue: Does the holding of masses at the basement of
the Quezon City hall of justice violate the constitutional
principle of separation of church and state? Imbong vs. Ochoa

Ruling: No. Pursuant to Article 3, section 5 of the Issue: Does the RA 10354 (RH Law) violate the
Constitution, “No law shall be made respecting on constitutional right to life of the unborn?
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious Ruling: No. Certain provisions of RA 10354 account for
profession and worship, without discrimination or the upholding of the constitutional right to life of the
preference, shall forever be allowed.” The religious unborn, viz. Section 2; Section 4(l), (s), (q)(3); Section 9;
nature of the use of the public area is merely Section 19(a)(2). All of which are stated below.
incidental. The primary secular purpose for
accommodation of the religious exercise within the court Notes (essential but do not copy onto the index card; all
premises is apparently to sustain an individual’s free taken from RA 10354):
exercise of his religion as equally guaranteed by the
*Section 2. x x x The State likewise guarantees universal
Constitution and to reinforce an individual’s sense of
access to medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective,
morality. The overriding consideration for such an
legal, affordable, and quality reproductive health care
accommodation is not religious in nature, but secular –
services, methods, devices, supplies which do not
as such exercise helps elevate the employees sense of
prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum as
determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Cadiz vs Brent Hospital xxx

Facts: Cadiz was Human Resource Officer of the *Section 4

hospital at the time of her indefinite suspension from
(l) Modern methods of family planning refers to safe, safe contraceptives are made available to the public. In
effective, non-abortifacient and legal methods, whether fulfilling its mandate under Sec. 10 of the RH Law, the
natural or artificial, that are registered with the FDA, to DOH must keep in mind the provisions of RA 4729: the
plan pregnancy. contraceptives it will procure shall be from a duly
licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company and that
(s) Reproductive health rights refers to the rights of the actual distribution of these contraceptive drugs and
individuals and couples, to decide freely and responsibly devices will be done following a prescription of a
whether or not to have children; the number, spacing qualified medical practitioner.
and timing of their children; to make other decisions
concerning reproduction, free of discrimination, coercion Meanwhile, the requirement of Section 9 of the
and violence; to have the information and means to do RH Law is to be considered “mandatory” only after these
so; and to attain the highest standard of sexual health devices and materials have been tested, evaluated and
and reproductive health: Provided, however, that approved by the FDA. Congress cannot determine that
reproductive health rights do not include abortion, and contraceptives are “safe, legal, non-abortificient and
access to abortifacients. effective”. The distribution of contraceptive drugs and
devices must not be indiscriminately done. The public
(q) Reproductive health care refers to the access to a full health must be protected by all possible means.
range of methods, facilities, services and supplies that
contribute to reproductive health and well-being by For Reference. This is RA 4729
addressing reproductive health-related problems. It also
includes sexual health, the purpose of which is the REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4729 - AN ACT TO REGULATE
enhancement of life and personal relations. The THE SALE, DISPENSATION, AND/OR DISTRIBUTION
elements of reproductive health care include the OF CONTRACEPTIVE DRUGS AND DEVICES
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person,
(3) Proscription of abortion and management of abortion partnership, or corporation, to sell, dispense or otherwise
complications; distribute whether for or without consideration, any
contraceptive drug or device, unless such sale,
*Section 9. The Philippine National Drug Formulary dispensation or distribution is by a duly licensed drug
System and Family Planning Supplies. – The National store or pharmaceutical company and with the
Drug Formulary shall include hormonal contraceptives, prescription of a qualified medical practitioner.
intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal,
non-abortifacient and effective family planning products Sec. 2. For the purpose of this Act:
and supplies.
(a) "Contraceptive drug" is any medicine, drug,
*Section 19. Duties and Responsibilities. – (a) Pursuant chemical, or portion which is used exclusively for the
to the herein declared policy, the DOH shall serve as the purpose of preventing fertilization of the female ovum:
lead agency for the implementation of this Act and shall and
integrate in their regular operations the following
(b) "Contraceptive device" is any instrument,
device, material, or agent introduced into the female
(2) Ensure people’s access to medically safe, reproductive system for the primary purpose of
non-abortifacient, legal, quality and affordable preventing conception.
reproductive health goods and services;
Sec. 3. Any person, partnership, or corporation, violating
Imbong v Ochoa the provisions of this Act shall be punished with a fine of
not more than five hundred pesos or an imprisonment of
Issue: Does R.A. No. 10354 “The Responsible not less than six months or more than one year or both
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012”, in the discretion of the Court.
violate the constitutional right to health and the right to
protection against hazardous products This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Pimentel vs Ochoa

Ruling: No. The RH Law does not intend to do away Facts: In 2007, the DSWD embarked on a poverty
with RA 4729 (1966). With RA 4729 in place, the Court reduction strategy with the poorest of the poor as target
believes adequate safeguards exist to ensure that only beneficiaries. This government intervention scheme,
also conveniently referred to as CCTP (Conditional Cash One Hundred Ninety-Four Million One Hundred
Transfer Program), "provides cash grant to extreme poor Seventeen Thousand Pesos (P21,194,117,000.00)
households to allow the members of the families to meet
certain human development goals.” Issue: Whether or not the PHP 21 billion CCTP budget
allocation under DSWD violates local autonomy by
Under A.O. No. 16, s. 2008, the DSWD also providing for the recentralization of the national
institutionalized a coordinated inter-agency network government in the delivery of basic services already
among the Department of Education (DepEd), devolved to the LGUs?
Department of Health (DOH), Department of Interior and
Local Government (DILG), the National Anti-Poverty Ruling: No. Unless an LGU is particularly designated as
Commission (NAPC) and the local government units the implementing agency, it has no power over a
(LGUs), identifying specific roles and functions in order program for which funding has been provided by the
to ensure effective and efficient implementation of the national government under the annual general
CCTP. appropriations act, even if the program involves the
delivery of basic services within the jurisdiction of the
As the DSWD takes on the role of lead LGU. Under the Philippine concept of local autonomy,
implementing agency that must "oversee and coordinate the national government has not completely relinquished
the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the all its powers over local governments, including
program," the concerned LGU as partner agency is autonomous regions. Only administrative powers over
particularly tasked to: local affairs are delegated to political subdivisions. The
purpose of the delegation is to make governance more
a. Ensure availability of the supply side on health and directly responsive and effective at the local levels. In
education in the target areas. turn, economic, political and social development at the
smaller political units are expected to propel social and
b. Provide necessary technical assistance for Program
economic growth and development. But to enable the
country to develop as a whole, the programs and
c. Coordinate the implementation/operationalization of policies effected locally must be integrated and
sectoral activities at the City/Municipal level to better coordinated towards a common national goal. Thus,
execute Program objectives and functions policy-setting for the entire country still lies in the
President and Congress.
d. Coordinate with various concerned government
agencies at the local level, sectoral representatives and City of General Santos vs COA
NGO to ensure effective Program implementation
Issue: Does the constitutional mandate for local grant
e. Prepare reports on issues and concerns regarding local governments the power to streamline and
Program implementation and submit to the Regional reorganize as well as the authority to create a separate
Advisory Committee, and or supplementary retirement benefit plan?

f. Hold monthly committee meetings Ruling: Yes. The constitutional mandate for local
autonomy supports petitioner city’s issuance of
A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed Executive Order No. 40, series of 2008, creating change
by the DSWD with each participating LGU outlines in management teams as an initial step for its organization
detail the obligation of both parties during the intended development masterplan. Local autonomy also grants
five-year implementation of the CCTP. local governments the power to streamline and
reorganize. This power is inferred from Section 76 of the
Local Government Code on organizational structure and
staffing pattern, and Section 16 otherwise known as the
Congress, for its part, sought to ensure the success of
general welfare clause.
the CCTP by providing it with funding under the GAA of
2008 in the amount of Two Hundred Ninety-Eight Million Notes:
Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P298,550,000.00).
This budget allocation increased tremendously to P5 Section 76. Organizational Structure and Staffing
Billion Pesos in 2009, with the amount doubling to P10 Pattern. - Every local government unit shall design and
Billion Pesos in 2010. But the biggest allotment given to implement its own organizational structure and staffing
the CCTP was in the GAA of 2011 at Twenty One Billion pattern taking into consideration its service requirements
and financial capability, subject to the minimum
standards and guidelines prescribed by the Civil Service the school year 1992-1993. She came back from her
Commission. leave of absence sometime in August 1993. Upon
Santos’s return to the School, only one class of Spanish
Section 16. General Welfare. - Every local government was available for her to teach. Thus, for the school year
unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those 1993-1994, Santos agreed to teach one class of Spanish
necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers and four other classes of Filipino that were left behind by
necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and a retired teacher.
effective governance, and those which are essential to
the promotion of the general welfare. Within their Since it was Santos’s first time to teach Filipino,
respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units the School’s high school administrators observed the
shall ensure and support, among other things, the way she conducted her classes. The results of the
preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health observations on her classes were summarized in
and safety, enhance the right of the people to a Classroom Standards Evaluation Forms accomplished
balanced ecology, encourage and support the by the designated observers.
development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and
technological capabilities, improve public morals, Santos was evaluated in the areas of Planning,
enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote the Teaching Act, Climate, Management and
full employment among their residents, maintain peace Communication..
and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of
Such evaluations suggested the teacher’s effort
their inhabitants.
to improve several aspects such as lesson plans,
International Service vs Green Peace teaching style, and effective questioning techniques.
One of the evaluators observed that Santos did not meet
Facts: Greenpeace, et al. argued that this case calls for the minimum standards in the concerned areas.
the application of the precautionary principle, the Bt
talong field testing being a classic environmental case 25 March, 1996: Mr. Loy implied that Santos
where scientific evidence as to the health, environmental gave no effort to address the issues presented to her.
and socio-economic safety is insufficient or uncertain
29 March, 1996: Santos was given a memo
and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates
which required her to undergo remediation phase of the
reasonable grounds for concern that there are potentially
evaluation process through a personal growth plan. By
dangerous effects on human health and the
April 18, 1996 Santos’ improvement became
Issue: What is the precautionary principle?
April 10, 1997, McCauley sent a letter to Santos
Ruling: When there is a lack of full scientific certainty in directing her to explain in writing why her employment
establishing a causal link between human activity and from the School should not be terminated because of her
environmental effect, the court shall apply the failure to meet the criteria for improvement set out in her
precautionary principle in resolving the case before it Professional Growth Plan and her substandard
performance as a teacher.
Issue: Does the precautionary principle find application
on the field trials of GMO BT.Talong In her reply letter dated April 14, 1997, Santos
blamed the School for her predicament. She said that, in
Ruling: Yes, the precautionary principle set forth in Sec the last few years, she had been forced to teach Filipino,
1 rule 20 of the Rules of procedure for Environmental a subject which she had no preparation for. The School
Cases finds relevance in the present controversy allegedly made this happen against her objections and
stressing the fact that “over all safety guarantee of the despite the fact that she had no training in Filipino
BT talong” remains unknown. And by mere introducing linguistics and literature. Santos also asked for
genetically modified plant into our ecosystem is a clarification on why she was being asked to explain and
violation on “ecologically imbalancing act. the reasons therefor.

International School Manila vs. ISAE Issue: Shall separation pay be allowed as a measure of
social justice to all employees who have been
Facts: Santos was first hired by the School in 1978 as a dismissed?
full-time Spanish language teacher. In April 1992,
Santos filed for and was granted a leave of absence for
Ruling: No. Separation pay shall be allowed as a protection clause by favoring women over men as
measure of social justice only in those instances where victims of violence and abuse to whom the State extends
the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than its protection.
serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral
character. Where the reason for the valid dismissal is, ARTICLE VI. THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
for example, habitual intoxication or an offense involving
moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual relations with a Sameer Overseas Placement vs Cabiles
fellow worker, the employer may not be required to give
Facts: In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and
the dismissed employee separation pay, or financial
Marlow Navigation Co., Inc., this court ruled that the
assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on the
clause "or for three (3) months for every year of the
ground of social justice.
unexpired term, whichever is less" is unconstitutional for
In the instant case, the Court finds equitable and violating the equal protection clause and substantive due
proper the award of separation pay in favor of Santos in process.
view of the length of her service with the School prior to
Issue: Is it within the ambit of legislative power when
the events that led to the termination of her employment.
Congress re-enacted the "or for three (3) months for
To recall, Santos was first employed by the School in
every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less"
1978 as a Spanish language teacher. During this time,
clause of RA 8042 --- which was already declared
the records of this case are silent as to the fact of any
infraction that she committed and/or any other
administrative case against her that was filed by the Ruling: No. A statute or provision which was declared
School. Thus, an award of separation pay equivalent to unconstitutional is not a law. It "confers no rights; it
one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service is imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no
awarded in favor of Santos on grounds of equity and office; it is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all."
social justice.
In the hierarchy of laws, the Constitution is
Garcia vs Drilon supreme. No branch or office of the government may
exercise its powers in any manner inconsistent with the
Facts: Petitioner Jesus Garcia was the subject of a
Constitution, regardless of the existence of any law that
petition for a Temporary Protection Order pursuant to
supports such exercise. The Constitution cannot be
R.A. 9262, entitled “An Act Defining Violence Against
trumped by any other law. All laws must be read in light
Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective
of the Constitution. Any law that is inconsistent with it is
Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor,
a nullity.
and for Other Purposes.” Petitioner then questioned the
constitutionality of RA 9262 as violative of the due Belgica vs Alcantara
process and equal protection clauses in the Constitution.
Facts: In 2000, the Priority Development Assistance
Issue: Is R.A. 9262 violative of fundamental equality Fund (“PDAF”) appeared in the GAA. PDAF required
between men and women? prior consultation with the representative of the district
before the release of funds. PDAF also allowed
Ruling: R.A. 9262 does not violate the guarantee of
realignment of funds to any expense category except
equal protection of the laws. Equal protection simply
personal services and other personnel benefits.
requires that all persons or things similarly situated
should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and Issues: Are post-enactment measures which govern the
responsibilities imposed. areas of project identification, fund release, and fund
realignment not related to functions of congressional
As held in Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers'
oversight and not violative of separation of powers? Are
Union, the equal protection of the laws clause of the
these measures violative of the non-delegability of
Constitution allows classification.This Court has held that
legislative functions?
the standard is satisfied if the classification or distinction
is based on a reasonable foundation or rational basis Ruling: Yes. The post-enactment measures including
and is not palpably arbitrary. project identification, fund release, and fund realignment
are not related to functions of congressional oversight
Measured against the foregoing jurisprudential
and, hence, allow legislators to intervene and/or assume
yardstick, we find that R.A. 9262 is based on a valid
classification and, as such, did not violate the equal
duties that properly belong to the sphere of budget abide by its words. The use of the word "may" in the
execution, which belongs to the executive department. provision readily shows that an acknowledged
illegitimate child is under no compulsion to use the
Yes. The 2013 PDAF Article, insofar as it surname of his illegitimate father. The word "may" is
confers post-enactment identification authority to permissive and operates to confer discretion upon the
individual legislators, violates the principle of non- illegitimate children. Hence, a mere declaration from a
delegability since said legislators are effectively allowed illegitimate children without trial in the court, is not
to individually exercise the power of appropriation, which applicable to sway its decision in favor of the
– as settled in Philconsa – is lodged in Congress. petitioner.Rule 7 and Rule 8 of the Office of the Civil
Registrar General Administrative Order No. 1, Series of
Grande vs Antonio
2004 was DISAPPROVED and was declared NULL and
Facts: The petitioner grace grande and the respondent VOID.
patricio antonio had a illicit relationship for a period of
Cawad vs Abad
time. Although the respondent was already married at
that time, their intimate relationship resulted to the birth Facts: On March 26, 1992, Republic Act (RA) No. 7305,
of their two sons andrew lewis and jerard patrick, which otherwise known as The Magna Carta of Public Health
at the latter, the respondent did not recognized as his Workers was signed into law in order to promote the
own in the records of births of the children in the civil social and economic well-being of health workers, their
registry. Thereafter, their relationship began to go down living and working conditions and terms of employment,
south. And in may of 2007, the petitioner brought her two to develop their skills and capabilities to be better
sons in the United States. Then therespondent, upon equipped to deliver health projects and programs, and to
hearing the fact that his two illegitimate sons were encourage those with proper qualifications and excellent
brought by the petitioner in US, filed a petition for abilities to join and remain in government service. On
Judicial Approval of Recognition with Prayer to take September 3, 2012, respondents DBM and CSC issued
Parental Authority, Parental Physical Custody, one of the two assailed issuances, DBM-CSC Joint
Correction/Change of Surname of Minors and for the Circular No. 1, Series of 2012, to prescribe the rules on
Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the the grant of Step Increments due to meritorious
Regional Trial Court, Branch 8 of Aparri, Cagayan performance and Step Increment due to length of
(RTC), appending a notarized Deed of Voluntary service. On May 30, 2013, unsatisfied petitioners filed an
Recognition of Paternity of the children. instant petition.

Issue: Are Rule 7 and Rule 8 of the Office of the Civil Issue: Whether or not respondents' issuance of DBM-
Registrar Gen. Adm. Order No. 1, Series of 2004 insofar OH joint circular no. 1, s. 2002 is null and void for being
as they provide the mandatory use by illegitimate an undue exercise of legislative power?
children of their father's surname upon the latter's
recognition of his paternity, accurate and correct Ruling: The court ruled the instant petition is PARTLY
interpretation of Art. 176 of the Family Code, as GRANTED. The DBM-DOH Joint Circular, insofar as it
amended by RA 9255? lowers the hazard pay at rates below the minimum
prescribed by Section 21 of RA No. 7305 and Section
Ruling: No. Pursuant to Art. 176 of the family code 7.1.5 (a) of its Revised IRR, is declared INVALID. The
which was amended by RA 9255 states that DBM-CSC Joint Circular, insofar as it provides that an
“ Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be official or employee authorized to be granted Longevity
under the parental authority of their mother”. Thus, the Pay under an existing law is not eligible for the grant of
illegitimate children may only use if their filiation has Step Increment Due to Length of Service, is declared
been expressly recognized by their father through the UNENFORCEABLE. The validity, however, of the DBM-
record of birth appearing in the civil register. With regard DOH Joint Circular as to the qualification of actual
to rule 7 and 8 in the office of the Civil Registrar series of exposure to danger for the PHW’s entitlement to hazard
2004, though the requisites may gave the father the pay, the rates of P50 and P25 subsistence allowance,
rights to let his illegitimate children use his surname, but and the entitlement to longevity pay on the basis of the
then again pursuant to Art. 176 of the family code, “it PHW’s status in the plantilla of regular positions, is
may not be invoked by a father to compel the use by his UPHELD.
illegitimate children of his surname without the consent
of their mother”.Art. 176, as amended, is free from Quezon City PTCA vs DepEd
ambiguity. And where there is no ambiguity, one must
Facts: On June 1, 2009, the Department of Education, Ruling: No. The party-list system in the Philippines does
through Former Secretary Jesli A. Lapus, issued not only include sectoral parties. According to RA 7941,
Department Order No. 54, Series of 2009 entitled otherwise known as the Party-List System Act, “The
"Revised Guidelines Governing Parents-Teachers State shall promote proportional representation in the
Associations (PTAs) at the School Level". The election of representatives to the House of
petitioners contest and ask for a temporary restraining Representatives through a party-list system of registered
order and/or for a writ of preliminary injunction be issued, national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or
restraining the enforcement of the Department Order. coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens
belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented
Issue: What is subordinate legislation? Is DepEd Order sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-
No. 54, s. 2009, an invalid exercise of the rule-making defined political constituencies but who could contribute
power delegated to the Secretary of Education? to the formulation and enactment of appropriate
legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to
Ruling: Subordinate legislation is the rule-making power
become members of the House of Representatives.”
of agencies tasked with the administration of
Section 3 of the said Act defines a political party, a
sectoral party, and a national/regional party.
No. Department Order No. 54, Series of 2009
was validly issued by the Secretary of Education
pursuant to his statutorily vested rule-making power and Facts: Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No.
pursuant to the purposes for which the organization of 794 (R.A. No. 7941) and COMELEC Resolution Nos.
parent-teacher associations is mandated by statute. 9366 and 9531, approximately 280 groups and
organizations registered and manifested their desire to
participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections.
Facts: On June 27, 2002, BANAT filed a Petition to
· 05 December 2012: Partido ng Bayan ng Bida’s
Proclaim the Full Number of Party-list Representatives
(PBB) was granted registration and accreditation as a
Provided by the Constitution, docketed as NBC No. 07-
political party in NCR.
041(PL) before the NBC. The petition was filed because
COMELEC have recently been quoted in national papers · PBB was denied participation in the 13 May 2013
that it is duty bound to and shall implement the Veterans party-list elections because PBB does not represent any
ruling that would apply the Panganiban Formula in “marginalized and underrepresented” sector.
allocating party-list seats.
· PBB’s failure to apply for registration as a party-list
Issue: How are the party-list seats computed and group and establish its track record as an organization
allocated under the BANAT ruling as compared to the that seeks to uplift the lives of the “marginalized and
Veterans ruling? underrepresented.”
Ruling: BANAT presents two interpretations to allocate Issue: Should national and regional parties or
party-list representative seats. The first interpretation organizations represent the “marginalized and
allegedly harmonizes the provisions of Section 11(b) on underrepresented” sectors?
the 2% requirement with Section 12 of RA 7941. In the
second interpretation, it assumes that the 20% vote Ruling: No. R.A. No. 7941 does not require national and
requirement is declared unconstitutional, and apportions regional parties or organizations to represent the
the seats for party-list representatives by following "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors. To require
Section 12 of RA 7941.The court maintain that a all national and regional parties under the party-list
Philippine-style party-list election has at least four system to represent the "marginalized and
inviolable parameters as clearly stated in Veterans. underrepresented" is to deprive and exclude, by judicial
These are the 20% allocation, the 2% threshold, the 3- fiat, ideology-based and cause-oriented parties from the
seat limit, and the proportional representation. party-list system. To exclude them from the party-list
system is to prevent them from joining the parliamentary
BANAT v COMELEC struggle, leaving as their only option the armed struggle.
To exclude them from the party-list system is, apart from
Issue: Does the party-list system include only sectoral
being obviously senseless, patently contrary to the clear
intent and express wording of the 1987 Constitution and
R.A. No. 7941. It is sufficient that the political party
consists of citizens who advocate the same ideology or of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
platform, or the same governance principles and organizations, the commas after the words “national[,]”
policies, regardless of their economic status as citizens and “regional[,]” separate national and regional parties
from sectoral parties, had the framers of the 1987
Atong Paglaum vs. Comelec constitution intended national and regional parties to be
at the same time sectoral, they would have stated
Facts: Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No.
“national and regional sectoral parties” they did not,
7941 (R.A. No. 7941) and COMELEC Resolution Nos.
precisely because they did not intend for the party-list
9366 and 9531, approximately 280 groups and
system to be exclusively sectoral.
organizations registered and manifested their desire to
participate in the May 13, 2013 party-list elections. What the framers intended, and what they
However, via the COMELEC En Banc’s automatic expressly wrote on Section 5(1), could not be any
review of the COMELEC Division’s resolutions in clearer: the party-list system shall compose of three
approving registration of groups/organizations, a number different groups, (1) national parties or organizations, (2)
of party-list groups and organizations were disqualified regional parties and organizations, (3) sectoral parties
on the following grounds, among others are: The sector and organizations and the sectoral parties belong only to
is not considered marginalized and underrepresented; one of three groups. The text of Section 5(1) leaves no
Failure to prove track record; Failure of the nominees to room for any doubt that national and regional parties or
quality under RA7941 and Ang Bagong Bayani organizations are different from sectoral parties and
organizations. National and regional parties or
Issue: Must the nominees of the party-list group either
organizations need not be organized along sectoral lines
belong to the sector, or must have a track record of
and need not represent any particular sector.
advocacy for the sector represented?
Moreover, Section 3(a) of RA 7941 or the party-
Ruling: Yes. The nominees of the sectoral party either
list system act defines a “party” as “either a political party
must belong to the sector, or must have a track record of
or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties.” Clearly, a
advocacy for the sector represented.
political party is different from a sectoral party. Section
In this case, the court remanded all the present petitions 3(c) or RA 7941 further provides that a “political party
to the COMELEC and provided the parameters in refers to an organized group of citizens advocating and
determining who may participate in the coming May 13, ideology or platform, principles, and policies for the
2013 and subsequent party-list elections. Among general conduct of the government.” On the other hand,
others, it included in parameter #5 that the nominees of Section 3(d) of RA 7941 provides that a “sectoral party
sectoral parties or organizations that represented the refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to any
“marginalized and underrepresented,” or that of the sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose
represented those who lack “well-defined political principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and
constituencies,” either must belong to their respective concerns of their sector.” RA 7941 provides different
sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for definitions for a political and sectoral party. Obviously
their respective sectors. they are separate and distinct from each other.

Atong Paglaum v COMELEC Liban vs Gordon

Facts: The commission on election (COMELEC) Facts: Petitioners Dante V. Liban, Reynaldo M.
disqualified ATONG PAGLAUM and other aspiring party- Bernardo, and Salvador M. Viari (petitioners) filed with
list groups in the 2013 elections because PAGLAUM et. this Court a Petition to Declare Richard J. Gordon as
Al. are not sectoral groups and they failed to represent Having Forfeited His Seat in the Senate. Petitioners are
the marginalized and the underrepresented sectors of officers of the Board of Directors of the Quezon City Red
the society. However, PAGLAUM et al, contends that the Cross Chapter while respondent is Chairman of the
party-list election was never intended to be exclusively to Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Board of
sectoral groups. Governors.

Issue: Can major political parties participate in party-list During respondents incumbency as a member of
elections? the Senate of the Philippines, he was elected Chairman
of the PNRC during the 23 February 2006 meeting of the
Ruling: Yes. Section 5(1), Article VI of the 1987 PNRC Board of Governors. Petitioners allege that by
Constitution states that there shall be “a party-list system accepting the chairmanship of the PNRC Board of
Governors, respondent has ceased to be a member of Issue: Whether or not the SC ruling erred in declaring
the Senate. the R.A. No. 95 “PNRC Charter” as void and ruled that
the PNRC should be incorporate under the Corporation
Issues: By accepting the PNRC Chair, did Gordon forfeit Code.
his Senate seat?
Ruling: Yes. The SC declaring PNRC Charter as void is
Ruling: No. Though respondent accepted or was of no bases and modified the prior SC decision as the
elected as Chairman of the Philippine National Red PNRC is considered to be “sui generes” in nature or on
Cross (PNRC) during the Feb. 23, 2006 meeting of the its own class. It is neither a subdivision, agency,
PNRC Board of directors while at the same time as an instrumentality of the government-owned or controlled
incumbent member of the Senate of the Philippines. He corporation nor strictly private. It enjoys a special status
is not covered under Sec. 13, Art. VI of the 1987 as an important ally and auxiliary of the government in
Constitution. “ the humanitarian field in accordance with its
commitments under international law.
SEC. 13. No Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives may hold any other office or Atty. Lico vs Comelec
employment in the Government, or any subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government- Facts: On Nov. 30, 2009, Ating Koop(the Adhikaing
owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, Tinataguyod ng Kooperatiba) filed its manifestation of
during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall intent to participate in the party-list system of
he be appointed to any office which may have been representation for the May 10, 2010 elections with
created or the emoluments thereof increased during the petitioner Lico as first nominee and Roberto Mascariña
term for which he was elected. as second nominee. Ating Koop then earned a seat in
the House of Representatives and Atty. Lico then took
The said provision of the law does not cover “Private his oath of office and assumed office. On Dec. 5, 2011,
Corporation or organization”. Let us now establish the the Interim Central Committee expelled him from Ating
contention of the SC denying the petitioner's contention. Koop for disloyalty. Apart from allegations of
malversation and graft and corruption, the Committee
Liban vs. Gordon
cited petitioner Lico's refusal to honor the term-sharing
Facts: This resolves the Motion for Clarification and/or agreement as factual basis for disloyalty and as cause
for Reconsideration filed on August 10, 2009 by for his expulsion under Ating Koop's Amended
respondent Richard J. Gordon (respondent) of the Constitution and By-laws. Later on he filed a motion for
decision promulgated by the SC on July 15, 2009 (the reconsideration with the ICC which was denied and held
first case), the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed on a special meeting in Cebu City where new set of officers
August 27, 2009 by movant-intervenor Philippine of the Central were elected. The election was
National Red Cross (PNRC), and the latter’s purportedly held for the purpose of implementing the 5-
Manifestation and Motion to Admit Attached Position 5-5 equal representation amendment made during the
Paper filed on December 23, 2009. Second National Convention. On 21 January 2012, the
Rimas Group held a Special National Convention in
It was held that respondent did not forfeit his Parañaque City (the Parañaque convention), at which a
seat in the Senate when he accepted the chairmanship new Central Committee and a new set of officers were
of the PNRC Board of Governors, as the office of the constituted. Members of the Rimas Group won the
PNRC Chairman is not a government office or an office election and occupied all the corresponding seats.
in a government-owned or controlled corporation for
purposes of the prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the Issue: Who has jurisdiction over the expulsion of a
1987 Constitution. However it was further declared void sitting party list member from Congress and from his
the PNRC Charter (Sections organization?
1,2,3,4(a),5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 and 13) insofar as it
Ruling: Under Section 17, Article VI of the 1987
creates the PNRC as a private corporation and
Constitution endows the HRET with jurisdiction to
consequently ruled that the PNRC should incorporate
resolve questions on the qualifications of members of
under the Corporation Code and register with the
Congress. In the case of party-list representatives, the
Securities and Exchange Commission if it wants to be a
HRET acquires jurisdiction over a disqualification case
private corporation.
upon proclamation of the winning party-list group, oath of
the nominee, and assumption of office as member of the
House of Representatives. In this case, the COMELEC Ruling: Yes. According to the case of Delgado vs
proclaimed Ating Koop as a winning party-list group, HRET, fundamental is the rule that grave abuse of
petitioner Lico took his oath and he assumed office in discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal patently
the House of Representatives. Thus, it is the HRET violates the Constitution, the law or existing
(House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal), and not jurisprudence. While it is well-recognized that the HRET
the COMELEC, that has jurisdiction over the has been empowered by the Constitution to be the "sole
disqualification case. In the case at bar, the House of judge" of all contests relating to the election, returns,
Representatives Electoral Tribunal has jurisdiction over and qualifications of the members of the House of
the expulsion of a sitting party list member from Representatives, the Court maintains jurisdiction over it
Congress and from his organization. to check "whether or not there has been grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" on
Delgado vs HRET the part of the latter. In the case at bar, the judgment of
the HRET can be reviewed.
Facts: On 16 September 2008, respondent Philip Arreza
Pichay was convicted by final judgment of four counts of Issue: Did HRET commit grave abuse of discretion?
libel in “Tulfo vs People of the Philippines”, G.R. Nos.
161032 and 161176. On 9 October 2012, he filed his Ruling: Yes. Under Section 74 it states that, “The
certificate of candidacy as Representative for the First certificate of candidacy shall state that the person filing it
District of Surigao del Sur for the May 2013 elections. is announcing his candidacy for the office stated therein
On 18 February2013, petitioner Mary Elizabeth Ty- and that he is eligible for said office, ..” and Under
Delgado filed a petition for disqualification under Section Section 78, a proceeding to deny due course to and/or
12 of the Omnibus Election Code against Pichay before cancel a certificate of candidacy is premised on a
the Commission on Elections, on the ground that Pichay person's misrepresentation of any of the material
was convicted of libel, a crime involving moral turpitude. qualifications required for the elective office. If a
On 16 May 2013,Pichay was proclaimed by the candidate is not actually eligible because he is barred by
Provincial Board of Canvassers as the duly elected final judgment in a criminal case from running for public
Representative for the First Legislative District of office, and he still states under oath in his certificate of
Surigao del Sur despite Ty-Delgado’s motion to suspend candidacy that he is eligible to run for public office, then
the proclamation before the Comelec. On 31 May 2013, the candidate clearly makes a false material
Ty-Delgado filed an ad cautelam petition for quo representation that is a ground for a petition under
warranto before the HRET reiterating that Pichay is Sections 74 and 78. Accordingly, the Court find that the
ineligible to serve as Member of the House of HRET committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
Representatives because: (1) he was convicted by final lack of or excess of jurisdiction when it failed to
judgment of four counts of libel, a crime involving moral disqualify Pichay for his conviction for libel, a crime
turpitude; and (2) only two years have passed since he involving moral turpitude. Since Pichay's ineligibility
served his sentence or paid on 17 February 2011 the existed on the day he filed his certificate of candidacy
penalty imposed on him. In his Answer, Pichay claimed and he was never a valid candidate for the position of
that his conviction for the crime of libel did not make him Member of the House of Representatives, the votes cast
ineligible because ineligibility only pertained to lack of for him were considered stray votes.
the qualifications under the Constitution. In its Resolution
dated 4 June 2013, the Comelec First Division dismissed Issue: Does the HRET have the power to annul election
the petition for disqualification filed against Pichay results on the ground of terrorism?
because of lack of jurisdiction. On 16 July 2013, Ty-
Ruling: YES. The House of Representative Electoral
Delgado manifested her amenability to convert the ad
Tribunal has the right to annul elections results on the
cautelam petition into a regular petition for quo warranto.
ground of terrorism as stated in Article VI, Section 17 of
On 22 October 2013, the preliminary conference took
the Constitution. “The Senate and the House of
place and the parties waived the presentation of their
Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal
evidence upon agreement that their case only involved
which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to
legal issues.
the election, returns, and qualifications of their
Issue: As the sole judge of the election, returns, and respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be
qualifications of the members of the House of composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be
Representatives, can the judgment of the HRET be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the
reviewed? Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of
the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case
may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of Issue: Is a law required to adopt or implement the
proportional representation from the political parties and Disbursement Acceleration Program?
the parties or organizations registered under the party-
list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Ruling: No. A law is not required to adopt or implement
Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.” the DAP. DAP was a government policy or strategy
designed to stimulate the economy through accelerated
Belgica vs Alcantara spending. In the context of the DAP’s adoption and
implementation being a function pertaining to the
Facts: In these cases, petitioners claim that "in the Executive as the main actor during the Budget Execution
current system where the PDAF is a lump-sum Stage under its constitutional mandate to faithfully
appropriation, the legislator‘s identification of the projects execute the laws, including the GAAs, Congress did not
after the passage of the GAA denies the President the need to legislate to adopt or to implement the DAP.
chance to veto that item later on.” Accordingly, they Congress could appropriate but would have nothing
submit that the "item veto power of the President more to do during the Budget Execution Stage. Indeed,
mandates that appropriations bills adopt line-item appropriation was the act by which Congress
budgeting" and that "Congress cannot choose a mode of "designates a particular fund, or sets apart a specified
budgeting which effectively renders the constitutionally- portion of the public revenue or of the money in the
given power of the President useless.” public treasury, to be applied to some general object of
governmental expenditure, or to some individual
Issue: Does the PDAF lump-sum appropriation render
purchase or expense."
nugatory the "item veto" power of the President?
Issue: Are unreleased appropriations and withdrawn
Ruling: Yes. Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the amount
unobligated allotments under the DAP savings
of P24.79 Billion only appears as a collective allocation
limit since the said amount would be further divided Ruling: No. According to the decision of the Court
among individual legislators who would then receive through Justice Bersamin, unreleased appropriations
personal lump-sum allocations and could, after the GAA and withdrawn unobligated allotments under the DAP
is passed, effectively appropriate PDAF funds based on were not savings, and the use of such appropriations
their own discretion. As these intermediate contravened Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987
appropriations are made by legislators only after the Constitution. In the ruling, the Court declares
GAA is passed and hence, outside of the law, it unconstitutional the act of withdrawal of unobligated
necessarily means that the actual items of PDAF allotments from the implementing agencies and the
appropriation would not have been written into the declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and
General Appropriations Bill and thus effectuated without unreleased appropriations as savings.
veto consideration. This kind of lump-sum/post-
enactment legislative identification budgeting system Issue: Are cross border transfers, constitutionally
fosters the creation of a budget within a budget" which permissible? Did the DAP violate the prohibition against
subverts the prescribed procedure of presentment and cross-border transfers?
consequently impairs the President‘s power of item veto.
Ruling: No. Section 25 (5) has delineated borders
Araulo vs. Aquino between offices of the President, President of the
Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Chief
Facts: In a Decision dated July 1, 2014, the Supreme Justice of the Supreme Court and the Heads of the
Court partially granted the consolidated petitions for Constitutional Commissions, such that funds
certiorari and prohibition and declared the following acts appropriated for one office are prohibited from crossing
and practices under the Disbursement Acceleration over to another office even in the guise of augmentation
Program (DAP), National Budget Circular No. 541 and of a deficient item or items. In this case, Secretary Abad
related executive issuances unconstitutional for violating admitted making some cross-border augmentations.
Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and
the doctrine of separation of powers.The Court further Yes. Acts and practices under DAP, NBC No.
declared void the use of unprogrammed funds despite 541 and related executive issuances are declared
the absence of a certification by the National Treasurer unconstitutional by the Court since they violate Section
that the revenue collections exceeded the revenue 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Included in
targets for non-compliance with the conditions provided those acts and practices are the cross-border transfers
in the relevant General Appropriations Acts (GAAs). of the savings of the Executive to augment the
appropriations of other offices outside the Executive.
Issue: Was the sourcing of the DAP from expense under the build, operate, and transfer scheme
unprogrammed funds despite the original revenue that the government has adopted for expressways.
targets not having been exceeded, valid?

Ruling: No. Unprogrammed funds from the GAA cannot

be used as money source for the DAP because under Carpio Morales vs. CA
the law, such funds may only be used if there is a
Facts: A complaint was filed before the Office of the
certification from the National Treasurer to the effect that
Ombudsman against Jejomar Erwin Binay, Jr. and other
the revenue collections have exceeded the revenue
Makati City Government employees, accusing them of
targets. In this case, no such certification was secured
plunder and violation of RA 6770 (The Anti-Graft and
before unprogrammed funds were used.
Corrupt Practices Act") on the construction phases of the
Imbong vs Ochoa Makati Parking Building.

Issue: Does RA 10354 violate Sec. 26 (1). Article VI of Issue: Is the second paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770
the 1987 Constitution on the "one subject-one title" rule? insofar as it provides that no appeal or application for
remedy may be heard against the decision or findings of
Ruling: No. The requirement that every bill must only the Ombudsman [except the Supreme Court] on pure
have on subject expressed in the title is satisfied if the questions of law, valid and constitutional?
title is comprehensive enough to include subjects related
to the general purpose which the statute seeks to Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd
achieve. The purpose of one subject-one title rule is to Paragraph of Sec. 14, RA 6770 is vague,
require unity of content and expression is only to prevent unconstitutional, and invalid. The SC relied on its ruling
duplicity of subject. Which in the case of RH law the in the landmark case of Fabian v. Desierto, 356 Phil. 787
concept of responsible parenthood and reproductive (1998) which, in turn, held that the 4th Paragraph of Sec.
health are both interrelated as they are inseparable. 27, RA 6770, is void, as it had the effect of increasing
the appellate jurisdiction of the SC without its advice and
Diaz vs Sec. of Finance concurrence, in violation of Sec. 30, Art. VI of the 1987
Facts: In this case, the petitioners argue that a toll fee is
a "user’s tax" and to impose VAT on toll fees is St. Luke’s vs. BIR Commissioner
tantamount to taxing a tax, for which, argument was
based on the discussion in Manila International Airport Facts: St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. (St. Luke’s) is a
Authority (MIAA) v. Court of Appeals. The petitioners hospital organized as a non-stock and non-profit
claimed that, since VAT would result in increased toll corporation. On 16 December 2002, the Bureau of
fees, they have an interest as regular users of tollways in Internal Revenue (BIR) assessed St. Luke’s deficiency
stopping the BIR action. taxes amounting to P76.06 million for 1998, comprised
of deficiency income tax, value-added tax, withholding
Issue: Is the value added tax (VAT) on toll fees tax on compensation and expanded withholding
tantamount to taxing a tax? tax. The BIR argued before the CTA that Section 27(B)
of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), which
Ruling: No. VAT on tollway operations cannot be imposes a 10% preferential tax rate on the income of
deemed a tax on tax due to the nature of VAT as an proprietary non- profit hospitals, should be applicable to
indirect tax. Under Section 105 of the National Internal St. Luke’s. According to the BIR, Section 27(B),
Revenue Code, VAT is imposed on any person who, in introduced in 1997, “is a new provision intended to
the course of trade or business, sells or renders services amend the exemption on non-profit hospitals that were
for a fee. Tollway fees are not taxes. Indeed, they are previously categorized as non-stock, non-profit
not assessed and collected by the BIR and do not go to corporations under Section 26 of the 1997 Tax Code.
the general coffers of the government. The tollway
operator, who is in this case the seller of services, is the Issue: Is St. Luke’s Medical Center, which is organized
person liable for VAT. The latter merely shifts the as a non-stock and non-profit charitable institution,
burden of VAT to the tollway user as part of the toll automatically tax-exempt?
fees. What the government seeks to tax here are fees
collected from tollways that are constructed, maintained, Ruling: No. Pursuant to Section 28 (3) of the 1987
and operated by private tollway operators at their own Constitution, which indicates among others, that
charitable institutions shall be exempt from tax, NIRC,
section 30 (E) provides the specific provision which Issue: Can the President be impleaded as n unwilling
indicates exemptions from tax on corporations, as co-plaintiff/co-petitioner?
follows: Nonstock corporation or association organized
and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, Ruling: No. The name of Pres Arroyo as an unwilling
scientific, athletic, or cultural purposes, or for the plaintiff impleaded in the petition should be stricken from
rehabilitation of veterans, no part of its net income or the title of the case.
asset shall belong to or inure to the benefit of any
First, under Rule 3, Sec 10 of the ROC, when
member, organizer, officer or any specific person;
the consent of a party who should be joined as plaintiff
In this case, the Court finds that St. Luke’s is a cannot be obtained, he or she may be made a party
corporation that is not “operated exclusively” for defendant. This will put the unwilling party under the
charitable or social welfare purposes insofar as its jurisdiction of the court, which may properly implead him
revenues from paying patients are concerned. This or her through its processes. The unwilling party’s name
ruling is based not only on a strict interpretation of a cannot be simply included in the petition without her
provision granting tax exemption, but also on the clear knowledge or consent, as this would be a denial of due
and plain text of Section 30(E) and (G) of the process.
NIRC. However, it is not liable for surcharges and
Second, impleading the former President for an
interest on such deficiency income tax under Sections
act she made in performance of the functions of her
248 and 249 of the National Internal Revenue Code.
office is contrary to the public policy against embroiling

Sereno vs Committee on Trade and Related Matters Grace Poe vs COMELEC

Issue: Can executive privilege be invoked over closed- Facts: Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares
door meetings of CTRM whose two members are not (petitioner) was found abandoned as a newborn infant in
cabinet members? the Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo by a certain Edgardo
Militar (Edgardo) on 3 September 1968. Parental care
Ruling: Yes. Executive privilege is involved over closed- and custody over petitioner was passed on by Edgardo
door meetings of CTRM. Under Art. 7 Sec. 1 executive to his relatives, Emiliano Militar (Emiliano) and his wife.
power is vested to the president along with the executive Three days after, 6 September 1968, Emiliano reported
privilege which is the power to hold certain types of and registered petitioner as a foundling with the Office of
information from the courts, congress and the public. the Civil Registrar of Iloilo City (OCR-Iloilo). In her
Hence, it is constitutional for him to use the privilege Foundling Certificate and Certificate of Live Birth, the
over closed door meetings. petitioner was given the name "Mary Grace Natividad
Contreras Militar."
Resident Marine Mammals vs Reyes
Issue: As a foundling and as to her citizenship, is Grace
Facts: In 2002, the Department of Energy entered into a Poe qualified to run for President?
Geophysical Survey and Exploration Contract with
JAPEX, a 100% Japanese corporation, which was later Ruling: Yes. She is qualified to run for President. Her
converted to a service contract, known as SC-46, for the being a foundling does not revoked her to run for the
exploration, development and utilization of petroleum Presidential position, because foundlings according to
resources in an area that basically affects the Tanon Article 2 of the 1961 United Nations Convention on the
Strait. The President at that time was not a signatory to Reduction of statelessness” A foundling found in the
the SC-46 and such contract was not submitted to the territory of a Contracting State shall, in the absence of
Congress for review.Tanon Strait is a narrow passage of proof to the contrary, be considered to have been born
water in Cebu which harbors a biodiversity of marine life within the territory of parents possessing the nationality
and is declared by laws as a protected seascape. When of that State.” which merely gives effect to art 15 (1) of
JAPEX started its seismic surveys and drilling activities UHDR which states that everyone has the right to
over the area, petitions were filed assailing the nationality.
constitutionality of SC-46.Pres. Arroyo was also
impleaded as an unwilling co-petitioner, purportedly Issue: Has Grace Poe satisfied the 10-year-residence
because of her express declaration and undertaking requirement to run for President?
under the ASEAN Charter to protect habitats and other
environmental concerns.
Ruling: Yes. Grace Poe satisfied the requirements of Acting Solicitor General was unconstitutional and void
animus manendi coupled with animus revertendi. for being in violation of the constitutional prohibition
under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Grace Poe’s domicile had been timely changed
of May 24, 2005, and not on July 18, 2006 when her Garafil vs Office of the President
application under RA 9225 was approved by the BI.
COMELEC’s reliance on cases which decree that an Facts: The paper evidencing Atty. Velicaria-Garafil's
alien’s stay in the country cannot be counted unless she appointment as State Solicitor II at the OSG was dated 5
acquires permanent resident visa or reacquires her March 2010. There was a transmittal letter dated 8
Filipino citizenship without merit. Such cases are March 2010 of the appointment paper from the Office of
different from the circumstances in this case, in which the President (OP), but this transmittal letter was
Grace Poe presented on overwhelming evidence of her received by the Malacañang Records Office (MRO) only
actual stay and an intent to abandon permanently her on 13 May 2010. There was no indication as to the
domicile in the U.S. Coupled with her eventual OSG's date of receipt of the appointment paper.
application to reacquire Philippine citizenship and her
Atty. Velicaria-Garafil took her oath of office as
family’s actual continuous stay in the Philippines over
State Solicitor II on 22 March 2010 and assumed her
the years, it is clear that when Grace Poe returned on
position on 6 April 2010.
May 24, 2005, it was for good.
On 30 July 2010, President Aquino issued EO 2
Issue: Which court or tribunal has jurisdiction over
recalling, withdrawing, and revoking appointments
challenges on qualification of candidates for President
issued by President Macapagal-Arroyo which violated
and Vice-President: the Comelec or the Presidential
the constitutional ban on midnight appointments.
Electoral Tribunal?
Atty. Velicaria-Garafil reported for work on 9
Ruling: In the Constitution, no such provision provides
August 2010 without any knowledge of her termination.
for who has jurisdiction over the question of the
qualifications of the President, Vice President, Senators On 12 August 2010, Atty. Velicaria-Garafil was
and the Members of the House of Representatives. informed that her former secretary at the OSG received
Comelec, in this case, amended its rules to supply for a copy of a memorandum, dated 9 August 2010; bore
the lack of provision. However, the Court said that the the subject "Implementation of Executive Order No. 2
lack of provision cannot be supplied by a mere rule. dated 30 July 2010."
Funa vs Agra Atty. Velicaria-Garafil filed a petition for certiorari
(G.R. No. 193327) before this Court on 1 September
Facts: Agra has admitted to holding the two offices
2010. The petition prayed for the nullification of EO 2,
concurrently in acting capacities is settled, which is
and for her reinstatement as State Solicitor II without
sufficient for purposes of resolving the constitutional
loss of seniority, rights and privileges, and with full
question that petitioner raised.
backwages from the time that her salary was withheld.
On January 12, 2010, Agra was then the
Issue: WON petitioners’ appointments violate Section
Government Corporate Counsel when President Arroyo
15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution?
designated him as the Acting Solicitor general in place of
Solicitor General Devanadera. Ruling: YES. The petitions have no merit. All of
petitioners' appointments are midnight appointments and
On March 5, 2010, Agra was also designated (PGMA)
are void for violation of Section 15, Article VII of the 1987
as the Acting Secretary of Justice.
Issue: Did the designation of Agra as the Acting
This ponencia and the dissent both agree that
Secretary of Justice, concurrently with his position of
the facts in all these cases show that "none of the
Acting Solicitor General, violate the constitutional
petitioners have shown that their appointment papers
prohibition against dual or multiple offices for the
(and transmittal letters) have been issued (and released)
Members of the Cabinet and their deputies and
before the ban." The dates of receipt by the MRO, which
in these cases are the only reliable evidence of actual
Ruling: YES. The designation of Agra as Acting transmittal of the appointment papers by President
Secretary of Justice concurrently with his position of Macapagal-Arroyo, are dates clearly falling during the
appointment ban.
Issue: WON EO 2 is constitutional? Ruling: NO. The President’s disciplinary Jurisdiction
over the deputy of Ombudsman under sec 8 (2) of RA
Ruling: YES. The Court of Appeals ruled that the EO 2 6770 was deemed unconstitutional. President’s
is constitutional. Based on prevailing jurisprudence, interference only violates the independence of the
appointment to a government post is a process that Office, since the Deputy of Ombudsman duty is to
takes several steps to complete. Any valid appointment, adjudicate on the integrity and competence of the very
including one made under the exception provided in persons who can remove or suspend its members
Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, must including the high-ranking officials on the executive
consist of the President signing an appointee's branch who is the alter ego of the President, and the
appointment paper to a vacant office, the official President’s interference may only cause to an ineffectual
transmittal of the appointment paper (preferably through duty of the Deputy of Ombudsman. However the Office
the MRO), receipt of the appointment paper by the of the Special Prosecutor on the other hand, is not
appointee, and acceptance of the appointment by the entitled with the independence given to the Office of the
appointee evidenced by his or her oath of office or his or Ombudsman therefore the President may remove
her assumption to office. him/her from post.

Issue No. 3 - Cahanap, Leo Garafil vs Office of the President

Being the appointing authority and under the doctrine of Issue: Is acceptance to an appointment necessary to its
implication, can the President remove the Deputy validity?
Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor?
Ruling: Yes. The appointment to a government post like
Gonzales vs Office of the Ombudsman that of provincial fiscal to be complete involves several
steps. First, comes the nomination by the President.
Facts: On July 2, 2008, Gonzales, Deputy Ombudsman
Then to make that nomination valid and permanent, the
for Military and Other Law Enforcement Officers
Commission on Appointments of the Legislature has to
(MOLEO), directed the NAPOLCOM to turn over the
confirm said nomination. The last step is the acceptance
records of Mendoza’s case to his office. The Office of
thereof by the appointee by his assumption of office. The
the Regional Director of the NAPOLCOM duly complied
first two steps, nomination and confirmation, constitute a
on July 24, 2008. Mendoza, filed their position papers
mere offer of a post. But the last necessary step to make
with Gonzales, in compliance with his Order. On
the appointment complete and effective rests solely with
February 16, 2009, after preparing a draft decision on
the appointee himself. He may or he may not accept the
Mendoza, et al.’s case, Gonzales forwarded the entire
appointment or nomination.
records to the Office of then Ombudsman Merceditas
Gutierrez for her review.In its September 16, 2010 First In the case at bar, Acceptance is indispensable
Report, the IIRC found the Ombudsman and Gonzales to complete an appointment. Assuming office and taking
accountable for their “gross negligence and grave the oath amount to acceptance of the appointment. An
misconduct in handling the case against Mendoza.” The oath of office is a qualifying requirement for a public
IIRC stated that the Ombudsman and Gonzales’ failure office, a prerequisite to the full investiture of the office.
to promptly resolve Mendoza’s motion for
reconsideration, “without justification and despite National Artists vs Exec. Sec.
repeated pleas” “precipitated the desperate resort to
hostage-taking.” The IIRC recommended the referral of Issue: Did the President comply with the “faithful
its findings to the OP for further determination of execution clause” of the Constitution when she conferred
possible administrative offenses and for the initiation of the Order of National Artists to those who were not
the proper administrative proceedings. on October 15, recommended by the NCCA and the CCP Boards?
2010, Gonzales was formally charged before the OP for
Ruling: Yes. The advice or recommendation of the
Gross Neglect of Duty and/or Inefficiency in the
NCCA and the CCP Boards as to the conferment of the
Performance of Official Duty and for Misconduct in
Order of National Artists on those who were not
Office.On March 31, 2011, the OP found Gonzales guilty
recommended was not binding on the former President
as charged and dismissed him from the service.
but only discretionary or optional for her whether or not
Issue: Being the appointing authority and under the to act on such advice or recommendation. Also, by virtue
doctrine of implication, can the President remove the of the power of control, the President had the authority to
deputy ombudsman and the special prosecutor? alter or modify or nullify or set aside such
recommendation or advice. It was well within the
President’s power and discretion to proclaim all, or some Issue: Under the “alter ego” or qualified political agency
or even none of the recommendees of the CCP and the doctrine, was the act of DOE through Secretary PErez in
NCCA Boards, without having to justify his or her action. signing the service contract deemed the act of the
Baraquel vs. TRB
Ruling: No, in this case it was not considered by the SC
Facts: March 31, 1997, Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) to be under the “alter ego” or qualified political agency
was created on 31 March 1977 by Presidential Decree doctrine.
No. (P.D.) 1112 in order to supervise and regulate, on
behalf of the government, the collection of toll fees and Paragraph 4, Section 2, Article XII of the 1987
the operation of toll facilities by the private sector. Constitution requires that the President himself enter into
And P.D. 1113 was issued also granting to the any service contract for the exploration of petroleum.
Construction and Development Corporation of the SC-46 appeared to have been entered into and signed
Philippines (now Philippine National Construction only by the DOE through its then Secretary, Vicente S.
Corporation or PNCC) the right, privilege, and authority Perez, Jr., contrary to the said constitutional
to construct, operate, and maintain toll facilities in the requirement. Moreover, public respondents have neither
North and South Luzon Toll Expressways for a period of shown nor alleged that Congress was subsequently
30 years starting May 1, 1977. notified of the execution of such contract.

December 21, 2007, PNCC, PSC, and CMMTC Public respondents' implied argument that based
entered into the assailed Memorandum of Agreement on the "alter ego principle," their acts are also that of
(MOA) providing for the successful and seamless then President Macapagal-Arroyo's, cannot apply in this
assumption by SOMCO of the operations and case. In Joson v. Torres explained the concept of the
maintenance of Stage 1 of the South Metro Manila alter ego principle or the doctrine of qualified political
Skyway. Under the MOA, PSC received the amount of agency and its limit in this wise:
P320 million which was used for the settlement of its
liabilities arising from the consequent retrenchment or Under this doctrine, which recognizes the
separation of its affected employees. establishment of a single executive, all executive and
administrative organizations are adjuncts of the
December 28, 2007, petitioner PNCC Traffic Executive Department, the heads of the various
Management and Security Department Workers executive departments are assistants and agents of the
Organization (PTMSDWO) filed a Notice of Strike Chief Executive, and, except in cases where the Chief
against PSC on the ground of unfair labor practice, Executive is required by the Constitution or law to act in
specifically union busting. The Secretary of Labor and person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he
Employment assumed jurisdiction over the dispute in an act personally, the multifarious executive and
Order dated 31 December 2007 and set the initial administrative functions of the Chief Executive are
hearing of the case on 2 January 2008 performed by and through the executive departments,
and the acts of the Secretaries of such departments,
Issue: Did the approval of the ASTOA by the DOTC performed and promulgated in the regular course of
Secretary (Leandro Mendoza) fall under the doctrine of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the
qualified political agency? Chief Executive presumptively the acts of the Chief
Ruling: Yes, it was considered by the higher court that
the act of his cabinet member (DOTC Secretary) validly While the requirements in executing service
falls under the doctrine of qualified political agency. “The contracts in paragraph 4, Section 2 of Article XII of the
doctrine of qualified political agency declares that, save 1987 Constitution seem like mere formalities, they, in
in matters on which the Constitution or the reality, take on a much bigger role. In the case of La
circumstances require the President to act personally, Bugal, they are the safeguards put in place by the
executive and administrative functions are exercised framers of the Constitution to "eliminate or minimize the
through executive departments headed by cabinet abuses prevalent during the martial law regime." Thus,
secretaries, whose acts are presumptively the acts of the they are not just mere formalities, which will only render
President unless disapproved by the latter. a contract unenforceable but not void, if not complied
with. They are requirements placed, not just in an
Resident Marine Mammals vs. Reyes
ordinary statute, but in the fundamental law, the non-
observance of which will nullify the contract.
Saguisag vs. Ochoa constitutional validity of the President’s proclamation of
martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is
Issue: Is the faithful execution clause a grant of first a political question in the hands of Congress before
separate power to the President? it becomes a justiciable one in the hands of the Court. In
the case at the bar, the SC must first allow Congress
Ruling: No. The Supreme Court has interpreted the
exercising its own review powers after which is to
faithful execution clause as an obligation imposed on the
exercise its own review powers on the martial law
President, and not a separate grant of power.
Fortun vs Arroyo
Issue: Does the lapse of the 30-day period operate to
Facts: On November 23, 2009 heavily armed men, divest the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over the
believed led by the ruling Ampatuan family, gunned case?
down and buried under shoveled dirt 57 innocent
Ruling: No. The 30-day period does not operate to
civilians on a highway in Maguindanao. In response to
divest the Supreme Court to its jurisdiction over the
this carnage, on November 24 President Arroyo issued
case. The settled rule is that jurisdiction once acquitted
Presidential Proclamation 1946, declaring a state of
is not lost until the case has been terminated.
emergency in Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, and
Cotabato City to prevent and suppress similar lawless Kulayan vs. Tan
violence in Central Mindanao. Believing that she needed
greater authority to put order in Maguindanao and Facts: Three members from the International
secure it from large groups of persons that have taken Community of the Red Cross (ICRC) were kidnapped in
up arms against the constituted authorities in the the vicinity of the Provincial Capitol in Patikul, Sulu.
province, on December 4, 2009 President Arroyo issued Andres Notter, Eugenio Vagni, and Marie Jean Lacaba
Presidential Proclamation 1959 declaring martial law and were purportedly inspecting a water sanitation project for
suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the Sulu Provincial Jail when they were seized by three
that province except for identified areas of the Moro armed men who were later confirmed to be members of
Islamic Liberation Front. the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG). Governor Tan issued
Proclamation No. 1 series of 2009, declaring a state of
Issue: Is the power to declare martial law a shared emergency in the Province of Sulu using the kidnapping
power of the President with Congress? incident as a ground for the declaration.
Ruling: No. The imposition of martial law or suspension Issue: Does the governor have the power to declare a
of the writ takes effect the moment it is declared by the state of emergency, and exercise the powers
President. No other act is needed for the perfection of enumerated by under Proclamation 1-09?
the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the
writ. As amicus curiae retired Justice Mendoza states: “A Ruling: No. It has already been established that there is
declaration of martial law by the President alone is one repository of executive powers and that is the
complete by itself and does not require for its validity the President of the Republic. It is only the President, as
approval or concurrence of Congress… Because it is executive, who is authorized to exercise emergency
liable to abuse, it is made subject to check by Congress powers as provided under Section 23, Article VI of the
and/or the Supreme Court.” Constitution, as well as what became known as the
calling out powers under Section 7, Article VII thereof.
Issue: Must the Supreme Court allow Congress to
exercise its own review powers on the martial law
declaration first, before exercising its own review
powers? Issue: Can the pardoning power of the President be
limited by legislative action?
Ruling: No. Although the Constitution reserves to the
SC the power to review the sufficiency of the factual Ruling: No. The pardoning power of the President
basis of the proclamation or suspension in a proper suit, cannot be limited by legislative action. Section 19 of
it is implicit that the Court must allow Congress to Article VII and Section 5 of Article IX-C provides that the
exercise its own review powers, which is automatic President of the Philippines possesses the power to
rather than initiated. Only when Congress defaults in its grant pardons along with other acts of clemency “except
express duty to defend the Constitution through such in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise, provided in
review should the SC step in as its final rampant. The this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves,
commutations and pardons, and remit fines and the instrument that allows the presence of foreign
forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.” military bases, troops, or facilities; or (b) it merely aims
to implement an existing law or treaty.

Issue: How does the Constitution limit the foreign

Issue: Are Articles 36 & 41 of the RPC unconstitutional relations power of the President?
for “limiting” the pardoning power of the President?
Ruling: The 1987 Constitution has "vested the executive
Ruling: No, the form of manner by which the president power in the President of the Republic of the Philippines”
or congress for that matter, should exercise their that includes the duty to defend the State, for which
respective constitutional powers or prerogatives cannot purpose, he may use that power in the conduct of
be interfered with unless it is so provided by the foreign relations. The role of the President in foreign
constitution, this is the essence of the so called affairs is qualified by the Constitution in that the Chief
separation of powers deeply ingrained by our system of Executive must give paramount importance to the
government, For this reason, Art 31 & 41 of the RPC is sovereignty of the nation, the integrity of its territory, its
not unconstitutional, instead it should be construed in a interest, and the right of the sovereign Filipino people to
way that will give full effect to executive clemency self-determination. In specific provisions, the President’s
granted by the president, instead of indulging in an power is also limited, or at least shared, as in, which
overly strict interpretation that may serve to impair or includes among others, Sections 20 and 21 of Article VII
diminish the importance of the pardon which emanated on foreign loans, treaties, and international agreements
from the office of the president and duly signed by the and Sections 4 and 25 of Article XVIII on treaties and
executive chief himself. It still recognizes the international agreements entered into prior to the
presidential prerogative to grant executive clemency and Constitution and on the presence of foreign military
specifically, to decide to pardon the principal penalty troops, bases, or facilities.
while excluding its accessory penalties or to pardon
both, thus, article 31 & 41 only clarify the effect of the IPAP vs. Ochoa
pardon so decided upon by the president on the
penalties imposed in accordance with law. Facts: On March 27, 2012, President Benigno C. Aquino
III ratified the Madrid Protocol (Protocol) through an
instrument of accession, without Senate’s
concurrence. The instrument of accession was
Issue: Did the pardon extended to Pres. Estrada remove deposited with the Director General of the World
his disqualification under Sec. 40 of the LGC in relation Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on April 25,
to Sec. 12 of the OEC as well as restore his civil and 2012. The Madrid Protocol entered into force in the
political rights? Philippines on July 25, 2012. This Protocol was to
facilitate securing protection for marks and to make
Ruling: Yes, disqualification of President Estrada, under
management of the registered marks easier in different
section 40 of the LGC in relation to Sec. 12 of the OEC
countries. The petitioners questioned the
was removed by his acceptance of the absolute pardon
constitutionality and the validity of the Protocol’s
granted to him, while it may be apparent that the
ratification due to lack of Senate’s concurrence pursuant
prescription in section 40(a) of the LGC is worded in
to Section 21, Article VII of the Constitution
absolute terms, section 12 of the OEC provides a legal
escape from the prohibition, a plenary pardon or Issue: Was the President’s ratification, without Senate
amnesty after conviction by final judgement of an concurrence, of the Madrid Protocol valid and
offense involving moral turpitude , inter alia to run for constitutional?
and hold public office , whether local or national position.
Ruling: Yes. The court declared that the President's
Saguisag vs. Ochoa ratification is valid and constitutional because the Madrid
Protocol, being an “executive agreement” as determined
Issue: Can the President enter into an executive
by the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not require
agreement, instead of a treaty, insofar as binding the
the concurrence of the Senate. Reference can be made
Philippines to the EDCA?
to Executive Order No, 459, Series of 1997 that explicitly
Ruling: Yes. The Court ruled that the President, indicates that executive agreements are similar to
however, may enter into an executive agreement on treaties, except that they do not require legislative
foreign military bases, troops, or facilities, if (a) it is not concurrence.
Lagman vs. Medialdea lies with the president. In the 1987 Constitution, the
President is given a “sequence of graduated powers”.
Facts: On May 23, 2017, and for a period not exceeding However, this “graduation of powers” does not dictate or
60 days, President Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216 restrict the manner by which the President decides
declaring a state of martial law and suspending the which power to choose. It follows that the power to
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of choose is a judgment call of the President.
Issue: Whether or not nullifying Proclamation No. 216 of
The Lagman Group, the Cullamat Group and the 23 May 2017 will:(a) have the effect of recalling
Mohamad Group petitioned the Supreme Court, Proclamation No. 55 s. 2016; or (b) also nullify the acts
questioning the factual basis of President’s Martial Law of the President in calling out the armed forces to quell
proclamation. lawless violence in Marawi and other parts of the
Mindanao region?
Issue: Whether or not the petitions are the "appropriate
proceeding" covered by paragraph 3, Section 18, Article Ruling: No. Nullification of Proclamation No.216 will not
VII of the Constitution sufficient to invoke the mode of affect Proclamation No. 55 and neither would it result in
review required by the Court? the nullification of the acts of the President done
pursuant thereto. In a similar case (Kulayan v. Tan), the
Ruling: Yes, it is sufficient. [Paragraph 3, Section 18 of
Court ruled that the President's calling out power is in a
Article VII states: "The Supreme Court may review, in an
different category from the power to suspend the
appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the power to
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of
declare martial law. The Court's review of the President's
martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ
declaration of martial law and his calling out the Armed
or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its
Forces necessarily entails separate proceedings.
decision thereon within thirty days from filing."
Issue: Whether or not the power of this Court to review
the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of Jardeleza vs. CJ Sereno
martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus is independent of the actual actions Facts: Associate Justice Roberto Abad was about to
that have been taken by Congress jointly or separately? retire and the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) announce
an opening for application and recommendation for the
Ruling: Yes. The power of the Court to review can be said vacancy. Francis H. Jardeleza (Jardeleza),
exercised independently from the power of revocation of incumbent Solicitor General of the Republic was
Congress. They are not only totally different but likewise included in the list of candidates. Justice Carpio
independent from each other although concededly, they disclosed a confidential information which characterized
have the same trajectory, which is, the nullification of the Jardeleza’s integrity as dubious. Jardeleza answered
presidential proclamation. that he would defend himself provided that due process
would be observed. His request was denied and he was
In addition, the Court's review power is passive;
not included in the shortlist. Hence, Jardeleza filed for
it is only initiated by the filing of a petition "in an
certiorari and mandamus with prayer for TRO to compel
appropriate proceeding" by a citizen. On the other hand,
the JBC to include him in the list on the grounds that the
Congress' review mechanism is automatic in the sense
JBC and CJ Sereno acted with grave abuse of discretion
that it, may be activated by Congress itself at any time
in excluding him, despite having garnered a sufficient
after the proclamation or suspension was made.
number of votes to qualify for the position.
Issue: WON the exercise of judicial review by this Court
Issue: Can the Supreme Court exercise its expanded
involves the calibration of graduated powers granted the
certiorari jurisdiction over the JBC which does not
President as Commander-in-Chief?
exercise judicial nor quasi-judicial function?
Ruling: No. The exercise of the power of judicial review
Ruling: Yes. Under the expanded jurisdiction or
by the Supreme Court does not extend to the calibration
expanded power of judicial review vested to the SC by
of graduated powers granted the President as
the 1987 Constitution, a petition for certiorari is a proper
Commander-in-Chief. To do so would be equivalent to
remedy to question the act of any branch or
an invasion into the executive area and a trespass or
instrumentality of the government on the ground of grave
violation on the prerogative that solely, at least initially,
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the Arroyo (GMA) and PCSO Budget and Accounts
government, even if the latter does not exercise judicial, Manager Aguas (and some other officials of PCSO and
quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. Commission on Audit whose charges were later
dismissed by the Sandiganbayan after their respective
Cudia vs. PMA Superintendent demurrers to evidence were granted, except for Uriarte
and Valdes who were at large) for conspiracy to commit
Facts: Cadet 1 CL Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia was a member of
plunder, as defined by, and penalized under Section 2
Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 of the Philippine Military
(b) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as amended by
Academy (PMA) and was vying for honors and awards
R.A. No. 7659. Thereafter, accused GMA and Aguas
upon graduation. However, a Delinquency Report was
separately filed their respective petitions for bail which
filed against him by one of his professors because he
were denied by the Sandiganbayan on the ground that
was late for two (2) minutes in his Eng 412 class. The
the evidence of guilt against them was strong.
petitioner’s written appeal was subjected for
investigation by the Armed Forces of the Philippines and After the Prosecution rested its case, accused
the PMA Cadet Review Appeals Board, and he was held GMA and Aguas then separately filed their demurrers to
guilty of "Lying" and the recommendation for his evidence asserting that the Prosecution did not establish
separation from the Academy was sustained. In this a case for plunder against them. The same were denied
military decision, even if it involved questions of fact, the by the Sandiganbayan, holding that there was sufficient
petitioners hold that the Court was empowered to settle evidence to show that they had conspired to commit
mixed questions of fact and law. plunder. After the respective motions for reconsideration
filed by GMA and Aguas were likewise denied by the
Issue: Can the court exercise the judicial power to
Sandiganbayan, they filed their respective petitions for
determine whether the AFP and the members of the
court martial acted with grave abuse of discretion in their
military investigation? Issue: Considering Sec. 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of
Court, can the Supreme Court review on certiorari the
Ruling: Yes. According to Section 1, Article VIII of the
Sandiganbayan Order denying accused’s Demurrer to
1987 Constitution, the Court has an expanded scope of
judicial power. It mandates that the duty of the courts of
justice includes not only "to settle actual controversies Ruling: Yes, the court cannot be deprived of its
involving rights which are legally demandable and jurisdiction to correct grave abuse of discretion.
enforceable" but also "to determine whether or not there Considering Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack which provides that “the order denying the motion for
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the
instrumentality of the Government", even if the latter demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by
does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial certiorari before judgment.” It is not an insuperable
functions. Consistent with the republican system of obstacle to this action, however, that the denial of the
checks and balances, the Court has been entrusted, demurrers to evidence of the petitioners was an
expressly or by necessary implication, with both the duty interlocutory order that did not terminate the
and the obligation of determining, in appropriate cases, proceedings, and the proper recourse of the demurring
the validity of any assailed action of the government. In accused was to go to trial, and that in case of their
this case, the Court is empowered to settle via petition conviction they may then appeal the conviction, and
for certiorari whether there is grave abuse of discretion assign the denial as among the errors to be reviewed.
on the part of respondents in dismissing Cadet 1 CL Indeed, it is doctrinal that the situations in which the writ
Cudia from the PMA. of certiorari may issue should not be limited, because to
do so would be to destroy its comprehensiveness and
Arroyo vs People
usefulness. So wide is the discretion of the court that
Facts: The Court resolves the consolidated petitions for authority does not want to show that certiorari is more
certiorari separately filed by former President Gloria discretionary than either prohibition or mandamus. In the
Macapagal-Arroyo and Philippine Charity Sweepstakes case at bar, the Supreme court can review on certiorari
Office (PCSO) Budget and Accounts Manager Benigno the Sandiganbayan order denying accused’s demurrer to
B. Aguas. evidence, because the Court has the bounden
constitutional duty to strike down grave abuse of
On July 10, 2012, the Ombudsman charged in discretion whenever and wherever it is committed.
the Sandiganbayan former President Gloria Macapagal-
Carpio-Morales vs. Binay programs and action plans of the government relating to
climate change. Herein petitioners wrote respondents
Facts: The ombudsman’s argument against the cas lack regarding their pleas for implementation of the Road
of subject matter jurisdiction over the main petition and Sharing Principle demanding the reform of the road and
her corollary prayer for its dismissal, is based on her transportation system in the whole country w/in thirty
interpretation of section 14, RA6770 or the ombudsman days from receipt of said letter- foremost, through the
act. The ombudsman maintains that the first paragraph bifurcation of roads and the reduction of official and
of section 14 ra6770 textually prohibits courts from government fuel consumption by 50%. Claiming to have
extending provisional injunctive relief to delay any not received a response they filed this petition.
investigation conducted by her office. Despite the usage
of the general phrase “no writ of injunctions shall be Issue: Whether or not the petitioners have standing to
issued by any court”, the ombudsman herself concedes file the petition?
that the prohibition does not cover the supreme court.
Ruling: Yes, the petitioners have standing. Petitioners
Issue: Is the first paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 counter that they filed the suit as Citizens, Taxpayers
insofar as it prohibits all courts [except the Supreme and representatives; that the rules on standing had been
Court], from issuing provisional writs of injunction to relaxed following the decision in Oposa vs. Factoran,
enjoin an Ombudsman investigation, valid and and that , in any event, legal standing is a procedural
constitutional? technicality which the court may set aside in its
discretion. The court agrees with the petitioners position.
Ruling: Yes, it is valid and constitutional. The Court The RPEC did liberalize the requirements on standing,
rules that when Congress passed the first paragraph of allowing the filling of citizens suit for the enforcement of
Section 14, RA 6770 and, in so doing, took away from rights and obligations under environmental laws.
the courts their power to issue a TRO and/or WPI to However, it bears noting that there is a difference
enjoin an investigation conducted by the Ombudsman, it between a petition for the issuance of a writ of
encroached upon this Court’s constitutional rule-making Kalikasan, wherein it is sufficient that the person filing
authority. Through this provision, Congress interfered represents the inhabitants prejudiced by the
with a provisional remedy that was created by this Court environmental damage subject of the writ, and a petition
under its duly promulgated rules of procedure, which for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus, which
utility is both integral and inherent to every court’s is only available to one who is personally aggrieved by
exercise of judicial power. Without the Court’s consent to the unlawful act or omission.
the proscription, as may be manifested by an adoption of
the same as part of the rules of procedure through an Segovia vs. Climate Change Commission
administrative circular issued therefor, there thus, stands
to be a violation of the separation of powers principle. Issue: Whether or not the petition should be dismissed
for failing to adhere to the doctrine of hierarchy of
Segovia vs. Climate Change Commission courts?

Facts: To address the clamour of more tangible Ruling: No. Under the RPEC, the writ of kalikasan is
response to climate change, former Pres. Arroyo issued designed for a narrow but special purpose: to accord a
AO171 which created the presidential task force on stronger protection for environmental rights,aiming,
climate change (PTFCC) on Feb 20, 2007, This body among others, to provide a speedy and effective
was recognised through EO 774 which designated the resolution of a case involving the violation of one's
President as Chairperson and Cabinet Secretaries as constitutional right to a healthful and balanced ecology
members of the task force. EO 774 expressed what is that transcends political and territorial boundaries, and to
now referred to by the petitioners as the “Road Sharing address the potentially exponential nature of large-scale
Principle.” in 2009, AO 254 was issued , mandating the ecological threats. The weight of the problems stated
DOTC (as lead agency for the Task Group on Fossil under the RPEC satisfies at least one of the exceptions
Fuels or TGFF) to formulate a national environmental to the rule on hierarchy of courts. Given that the RPEC
sustainable transport strategy (EST) for the Philippines. allows direct resort to this Court, it is ultimately within the
Later that same year, congress passed the Climate Court's discretion whether or not to accept petitions
Change Act.It created the Climate Change Commission brought directly before it.
which absorbed the functions of the PFCC and became
the lead policy making body of the government which Issue: Whether or not a writ of Kalikasan and/or
shall be tasked to coordinate, monitor and evaluate the Continuing Mandamus should be issued?
Ruling: No. The Court finds that the petitioners failed to the last act required under Article XII(l) of EDCA
establish the requisites for the issuance of the writs. It is before the agreement entered into force. Section 25,
well-settled that a party claiming the privilege for the Article XVIII of the Constitution, is clear that the
issuance of a writ of kalikasan has to show that a law, presence of foreign military forces in the country
rule or regulation was violated or would be violated. shall only be allowed by virtue of a treaty
concurred in by the Senate. Hence, the performance
In this case, apart from repeated invocation of of an official act by the Executive Department that
the constitutional right to health and to a balanced and led to the entry into force of an executive
healthful ecology and bare allegations that their right agreement was sufficient to satisfy the actual case
was violated, the petitioners failed to show that public or controversy requirement.
respondents are guilty of any unlawful act or omission
that constitutes a violation of the petitioners' right to a Issue: Will the present petitions qualify as citizens',
balanced and healthful ecology. taxpayers', or legislators' suits and, thus, the petitioners
have legal standing?
Imbong vs. Ochoa
Ruling: As citizens: No. In assailing the constitutionality
Issue: Considering that the RH Law has yet to be of a governmental act, petitioners suing as citizens may
implemented, do the petitions present actual controversy dodge the requirement of having to establish a direct
ripe for adjudication? and personal interest if they show that the act affects a
public right. In arguing that they have legal standing,
Ruling: Yes. The Court views that an actual case or
they claim that the case they have filed is a concerned
controversy exists and that the same is ripe for judicial
citizen's suit. But aside from general statements that the
petitions involve the protection of a public right, and that
Considering that the RH Law and its their constitutional rights as citizens would be violated,
implementing rules have already taken effect and that they fail to make any specific assertion of a particular
budgetary measures to carry out the law have already public right that would be violated by the enforcement of
been passed, it is evident that the subject petitions EDCA. For their failure to do so, the present petitions
present a justiciable controversy. As stated earlier, when cannot be considered by the Court as citizens' suits that
an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to would justify a disregard of the aforementioned
have infringed the Constitution, it not only becomes a requirements.
right, but also a duty of the Judiciary to settle the
As taxpayers: No. A taxpayer's suit concerns a
case in which the official act complained of directly
Moreover, the petitioners have shown that the involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived
case is so because medical practitioners or medical from taxation. Here, those challenging the act must
providers are in danger of being criminally prosecuted specifically show that they have sufficient interest in
under the RH Law for vague violations thereof, preventing the illegal expenditure of public money, and
particularly public health officers who are threatened to that they will sustain a direct injury as a result of the
be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of enforcement of the assailed act. Applying that principle
retirement and other benefits to this case, they must establish that EDCA involves the
exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending powers.
Saguisag vs. Ochoa
As legislators: No. The SC emphasize that in a
Issue: In view of the abstention of the Senators from the legislators' suit, those Members of Congress who are
present proceedings, is there an actual case or challenging the official act have standing only to the
controversy that is already ripe for adjudication? extent that the alleged violation impinges on their right to
participate in the exercise of the powers of the institution
Ruling: Yes. The Court ruled that they find that the of which they are members. Legislators have the
matter before them involves an actual case or standing "to maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers,
controversy that is already ripe for adjudication. The and privileges vested by the Constitution in their office
Executive Department has already sent an official and are allowed to sue to question the validity of any
confirmation to the U.S. Embassy that "all internal official action, which they claim infringes their
requirements of the Philippines x x x have already prerogatives as legislators." As legislators, they must
been complied with." By this exchange of diplomatic clearly show that there was a direct injury to their
notes, the Executive Department effectively performed persons or the institution to which they belong.
As correctly argued by respondent, the power to Consolidated petitions challenging the
concur in a treaty or an international agreement is an constitutionality and validity of the Comprehensive
institutional prerogative granted by the Constitution to Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB) and the
the Senate, not to the entire Legislature. In Pimentel v. Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB)
Office of the Executive Secretary, this Court did not entered into between the Government of the Philippines
recognize the standing of one of the petitioners therein and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) on 27
who was a member of the House of Representatives. March 2014 and 12 October 2012, respectively.
The petition in that case sought to compel the
transmission to the Senate for concurrence of the signed Issue: Due to non-enactment of the Bangsamoro Basic
text of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Law, is the challenge on the constitutionality of the CAB
Since that petition invoked the power of the Senate to and FAB--- ripe for adjudication?
grant or withhold its concurrence in a treaty entered into
Ruling: NO. Due to the non-enactment of the
by the Executive Department, only then incumbent
Bangsamoro Basic Law, the challenge on the
Senator Pimentel was allowed to assert that authority of
constitutionality of the CAB and FAB is not ripe for
the Senate of which he was a member.
adjudication. Pursuant to Section 1, Article VIII of the
Issue: What are matters of transcendental importance? 1987 Constitution, it is clear that the Court's judicial
Does this petition involve matters of transcendental review power is limited to actual cases or controversies.
importance? The Court generally declines to issue advisory opinions
or to resolve hypothetical or feigned problems, or mere
Ruling: The matter that the constitutionality of the academic questions. The limitation of the power of
nationl agreement has been challenged and that the judicial review to actual cases and controversies assures
exercise of the power of judicial review requires the that the courts will not intrude into areas specifically
concurrence of the following requisites, (1) the existence confined to the other branches of government.
of an appropriate case; (2) an interest personal and
substantial by the party raising the constitutional
question; (3) the plea that the function be exercised at
Ocampo vs. Rear Admiral Enriquez
the earliest opportunity; and (4) the necessity that the
constitutional question be passed upon in order to Facts: During the campaign period for the 2016
decide the case. Presidential Election, then candidate Rodrigo R. Duterte
publicly announced that he would allow the burial of
No. The present petitions cannot qualify as
former President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng
citizens', taxpayers', or legislators' suits; the Senate as a
mga Bayani ("LNMB"). Duterte won the May 9, 2016
body has the requisite standing, but considering that it
has not formally filed a pleading to join the suit, as it
merely conveyed to the Supreme Court its sense that On August 9, 2016, AFP Rear Admiral Ernesto
EDCA needs the Senate's concurrence to be valid, C. Enriquez issued a directive to the Philippine Army on
petitioners continue to suffer from lack of standing and the Funeral Honors and Service for President Marcos.
the fact that the government had not yet appropriated or Dissatisfied with the foregoing issuance, the petitioners
actually disbursed public funds for the purpose of filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition and Petition
implementing the agreement. for Mandamus and Prohibition with the Court.
Philconsa vs. Phil. Gov’t. Issue: Do petitioners have locus standi?
Facts: On 15 October 2012, a preliminary peace Ruling: No. Petitioners have no legal standing to file the
agreement called the FAB was signed between the petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
government and the MILF. The F AB called for the because they failed to show that they have suffered or
creation of an autonomous political entity named will suffer direct and personal injury as a result of the
Bangsamoro, replacing the ARMM. interment of Marcos at the LNMB. Petitioners cannot
also file as taxpayers. They merely claim illegal
On 27 March 2014, the Philippine Government,
disbursement of public funds, without showing that
represented by GPNP Chairperson Miriam Coronel-
Marcos is disqualified to be interred at the LNMB by
Ferrer, signed the CAB, which was an integration of the
either express or implied provision of the Constitution,
FAB, the Annexes and the other agreements previously
the laws or jurisprudence.
executed by the government and the MILF.
Issue: Does President Duterte's decision to have the disloyalty" committed by Jardeleza in the handling of a
remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB involve a case, the fact remains that the basis for her invocation of
justiciable controversy? the rule was the "disagreement" in legal strategy as
expressed by a group of international lawyers. The
Ruling: No. The requisites for judicial inquiry must approach taken by Jardeleza in that case was opposed
include, among others, the presence of an actual case or to that preferred by the legal team. For said reason,
controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power, and criticism was hurled against his "integrity." The
the person challenging the act must have the standing to invocation of the "unanimity rule" on integrity traces its
question the validity of the subject act or issuance. An roots to the exercise of his discretion as a lawyer and
actual case or controversy is one that involves a conflict nothing else. No connection was established linking his
of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims, and choice of a legal strategy to a treacherous intent to
susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a trounce upon the country’s interests or to betray the
hypothetical dispute. There must be an opposition of Constitution.
legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the
basis of existing law and jurisprudence. The scope of Issue: Does the Unanimity Rule apply in case where the
the political question doctrine has been limited by main point of contention is the professional judgement
Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution when it sans charges or implications of Immoral or corrupt
vested in the judiciary the power to determine whether or behaviour?
not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch Ruling: Yes, Sec. 12 Rule 10 of the JBL-009 envisions
or instrumentality of the Government. only a situation where an applicant's moral fitness is
challenged. It follows then that the “Unanimity Rule” only
In this case, the court ruled that the essential comes into operation when the moral character of a
requisites indicated above were absent. The petitioners person is put in the issue. In the case at bar, the court
are concerned with questions of policy and issues conclude that Jardaleza's alleged extra-marital affair and
dependent upon the wisdom and not on the legality of a acts if insider trading fall within the contemplation of a
particular measure. With that, the court agreed with the question of integrity and would have warranted the
Office of the Solicitor General that President Duterte's application of the “Unanimity Rule”, he was not afforded
decision to have the remains of Marcos interred at the due process in its application.
LNMB involves a political question that is not a
justiciable controversy. There being no taint of grave Villanueva vs. JBC
abuse in the exercise of such discretion, President
Facts: On September 27,2013, Presiding Judge
Duterte's decision on that political question is outside the
Ferdinand R. Villanueva (petitioner) applied for the
ambit of judicial review.
vacant position of Presiding Judge in the following
Jardeleza vs. CJ Sereno Regional Trial Courts (RTCs): Branch 31, Tagum City;
Branch 13, Davao City; and Branch 6, Prosperidad,
Issue: Does the original invocation of Section 2, Rule 10 Agusan Del Sur. In response, JBC didn’t include his
of JBC-009 involve a question on Jardeleza’s integrity? name in the list of applicants due to the council’s long-
standing policy of opening the chance for promotion to
Ruling: Yes, under section 2, rule 10 of JBC-009 it second-level courts to, among others, incumbent judges
states that, “the council may order a discreet background who have served in their current position for at least five
check on the integrity, reputation and character of the years. Petitioner has been a judge only for more than a
applicant and receive feedback theron from the public, year.
which shall check or verify to validate the merits thereof.”
In the case at bar, the court ruled that Jardeleza’s Issue: Is the policy of the JBC “requiring five years of
alleged extra-marital affair and acts of insider trading fall service as judges of first-level courts before they can
within the contemplation of a question of integrity. qualify as applicant to second-level
courts” constitutional?
Issue: Does his adoption of a specific legal strategy in
the handling of a case bring forth a relevant and logical Ruling: Yes. The assailed policy regarding the
challenge against his moral character? promotion to a second-level court, which is a five-year
experience as judge of a first-level court, is a direct
Ruling: Chief Justice Sereno claims that the invocation adherence to the qualities prescribed by the
of Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 was not borne out of a Constitution. It was mentioned that five years is
mere variance of legal opinion but by an "act of considered as a sufficient span of time for one to acquire
professional skills for the next level court. JBC’s failure and to determine the seniority of the newly-appointed
to publish the five-year requirement, seeking to Sandiganbayan Associate Justices?
implement a constitutional provision requiring proven
competence from members of the judiciary, has not Ruling: Yes. In its Decision dated November 29, 2016,
prejudiced the petitioner’s private interest. The court, the Court ruled that the clustering impinged upon the
however, directed the JBC to comply with the publication President's appointing power in the following ways: The
requirement of the assailed policy and other special President's option for every vacancy was limited to the
guidelines. five to seven nominees in each cluster. Once the
President had appointed a nominee from one cluster,
Aguinaldo vs. Aquino then he was proscribed from considering the other
nominees in the same cluster for the other vacancies. All
Facts: Republic Act No. 10660, recently enacted on the nominees applied for and were found to be qualified
April 16, 2015, created two more divisions of the for appointment to any of the vacant Associate Justice
Sandiganbayan with three Justices each, thereby positions in the Sandiganbayan, but the JBC failed to
resulting in six vacant positions. On July 20, 2015, the explain why one nominee should be considered for
Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) published in the appointment to the position assigned to one specific
Philippine Star and Philippine Daily Inquirer and posted cluster only. Correspondingly, the nominees' chance for
on the JBC website an announcement calling for appointment was restricted to the consideration of the
applications or recommendations for the six newly one cluster in which they were included, even though
created positions of Associate Justice of the they applied and were found to be qualified for all the
Sandiganbayan. After screening and selection of vacancies. Moreover, by designating the numerical order
applicants, the JBC submitted to President Aquino six of the vacancies, the JBC established the seniority or
shortlists contained in six separate letters. order of preference of the new Sandiganbayan
Associate Justices, a power which the law (Section 1,
Petitioners were all nominees in the shortlist for
paragraph 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1606), rules
the 16th Sandiganbayan Associate Justice. They assert
(Rule II, Section 1 (b) of the Revised Internal Rules of
that they possess the legal standing or locus standi to
the Sandiganbayan), and jurisprudence (Re: Seniority
file the instant Petition since they suffered a direct injury
Among the Four Most Recent Appointments to the
from President Aquino's failure to appoint any of them as
Position of Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals),
the 16th Sandiganbayan Associate Justice.
vest exclusively upon the President.
Issue: Whether or not President Aquino violated the
OCA vs. Judge Flores
Constitution or committed grave abuse of discretion in
disregarding the clustering of nominees into six separate Facts: Acting on these anonymous letters, the Court,
shortlists for the six vacancies for Sandiganbayan in a Resolution dated June 7, 2011, approved
Associate Justice? OCA's request for an audit team (OCA team) to
conduct an investigation and inspection of the
Ruling: No. President Aquino validly exercised his
pending and decided cases in the Regional Trial
discretionary power to appoint members of the Judiciary
Court (RTC) of Tubod, Lanao del Norte, Branch 7,
when he disregarded the clustering of nominees into six
where Judge Flores is the presiding judge, and
separate shortlists for the vacancies for the 16th, 17th,
RTC of Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte, Branch 21,
18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st Sandiganbayan Associate
where Judge Flores presided in an acting capacity.
Justices. President Aquino merely maintained the well-
The authority included an "on-the-spot"
established practice, consistent with the paramount
investigation/examination of any available document
Presidential constitutional prerogative, to appoint the six
in other government offices which may have direct
new Sandiganbayan Associate Justices from the 37
connection with the charges.
qualified nominees, as if embodied in one JBC list. This
does not violate Article VIII, Section 9 of the 1987 Issue: Does taking cognizance of cases outside the
Constitution which requires the President to appoint from court’s jurisdiction tantamount to gross ignorance of the
a list of at least three nominees submitted by the JBC for law?
every vacancy.
Ruling: There is gross ignorance of the law when
Issue: Did the clustering of nominees for the six an error committed by the judge was gross or
vacancies in the Sandiganbayan by the JBC impair the patent, deliberate or malicious, or when a judge
President's power to appoint members of the Judiciary ignores, contradicts or fails to apply settled law and
jurisprudence because of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty Facts: The respondent, then the City Mayor of Dapitan
or corruption. City, had conspired with Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Pepe
Nortal to facilitate the latter's withdrawal of P1 million
The utter disregard shown by Judge Flores from the Confidential and Intelligence Fund (CIF) and,
displays not only a lack of familiarity with the law thereafter, used this amount for his (the respondent's)
but a gross ignorance thereof. What's more, Judge personal benefit.
Flores rendered judgments in several cases for
nullity of marriage in record time, which ranged from Issue: Is the administrative case against premature
six (6) months to one (1) year and seven (7) since his criminal convictions by the Sandiganbayan are
months from the date of filing, despite his claim of not yet final?
being burdened by heavy caseload.
Ruling: No. Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987
OCA vs. Judge Ruiz Constitution grants the Supreme Court administrative
supervision over all courts and their personnel. This
Facts: Respondent Judge Joseph Cedric O. Ruiz , grant empowers the Supreme Court to oversee the
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, judges' and court personnel's administrative compliance
Makati City. The Administrative case filed by the Office with all laws, rules, and regulations,9 and to take
of the Court Administrator (OCA) traces its roots to the administrative actions against them if they violate these
Informations for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. legal norms.The Court likewise possesses the power to
3019, “Corrupt practices of public officers” and preventively suspend an administratively charged judge
malversation of public funds filed by the People of the until a final decision is reached, particularly when a
Philippines against the respondent judge before the serious charge is involved and a strong likelihood of guilt
Sandigan Bayan. exists.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge ARTICLE IX. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
administratively liable for acts he is alleged to have
committed while he was still the Mayor of Dapitan City? Funa vs COA Chair Villar

Ruling: Yes, he is administratively liable. The Court’s Facts: On February 15, 2001, President Gloria
function in this case is limited to the determination of Macapagal-Arroyo (President Macapagal-Arroyo)
whether substantial evidence exists to hold the appointed Guillermo N.Carague (Carague) as Chairman
respondent administratively liable for acts he allegedly of the Commission on Audit (COA) for a term of seven
committed while he was still the Mayor of Dapitan City. (7) years, pursuant to the 1987 Constitution. Carague’s
term of office started on February 2, 2001 to end on
It’s immaterial that the respondent was not yet a February 2, 2008. On February 7, 2004, President
member of the Judiciary when allegedly committed the Macapagal-Arroyo appointed Reynaldo A. Villar (Villar)
acts imputed to him; judges may be disciplined for acts as the third member of the COA for a term of seven (7)
committed prior to his appointment to the judiciary. The years starting February 2, 2004 until February 2,
court’s rule itself recognizes the situation, as it 2011.Following the retirement of Carague on February 2,
provides for the immediate forwarding to the SC for 2008 and during the fourth year of Villar as COA
disposition and adjudication of charges against justices Commissioner, Villar was designated as Acting
and judges before the IBP, including those filed prior to Chairman of COA from February 4, 2008 to April 14,
their appointment in judiciary. It need not be shown that 2008. On April 18, 2008, Villar was nominated and
the respondent continued to do the act or acts appointed as Chairman of the COA. Shortly thereafter,
complained of; it is sufficient that the evidence on record on June 11, 2008, the Commission on Appointments
supports the charges against the respondent through confirmed his appointment. He was to serve as
proof that the respondent committed the imputed acts Chairman of COA, as expressly indicated in the
violative of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the appointment papers, until the expiration of the original
applicable provisions of the Rules of Court . As ruled out term of his office as COA Commissioner or on February
by the Court’s decision in Office of the Court 2, 2011.Challenged in this recourse, Villar, in an obvious
Administrator v. Judge Sardido, “Whether the criminal bid to lend color of title to his hold on the chairmanship,
case against Judge Hurtado relates to an act committed insists that his appointment as COA Chairman accorded
before or after he became a judge is of no moment”. him a fresh term of seven (7) years which is yet to lapse.
He would argue, in fine, that his term of office, as such
chairman, is up to February 2, 2015, or 7 years reckoned
from February 2, 2008 when he was appointed to that Ruling: YES. The CSC Chairman cannot be a member
position. of a government entity that is under the control of the
President without impairing the independence vested in
Issue: what are the rules on appointment/re- the CSC by the 1987 Constitution.
appointment in the CSC Comelec and COA?
Under Section 7, paragraph (2), Article IX-B, he
Ruling: Art IX-B Sec.1 (2) of the 1987 Constitution can hold any other office or employment in the
provides that the rules on appointments on the position Government during his tenure if such holding is allowed
of chairman and commissioner shall be appointed by the by law or by the primary functions of his position.
President with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments for a term of seven years without The Court notes that Duque’s designation as
reappointment.Appointment to any vacancy shall only be member of the governing Boards of the GSIS,
for the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor. PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF are not anymore derived
from his CSC position and entitles him to receive per
Second, Art. IX-C Sec.1 (2) provides that the diem, a form of additional compensation that is
Commission on Elections are composed of a Chairman disallowed by the concept of an ex officio position by
and two other members to be appointed by the President virtue of its clear contravention of the proscription set by
with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, Section 2, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution.
who shall hold office for a term of nine years and may
not be reappointed. Of the Members of the Commission Issue: Is Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of EO
first appointed, one shall hold office for nine years, 292, valid and constitutional?
another for six years and the third for three years.
Ruling: Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of EO
Lastly, Article IX-D Sec. 1 (2) provides that the 292 is clear that the CSC Chairman’s membership in a
Chairman and Commissioners on Audit shall be governing body is dependent on the condition that the
appointed by the President with the consent of the functions of the government entity where he will sit as its
Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years Board member must affect the career development,
without reappointment. Of those first appointed, the employment status, rights, privileges, and welfare of
Chairman shall hold office for seven years, one government officials and employees. Based on this, the
commissioner for five years, and the other commissioner Court finds no irregularity in Section 14, Chapter 3, Title
for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to I-A, Book V of EO 292 because matters affecting the
any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired portion of career development, rights and welfare of government
the term of the predecessor employees are among the primary functions of the CSC
and are consequently exercised through its Chairman.
Funa vs Duque The CSC Chairman’s membership therein must,
therefore, be considered to be derived from his position
Facts: Petitioner Dennis A.B. Funa, in his capacity as
as such. Accordingly, the constitutionality of Section 14,
taxpayer, concerned citizen and lawyer, filed a petition
Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of EO 292 is upheld.The
challenging the constitutionality of EO 864, designating
CSC Chairman Duque as a member of the Board of
14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of Executive Order No.
Directors or Trustees in an ex officio capacity of the
following government-owned or government-controlled
corporations: (a) GSIS; PHILHEALTH, (c) ECC, and (d) Torres vs De Leon
the HDMFHIC, ECC, and HDMF for being clear
violations of Section 1 and Section 2, Article IX-A of the Facts: When petitioner was the Chapter Administrator of
1987 Constitution. the PNRC, General Santos City Chapter, the PNRC
Internal Auditing Office conducted an audit of the funds
Issue: Does the designation of Duque as member of the and accounts of the PNRC. Based on the audit report
Board of Directors or Trustees of the GSIS, submitted to respondent Corazon Alma G. De Leon (De
PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF, in an ex officio capacity, Leon), petitioner incurred a "technical shortage" in the
impair the independence of the CSC and violate the amount of P4,306,574.23. Respondent then charged
constitutional prohibition against the holding of dual or petitioner with Grave Misconduct for violating the PNRC
multiple offices for the Members of the Constitutional Financial Policies on Oversubscription, Remittances and
Commission? Disbursement of Funds. Petitioner got penalties of one
month suspension and transfer to the Nat’l
Headquarters. Her motion for reconsideration was
denied. Thereafter, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal to position aspired for, and the applicant must go through
the Board of Governors of the PNRC through the rigors of a screening and selection process as
respondent and furnished a copy to the CSC. She determined and conducted by a department or agency,
addressed her appeal memorandum to the CSC and subject only to the standards and guidelines set by the
sent copies to the PNRC and the CSC. Respondent, in a Civil Service Commission (CSC). This is in keeping with
memorandum dated August 13, 2007, denied petitioner's the ideal of promoting through merit rather than
appeal.The CSC, on April 21, 2008, promulgated a entitlement, and thus ensuring that government service
Resolution dismissing petitioner's appeal and imposing is rewarded with the best fit.
upon her the penalty of dismissal from service. Petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration with the CSC, but the Posadas vs Sandiganbayan
same was denied.
Facts: Dr. Posadas was Chancellor of the University of
Issue: Does the CSC have appellate jurisdiction over the Philippines (UP) Diliman when on September 19,
dismissal orders of PNRC employees by its Board since 1994 he formed a Task Force on Science and
PNRC is sui generis? Technology Assessment Management and Policy. On
June 6, 1995, acting on the Task Force's proposal, UP
Ruling: Yes. As ruled by the Court in Liban, et al. v. established the UP Technology Management Center
Gordon, the PNRC, although not a GOCC, is sui generis (UP TMC) the members of which nominated Dr.
in character, thus, requiring the Court to approach Posadas for the post of Center Director. He declined the
controversies involving the PNRC on a case-to-case nomination, however, resulting in the designation of
basis. The CSC has jurisdiction over the PNRC because Professor Jose B. Tabbada as acting UP TMC Director.
the issue at hand is the enforcement of labor laws and
penal statutes, thus, in this particular matter, the PNRC On October 5, 1995 Malacanang granted Dr.
can be treated as a GOCC, and as such, it is within the Posadas and fifteen other UP Diliman officials authority
ambit of Rule I, Section 1 of the Implementing Rules of to attend the foundation day of the state university in
Republic Act 6713. Thus, having jurisdiction over the Fujian, China, from October 30 to November 6, 1995.
PNRC, the CSC had authority to modify the penalty and Before he left, Dr. Posadas formally designated Dr.
order the dismissal of petitioner from the service. Under Dayco, then UP Diliman Vice-Chancellor for
the Administrative Code of 1987, as well as decisions of Administration, as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) in his
the Court, the CSC has appellate jurisdiction on absence. On November 7, 1995, his last day as OIC
administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition Chancellor, Dr Dayco appointed Dr. Posadas as "Project
of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty (30) days, Director of the TMC Project from September 18, 1995 to
or fine in an amount exceeding thirty (30) days salary. September 17, 1996." In an undated letter, Dr. Dayco
also appointed Dr. Posadas consultant to the project.
Estrellado vs CSC Chair David The appointments were to retroact to September 18,
1995 when the project began.
Facts: On January 15, 2004, the LTO-COS-PB
recommended to the LTO the appointment of Hipolito R. About a year later or on August 22, 1996 the
Garboni and Roberto S. Se to the vacant positions of Commission on Audit (COA) Resident Auditor issued a
TRO II and AO IV within the LTO Law Enforcement Notice of Suspension of payments made to UP TMC
Service. Petitioners Eric N. Estrellado, TRO 1, and personnel, including the second payment to Dr. Posadas
Jossie M. Borja, Records Officer III, who were also of ₱36,000.00 for his services as TMC Project’s Local
applicants for the aforementioned positions and in their Consultant.
alleged capacities as next-in-rank employees, filed with
the CSC-NCR a petition to declare the LTO-CO-SPB On September 16, 1996, however, the UP
selection procedure null and void. They alleged, among Diliman Legal Office issued a Memorandum to the COA
others, that Hipolito R. Garboni and Roberto S. Se did Resident Auditor, pointing out that the amounts paid the
not meet the requirements for the positions of TRO II TMC Project personnel "were legal, being in the nature
and AO IV. of consultancy fees." The legal office also "confirmed the
authority of Dr. Dayco, while he was OIC Chancellor, to
Issue: Will the claimed next-in-rank status of petitioners appoint Dr. Posadas as project director and consultant of
guarantee them of promotion or appointment to the the TMC Project." Finding this explanation "acceptable,"
position aspired for? the COA Resident Auditor lifted his previous notices of
Ruling: NO. The next-in-rank status of a government
employee is not a guarantee to one's fitness to the
Notwithstanding the lifting of the suspension, UP The Resident Auditor issued notices of
President Javier constituted an Administrative disallowance on the allowances and incentives received
Disciplinary Tribunal to hear and decide the by the officers and employees of Maritime Industry
administrative complaint that he himself filed against Dr. Authority. The Legal and Adjudication Office of the
Posadas and Dr. Dayco for grave misconduct and abuse Commission on Audit upheld the notices of disallowance
of authority. On August 18, 1998 the Tribunal issued. The Commission on Audit affirmed the notices of
recommended the dismissal of the two from the service. disallowance. Thus, this petition for certiorari was filed
The UP Board of Regents modified the penalty, by Maritime Industry Authority.
however, to "forced resignation" with right to reapply
after one year provided they publicly apologize. Still, the Maritime Industry Authority is an attached
UP General-Counsel filed with the Sandiganbayan the agency of the Department of Transportation and
present criminal cases. Communication and created under Presidential Decree
No. 474.
Issue: By holding concurrent positions as University
Chancellor and TMC Project Director, did Dr. Posadas Issue: Does the grant of allowances and benefits to the
violate the constitutional provision against double officers and employees of MARINA constitute double
employment and double compensation? compensation?

Ruling: Yes, Dr. Posadas violated the constitutional Ruling: Yes. Their receipt of the disallowed benefits and
provision against double employment and double allowances was tantamount to double compensation.
compensation. The prohibition against government
The grant of allowances and benefits amounts to
officials and employees, whether elected or appointed,
double compensation proscribed by Article IX(B),
from concurrently holding any other office or position in
Section 8 of the 1987 Constitution.
the government is contained in Section 7, Article IX-B of
the 1987 Constitution. The prohibition on dual Petitioner Maritime Industry Authority argues
employment and double compensation in the that the rule against double compensation does not
government service is further specified under Sections 1 apply because National Compensation Circular No. 59 is
and 2, Rule XVIII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing ineffectual due to its non-publication.
Book V of E.O. No. 292, viz:
Respondent Commission on Audit counters that
“Section 1. No appointive official shall hold any the disallowed allowances is tantamount to additional
other office or employment in the Government or any compensation proscribed by Article IX(B), Section 8 of
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including the 1987 Constitution. This is because these allowances
government-owned or controlled corporations with are not authorized by law.
original charters or their subsidiaries, unless otherwise
allowed by law or by the primary functions of his Republic Act No. 6758 deems all allowances
position; and benefits received by government officials and
employees as incorporated in the standardized salary,
Section 2. No elective or appointive public officer unless excluded by law or an issuance by the
or employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect Department of Budget and Management. The integration
compensation, unless specifically authorized by law.” of the benefits and allowances is by legal fiction.
In the case at bar, the appointment of Dr. The disallowed benefits and allowances of
Posadas as TMC Project Director falls within the petitioner Maritime Industry Authority’s officials and
prohibition against holding of multiple positions since employees were not excluded by law or an issuance by
there is no distinction in Section 7, Article IX-B as to the the Department of Budget and Management. Thus,
employment status, i.e., whether permanent, temporary these were deemed already given to the officials and
or coterminous. employees when they received their basic salaries.
MARINA vs COA PCSO vs COA Chair Pulido
Facts: This case involves the validity of the grant of Facts: Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) is
allowance and incentives to the officers and employees the principal government agency for raising and
of petitioner Maritime Industry Authority. We revisit the providing funds for health programs, medical assistance
interpretation and application of Section 12 of the and services, and charities of national character. On
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. March 4, 2008, the PCSO Board of Directors, through
Resolution No. 135, approved the payment of monthly otherwise known as the Automated Election System
cost of living allowance (COLA) to its officials and Law.
employees for a period of three (3) years in accordance
with the Collective Negotiation Agreement. In 2010, the On December 22, 1997, Republic Act No. 8436
PCSO released the sum of P381,545.43 to all qualified authorized the Commission on Elections to use an
officials and employees of its Nueva Ecija Provincial automated election system for electoral exercises.
District Office.
For the 2016 National and Local Elections, the
However, on post audit, the Team Leader and Commission on Elections has opted to use the Vote-
Supervising Auditor of the PCSO-Nueva Ecija Provincial Counting Machine. The vote-counting machine is a
District Office issued Notice of Disallowance (ND) 11- "paper-based automated election system," which is
001-101-(10)7 dated May 16, 2011 invalidating the reported to be "seven times faster and more powerful
payment of P381,545.43 on the grounds that it is than the PCOS because of its updated
contrary to the Department of Budget and Management processor." Likewise, it is reported to have more
(DBM) Circular No. 2001-03 dated November 12, 2001 memory and security features, and is "capable of
and it amounts to double compensation that is prohibited producing the Voter Verification Paper Audit Trail
under the 1987 Constitution. (VVPAT).” This VVPAT functionality is in the form of a
printed receipt and a touch screen reflecting the votes in
Issue: Under R. A No. 6758, what allowances are the vote-counting machine.
expressly excluded from in the standardized salaries?
Issue: WON the fear of vote buying justify the Comelec
Ruling: The first paragraph of Section 12 (Consolidation to deactivate the “voter verified paper audit trail” function
of Allowances and Compensation) of R.A. No. 6758 of the voting counter machine
enumerates the following allowances that are expressly
excluded from the standardized salary rates: Ruling: NO. The Commission on Elections cannot opt to
breach the requirements of the law to assuage its fears
(1) representation and transportation allowances regarding the VVPAT. Vote-buying can be averted by
(RATA); placing proper procedures. The Commission on
Elections has the power to choose the appropriate
(2) clothing and laundry allowances; procedure in order to enforce the VVPAT requirement
under the law, and balance it with the constitutional
(3) subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on
mandate to secure the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot.
board government vessels;
The minimum functional capabilities enumerated
(4) subsistence allowance of hospital personnel;
under Section 6 of Republic Act 8436, as amended, are
(5) hazard pay; and mandatory. These functions constitute the most basic
safeguards to ensure the transparency, credibility,
(6) allowance of foreign service personnel stationed fairness and accuracy of the upcoming elections.
The law is clear. A "voter verified paper audit
**The 7th item pertains to “such other additional trail" requires the following: (a) individual voters can
compensation not otherwise specified in Section 12 as verify whether the machines have been able to count
may be determined by the DBM”. It is only upon the their votes; and (b) that the verification at minimum
amplification of the DBM through the issuance and should be paper based.
taking effect of implementing rules and regulations that
item (7) could be deemed as legally completed. The There appears to be no room for further
DBM is delegated with the authority to identify such interpretation of a "voter verified paper audit trail." The
other additional compensation that may be granted to paper audit trail cannot be considered the physical
government employees over and above the ballot, because there may be instances where the
standardized salary rates. machine may translate the ballot differently, or the voter
inadvertently spoils his or her ballot.
Bagumbayan vs Comelec
Furthermore, We (the court) see no reason why
Facts: Former Senator Gordon authored Republic Act voters should be denied the opportunity to read the
No. 9369, the law that amended Republic Act No. 8436, voter's receipt after casting his or her ballot. There is no
legal prohibition for the Commission on Elections to
require that after the voter reads and verifies the receipt, unlawful to print, publish, broadcast or exhibit any print,
he or she is to leave it in a separate box, not take it out broadcast or outdoor advertisements donated to the
of the precinct. Definitely, the availability of all the voters' candidate without the written acceptance of said
receipts will make random manual audits more accurate. candidate.

ER Ejercito vs Comelec Grace Poe vs Comelec

Facts: Three days prior to the May 13, 2013 Elections, a Facts: Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares
petition for disqualification was filed by Edgar “Egay” (petitioner) was found abandoned as a newborn
San Luis before the COMELEC against Emilio Ramon infant in the Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo by a
“E.R.” P. Ejercito, who was a fellow gubernatorial certain Edgardo Militar (Edgardo) on 3 September
candidate and, at the time, the incumbent Governor of 1968. When petitioner was five (5) years old,
the Province of Laguna.Petition alleged Ejercito celebrity spouses Ronald Allan Kelley Poe (a.k.a.
distributed orange card to influence voters in his favor; Fernando Poe, Jr.) and Jesusa Sonora Poe (a.k.a.
and Ejercito exceeds the amount of expenditures Susan Roces) filed a petition for her adoption with
necessary. Ejercito proclaimed Governor. The the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Juan City.
COMELEC First Division issued a Summons with Notice On 13 May 1974, the trial court granted their
of Conference. Ejercito prayed for the dismissal of the petition and ordered that petitioner's name be
petition which was improperly filed because it is in reality changed from "Mary Grace Natividad Contreras
a complaint for election offenses, thus,the case should Militar" to "Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe." On 7
have been filed before the COMELEC Law Department, July 2006, petitioner took her Oath of Allegiance to
and if with probable cause, file with proper court. The the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to Republic
COMELEC First Division resolved to grant the Act (R.A.) No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and
disqualification of Ejercito. The COMELEC En Banc Re-acquisition Act of 2003. Under the same Act, she
agreed with the findings of its First Division that San filed with the Bureau of Immigration (BI) a sworn
Luis’ petition is an action to disqualify Ejercito.Ejercito petition to reacquire Philippine citizenship together
filed before the Court GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION with petitions for derivative citizenship on behalf of
against COMELEC and contends It violated the right of her three minor children on 10 July 2006. On 9
petitioner due process when it ruled for disqualification of December 2011, the U.S. Vice Consul issued to
petitioner even it was not prayed fordisqualification . petitioner a "Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the
Worse, there is yet no finding of guilt by competent court United States" effective 21 October 2010. On 2
that he committed election offense. October 2012, the petitioner filed with the
COMELEC her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for
Issue: Did Ejercito correctly invoke Citizens United v. Senator for the 2013 Elections wherein she
Federal Election Commission in his defense of his answered "6 years and 6 months" to the question
“independent contributors? "Period of residence in the Philippines before May
13, 2013." Petitioner obtained the highest number of
Ruling: Having determined that the subject TV
votes and was proclaimed Senator on 16 May 2013.
advertisements were done and broadcasted with
On 15 October 2015, petitioner filed her COC for
Ejercito’s consent, it follows that Citizens United does
the Presidency for the May 2016 Elections. In her
not apply. The rulings in Citizens United and Buckley
COC, the petitioner declared that she is a natural-
find bearing only on matters related to "independent
born citizen and that her residence in the
expenditures," an election law concept which has no
Philippines up to the day before 9 May 2016 would
application in this jurisdiction. In the US context,
be ten (10) years and eleven (11) months counted
independent expenditures for or against a particular
from 24 May 2005.
candidate enjoy constitutional protection. They refer to
those expenses made by an individual, a group or a A day after petitioner filed her COC for
legal entity which are not authorized or requested by the President, Estrella Elamparo (Elamparo) filed a
candidate, an authorized committee of the candidate, or petition to deny due course or cancel said COC
an agent of the candidate; they are expenditures that are which was docketed as SPA No. 15-001 (DC) and
not placed in cooperation with or with the consent of a raffled to the COMELEC Second Division. She is
candidate, his agents, or an authorized committee of the convinced that the COMELEC has jurisdiction over
candidate.In contrast, there is no similar provision here her petition. Essentially, Elamparo's contention is that
in the Philippines. In fact, R.A. No. 9006105 and its petitioner committed material misrepresentation when
implementing rules and regulation specifically make it she stated in her COC that she is a natural-born
Filipino citizen and that she is a resident of the (SP) recommended that Governor Javier preventively
Philippines for at least ten (10) years and eleven suspend Roquero. Roquero filed with the RTC a petition
(11) months up to the day before the 9 May 2016 for certiorari and prohibition against the SP and Javier.
Elections. The RTC granted a preliminary injunction. Javier, Vice
Gov Dimamay, and the SP filed for certiorari with the CA
Issue: Does the COMELEC have jurisdiction over which issued a TRO. COMELEC issued Resolution
challenges on qualification of candidates for President 9581, prohibiting the suspension of any elected city
and Vice-President? officer, among others, during the election period for the
May 2013 elections.
Ruling: No. last paragraph of Article VII, Section 4
which provides that: “The Supreme Court, sitting en Issue: For fixing a longer election period for the 2013
banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating election, is COMELEC RES. No. 9851 valid?
to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its Ruling: Yes, it is valid. The Constitution provides that
rules for the purpose.” The tribunals which have unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in special
jurisdiction over the question of the qualifications of cases, the election period shall commence ninety days
the President, the Vice-President, Senators and the before the day of election and shall end thirty days
Members of the House of Representatives was thereafter. The import of this provision is repeated in the
made clear by the Constitution. There is no such Omnibus Election Code. The 120-day period is merely
provision for candidates for these positions. the default period.

Issue: Can the COMELEC, in the same cancellation of Congress has already defined the elements of
COC case, decide the qualification or lack thereof of the elections offenses, some of which may be committed
candidate? only during the election period. The power of the
COMELEC to fix the election period, only during which
Ruling: No. The issue before the COMELEC is certain offenses may be committed, does not change
whether or not the COC of petitioner should be what the offense is or how it is committed.
denied due course or cancelled "on the exclusive
ground" that she made in the certificate a false Baldoz vs COA
material representation. The exclusivity of the ground
should hedge in the discretion of the COMELEC Facts: Labrador was the former Chief of the POEA’s
and restrain it from going into the issue of the Employment Services Regulation Division (ESRD). On
qualifications of the candidate for the position, if, as May 2, 1997, then Labor Secretary Leonardo A.
in this case, such issue is yet undecided or Quisumbing (Quisumbing) ordered his dismissal from
undetermined by the proper authority. The service as he was found to have bribed a certain
COMELEC cannot itself, in the same cancellation Madoline Villapando, an overseas Filipino worker, in the
case, decide the qualification or lack thereof of the amount of ₱6,200.00 in order to expedite the issuance of
candidate. Provisions in Article IX-C, Section 2: her overseas employment certificate. Labrador’s
"Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall dismissal was affirmed on appeal by the Civil Service
exercise the following powers and functions". Not Commission (CSC) through CSC Resolution No. 03-
any one of the enumerated powers approximate the 0339 dated March 12, 2003,and his subsequent motion
exactitude of the provisions of Article VI, Section 17 for reconsideration was denied through CSC Resolution
of the same basic law or of the last paragraph of No. 040547 dated May 17, 2004.Aside from the
Article VII, Section 4. It is noteworthy that the foregoing administrative proceedings, a criminal case for
Constitution withholds from the COMELEC even the direct bribery was instituted against
power to decide cases involving the right to vote,
Labrador in view of the same infraction.
which essentially involves an inquiry into
Consequently, on August 31, 1999, the Sandiganbayan
qualifications based on age, residence and
(SB) promulgated a Decision,convicting him of the
citizenship of voters. [Art. IX, C, Section 2(3)].
aforementioned crime and thereby sentenced him to: (a)
Javier vs Comelec suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of
arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years of prision
Facts: COMELEC Resolution 9385 set the election correccional, as maximum; (b) pay a fine of ₱3,000.00;
period for the May 2013 elections from January 13, 2013 (c) suffer the penalty of temporary special
to June 12, 2013. An administrative complaint was filed disqualification from public office; and (d) pay costs.
against Mayor Roquero. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan Labrador’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a
Resolution dated November 17, 1999, prompting him to pertain to the government and should be audited by the
elevate the matter to the Court. COA.

Issue: Does the authority of COA to rule on the legality Paraiso-Aban vs COA
of the disbursement of government funds include the
authority to disallow its disbursement? Facts: During the 11th Congress (1998 to 2001), the
Senate's Committees on Accountability of Public Officers
Ruling: Yes. COA has the authority to disallow pursuant and Investigations and on National Defense and Security
to Section 11 (2), Chapter 4, Subtitle B, Title I, Book V of held various hearings to investigate the alleged
Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the anomalous acquisitions of land by the Armed Forces of
Administrative Code of 1987 “irregular, the Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits
unnecessary,excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable System (AFP-RSBS) in Calamba, Laguna and Tanauan,
expenditures or uses of government funds and Batangas. The Special Audit Team (SAT) found that in
properties”.it has been pronounced that the COA’s August 1996 the AFP-RSBS purchased from the
exercise of its general audit power is among the Concord Resources, Inc. four (4) parcels of land located
constitutional mechanisms that gives life to the check in Calamba, Laguna, but that the purchase was covered
and balance system inherent in our form of government. by two deeds of sale for different amounts; and, that the
sale which was registered with the Register of Deeds of
Funa vs MECO Calamba indicated a total price of P91,024,800.00 and
bore the signatures of both vendor and vendee, whereas
Facts: The MECO was organized on 16 December
the deeds of sale found in the records of the AFP-RSBS,
1997 as a non-stock, non-profit corporation under Batas
which was executed by Concord alone and which was
Pambansa Blg. 68 or the Corporation Code.
entered in the books of accounts of AFP-RSBS, showed
At present, it is the MECO that oversees the that the AFP-RSBS actually paid P341,343,000.00 for
rights and interests of Overseas Filipino Workers the lots, or a difference of P250,318,200.00.
(OFWs) in Taiwan; promotes the Philippines as a tourist
Issue: Is AFP-RSBS within the general audit power of
and investment destination for the Taiwanese; and
facilitates the travel of Filipinos and Taiwanese from
Taiwan to the Philippines, and vice versa. Ruling: Yes. The exercise by COA of its general audit
power is among the mechanisms of check and balance
On 23 August 2010, petitioner sent a letter to the
instituted under the 1987 Constitution on which our
COA requesting for a "copy of the latest financial and
democratic form of government is founded. Article IX-D,
audit report" of the MECO invoking, for that purpose, his
Section 2(1) of the Constitution provides that the COA
"constitutional right to information on matters of public
has "the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit,
concern." .
and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and
On 25 August 2010, Assistant Commissioner receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and
Naranjo issued a memorandum referring the petitioner’s property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the
request to COA Assistant Commissioner Emma M. Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
Espina for "further disposition." instrumentalities, including government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters." Thus,
Taking the 25 August 2010 memorandum as an COA is endowed with enough latitude to determine,
admission that the COA had never audited and prevent, and disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive,
examined the accounts of the MECO, the petitioner filed extravagant or unconscionable expenditures of
the instant petition for mandamus on 8 September 2010. government funds. It is tasked to be vigilant and
conscientious in safeguarding the proper use of the
Issue: Is MECO a governmental entity? If not, are its government's, and ultimately the people's, property.
accounts subject to the COA audit?
Ruling: No, the MECO is a non-governmental entity.
However, under existing laws, the accounts of the Pimentel vs Ochoa
MECO pertaining to the "verification fees" it collects on
behalf of the DOLE as well as the fees it was authorized Facts: The General Appropriations Act [GAA] of 2011,
to collect under Section 2(6) of EO No. 15, s. 2001, are which provides a P21 Billion budget allocation for the
subject to the audit jurisdiction of the COA. Such fees Conditional Cash Transfer Program (CCTP) headed by
the Department of Social Welfare & Development
(DSWD) was questioned on the ground that it amounts local government units may not provide such when it
to a “recentralization” of government functions that have amounts to a supplementary retirement benefit
already been devolved from the national government to scheme. With that, it has no power to create a
the local government units separate/supplementary retirement benefit plan.

Issue: Whether or not the P21 billion CCTP budget Villafuerte v Robredo
allocation under the DSWD violates local autonomy by
providing for the recentralization of the national Facts: On December 14, 1995, the DILG issued MC
government in the delivery of basic services already No. 95-216,enumerating the policies and guidelines on
devoted to the LGUs? the utilization of the development fund component of the
IRA. On September 20, 2005, then DILG Secretary
Ruling: No. The P21 billion CCTP budget allocation Angelo T. Reyes and Department of Budget and
formulated by the national government itself but Management Secretary Romulo L. Neri issued Joint MC
implemented in partnership with the local government No. 1, series of 2005, pertaining to the guidelines on the
units to achieve the common national goal development appropriation and utilization of the 20% of the IRA for
and social progress can by no means be an development projects, which aims to enhance
encroachment upon the autonomy of local governments. accountability of the LGUs in undertaking development
projects. The said memorandum circular underscored
Indeed, a complete relinquishment of central that the 20% of the IRA intended for development
government powers on the matter of providing basic projects should be utilized for social development,
facilities and services cannot be implied as the Local economic development and environmental
Government Code itself weighs against it. The national management.On August 31, 2010, the respondent, in his
government is, thus, not precluded from taking a direct capacity as DILG Secretary, issued the assailed MC No.
hand in the formulation and implementation of national 2010-83, entitled “Full Disclosure of Local Budget and
development programs especially where it is Finances, and Bids and Public Offerings,” which aims to
implemented locally in coordination with the LGUs promote good governance through enhanced
concerned. transparency and accountability of LGUs.

City of General Santos vs. COA Issue: Do the assailed DILG Memorandum Circulars
violate LGU’s Local Autonomy?
Facts: The mayor of General Santos City, Pedro B.
Acharon, Jr., issued Executive Order No. 40, series of Ruling: No. The assailed memorandum circulars do not
2008, creating management teams pursuant to its transgress the local and fiscal autonomy granted to
organization development program. In addition, among LGUs.The assailed issuances of the respondent, MC
others, Ordinance No. 08, series of 2009 was enacted Nos. 2010-83 and 2011-08, are but implementation of
on August 13, 2009 by the city of General Santos. It is this avowed policy of the State to make public officials
entitled An Ordinance Establishing the GenSan Scheme accountable to the people. They are amalgamations of
on Early Retirement for Valued Employees Security existing laws, rules and regulation designed to give teeth
(GenSan SERVES). to the constitutional mandate of transparency and
accountability.A scrutiny of the contents of the
Issue: Does the constitutional mandate for local
mentioned issuances shows that they do not, in any
autonomy grant local governments the power to
manner, violate the fiscal autonomy of LGUs. To be
streamline and reorganize as well as the authority to
clear, “Fiscal autonomy means that local governments
create a separate or supplementary retirement benefit
have the power to create their own sources of revenue in
addition to their equitable share in the national taxes
Ruling: Yes, it has the power to streamline and released by the national government, as well as the
reorganize its local bureaucracy, as inferred from power to allocate their resources in accordance with
Section 76 of the Local Government Code on their own priorities. It extends to the preparation of their
organizational structure and staffing pattern, and Section budgets, and local officials in turn have to work within
16 otherwise known as the general welfare clause. The the constraints thereof.”
law allows local government units the power to
Fernando vs. St. Escolastica College
reorganize in order to be able to deliver more effective
and efficient services. In doing so, they should be given Facts: Respondents St. Scholastica’s College (SSC)
leeway to entice their employees to avail of severance and St. Scholastica’s Academy-Marikina, Inc. (SSA-
benefits that the local government can afford. However, Marikina) are educational institutions organized under
the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with principal Development/ Overlay Zone. On May 14, 2009, during
offices and business addresses at Leon Guinto Street, the incumbency of Mayor Alfredo Lim, the Sangguniang
Malate, Manila, and at West Drive, Marikina Heights, Panlungsod enacted Ordinance No. 8187 appended to
Marikina City, respectively. the list a Medium and a Heavy Industrial Zone where
petroleum refineries and oil depots are expressly
Respondent SSC is the owner of four (4) parcels allowed.
of land measuring a total of 56,306.80 square meters,
located in Marikina Heights and covered by Transfer Issue: Is amendatory Manila Ordinance No. 8187, which
Certificate Title (TCT) No. 91537. Located within the would allow the continued stay of oil depots in
property are SSA-Marikina, the residence of the sisters Pandacan, valid and constitutional?
of the Benedictine Order, the formation house of the
novices, and the retirement house for the elderly sisters. Ruling: No. In striking down the contrary provisions of
The property is enclosed by a tall concrete perimeter the assailed Ordinance relative to the continued stay of
fence built some thirty (30) years ago. Abutting the fence the oil depots, the SC followed the same line of
along the West Drive are buildings, facilities, and other reasoning used in its 7 March 2007 decision, to wit:
“Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted for the purpose of
The petitioners are the officials of the City promoting a sound urban planning, ensuring health,
Government of Marikina. On September 30, 1994, the public safety and general welfare of the residents of
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Marikina City enacted Manila. The Sanggunian was impelled to take measures
Ordinance No. 192, entitled "Regulating the Construction to protect the residents of Manila from catastrophic
of Fences and Walls in the Municipality of Marikina." devastation in case of a terrorist attack on the Pandacan
Terminals. Towards this objective, the Sanggunian
Issue: Is Marikina City Ordinance No. 192, insofar as reclassified the area defined in the ordinance from
imposing a five-meter setback, a valid exercise of police industrial to commercial.”
The following facts were found by the
Ruling: No. Regarding the beautification purpose of the Committee on Housing, Resettlement and Urban
setback requirement, it has long been settled that the Development of the City of Manila which recommended
State may not, under the guise of police power, the approval of the ordinance: The depot facilities
permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their contained 313.5 million liters of highly flammable and
property solely to preserve or enhance the aesthetic highly volatile products which include petroleum gas,
appearance of the community. The Court, thus, finds liquefied petroleum gas, aviation fuel, diesel, gasoline,
Section 5 to be unreasonable and oppressive as it will kerosene and fuel oil among others; The depot is open
substantially divest the respondents of the beneficial use to attack through land, water and air; It is situated in a
of their property solely for aesthetic purposes. densely populated place and near Malacañang Palace;
Accordingly, Section 5 of Ordinance No. 192 is invalid. and In case of an explosion or conflagration in the depot,
the fire could spread to the neighboring communities.
SJS vs. Lim
Aquino vs Municipality of Malay
Facts: Ordinance No. 8027, approved by Manila City
Council on November 28, 2001 and effective December Facts: Petitioner is the President and CEO of Boracay
28, 2001, reclassifies portions of Pandacan and Sta. Ana Island West Cove Management Philippines, Inc. On
from industrial to commercial and directs the owners and January 7, 2010, the company applied for a zoning
operators of businesses to cease and desist from compliance with the municipal government of Malay,
operating their businesses within 6 months from the Aklan. While the company was already operating a
ordinance’s effectivity. Among the businesses in the resort in the area, the application sought the issuance of
area are the so-called Pandacan Terminals of Chevron, a building permit covering the construction of a 3-storey
Petron and Shell. Chevron, Petron and Shell questioned hotel over a parcel of land measuring 998 sqm. located
the validity of said ordinance. They argued that they are in Sitio Diniwid, Barangay Balagab, Boracay Island,
fighting for their right to property alleging that they stand Malay, Aklan. However, the Municipal Zoning
to lose. On June 16, 2006, Mayor Jose Atienza Administrator denied petitioner’s application on the
Jr. approved Ordinance No. 8119 entitled “An ground that the proposed construction site was within
Ordinance Adopting the Manila Comprehensive Land the “no build zone”.
Use Plan and Zoning Regulations of 2006.” This
designates Pandacan oil depot as a Planned Unit
On March 28, 2011, a Cease and Desist Order to other mining applicants; thus, AMTC’s Application for
was issued by the municipal government, enjoining the Exploration Permit was valid. Moreover, the DENR
expansion of the resort, and on June 7, 2011, the Office Secretary held that the questioned Small-Scale Mining
of the Mayor of Malay, Aklan issued the assailed EO 10, Permits were issued in violation of Section 4 of R.A. No.
ordering the closure and demolition of Boracay West 7076 and beyond the authority of the Provincial
Cove’s hotel. Governor pursuant to Section 43 of R.A. No. 7942,
because the area was never proclaimed to be under the
Issue: Do LGUs have the power to establish “no-build- People's Small-Scale Mining Program. Further, the
zones” and to demolish structures which are nuisance DENR Secretary stated that iron ore mineral is not
per se and per accidens? considered among the quarry resources.
Ruling: Yes, LGUs can establish “no build zones”. Issue: Did the act of respondent [DENR] in cancelling
These zones are intended for the protection of the public the small-scale mining permits amount to executive
because the stability of the ground’s foundation is control, not merely supervision, and usurpation of the
adversely affected by the nearby body of water. The devolved powers of provinces?
ever present threat of high rising storm surges also
justifies the ban on permanent constructions near the Ruling: No, it should be pointed out that the
shoreline. Administrative Code of 1987 provides that the DENR is,
subject to law and higher authority, in charge of carrying
However, with regard to demolishing structures out the State's constitutional mandate, under Section 2,
which are nuisance per se and per accidens, Article XII of the Constitution, to control and supervise
generally, LGUs have no power to declare a particular the exploration, development, utilization and
thing as a nuisance unless such a thing is a nuisance conservation of the country's natural resources. Hence,
per se. Despite the hotel’s classification as a nuisance the enforcement of small-scale mining law in the
per accidens, however, the court still finds that the LGU provinces is made subject to the supervision, control and
may nevertheless properly order the hotel’s demolition. review of the DENR under the Local Government Code
In the exercise of police power and the general welfare of 1991, while the People’s Small-Scale Mining Act of
clause, property rights of individuals may be subjected to 1991 provides that the People’s Small-Scale Mining
restraints and burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of Program is to be implemented by the DENR Secretary in
the government. Otherwise stated, the government may coordination with other concerned local government
enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty, agencies.
property, lawful businesses and occupations to promote
the general welfare. NPC vs Cabanatuan City

League of Provinces vs DENR Facts: The City of Cabanatuan (the City) assessed the
National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) a franchise tax
Facts: On August 8, 2006, respondent DENR Secretary amounting to P808,606.41, representing 75% of 1% of
rendered a Decision in favor of AMTC. The DENR its gross receipts for 1992. NAPOCOR refused to pay,
Secretary agreed with MGB Director Horacio C. Ramos arguing that it is exempt from paying the franchise tax.
that the area was open to mining location only on August Consequently, on November 9, 1993, the City filed a
11, 2004, fifteen (15) days after the receipt by Golden complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan
Falcon on July 27, 2004 of a copy of the MGB-Central City, demanding NAPOCOR to pay the assessed tax
Office's Order dated July 16, 2004, which Order denied due plus 25% surcharge and interest of 2% per month of
Golden Falcon's appeal. According to the DENR the unpaid tax, and costs of suit.
Secretary, the filing by Golden Falcon of the letter-
appeal suspended the finality of the Order of denial In the order dated January 25, 1996, the trial
issued on April 29, 1998 by the Regional Director until court declared that the City could not impose a franchise
the resolution of the appeal on July 16, 2004 by the tax on NAPOCOR and accordingly dismissed the
MGB-Central Office. He stated that the Applications for complaint for lack of merit. In the March 12, 2001
Quarry Permit were filed on February 10, 2004 when the decision of the Court of Appeals (Eighth Division) in CA-
area was still closed to mining location; hence, the G.R. CV No. 53297, the appellate court reversed the trial
Small-Scale Mining Permits granted by the PMRB and court and found NAPOCOR liable to pay franchise tax
the Governor were null and void. On the other hand, the
DENR Secretary declared that AMTC filed its Application Issue: Can local governments impose interest and
for Exploration Permit when the area was already open surcharges of taxes due?
Ruling: YES. Pursuant to sec.168 of R.A 7160 of the Issue: Is Sec. 21(B) of Manila City Ordinance No. 7794,
local government code “The sanggunian may impose a aka Manila Revenue Code, as amended, insofar as it
surcharge not exceeding twenty-five (25%) of the imposes business tax on businesses already assessed
amount of taxes, fees or charges not paid on time and with percentage taxes, valid and constitutional?
an interest at the rate not exceeding two percent (2%)
per month of the unpaid taxes, fees or charges including Ruling: The Court rules in favor of MAS; Maersk, et al.;
surcharges, until such amount is fully paid but in no case Eastern Shipping; William Lines, et al.; PSTC; OFSI;
shall the total interest on the unpaid amount or portion Cosco, et al.; Sulpicio Lines; AISL; and Dongnama and
thereof exceed thirty-six (36) months” Kyowa. Section 21(B) of the Manila Revenue Code, as
amended, was null and void for being beyond the power
Issue: Did the city of cabanatuan impose the correct of the City of Manila and its public officials to enact,
surcharge? approve, and implement under the LGC.

Ruling: NO.Respondent's computation of the surcharge In the case at bar, the sanggunian of the
is oppressive and unconscionable. The yearly accrual of municipality or city cannot enact an ordinance imposing
the 25% surcharge is unconscionable. Respondent's business tax on the gross receipts of transportation
yearly imposition of the 25% surcharge, which was contractors, persons engaged in the transportation of
sustained by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, passengers or freight by hire, and common carriers by
resulted in an aggregate penalty that is way higher than air, land, or water, when said sanggunian was already
petitioner's basic tax liabilities. specifically prohibited from doing so. Any exception to
the express prohibition under Section 133(j) of the LGC
Furthermore, it effectively exceeded the should be just as specific and unambiguous. Second,
prescribed 72% ceiling for interest under Section 168 of the construction adopted by the Court gives effect to
the Local Government Code. The law allows the local both Sections 133(j) and 143(h) of the LGC. In
government to collect an interest at the rate not construing a law, care should be taken that every part
exceeding 2% per month of the unpaid taxes, fees, or thereof be given effect and a construction that could
charges including surcharges, until such amount is fully render a provision inoperative should be avoided, and
paid. However, the law provides that the total interest on inconsistent provisions should be reconciled whenever
the unpaid amount or portion thereof should not exceed possible as parts of a harmonious whole.
thirty-six (36) months or three (3) years. In other words,
respondent cannot collect a total interest on the unpaid FDCP vs. Colon Heritage
tax including surcharge that is effectively higher than
72%. Here, respondent applied the 25% cumulative Facts: On June 7, 2002, Congress passed RA
surcharge for more than three years. Its computation 9167, creating the Film Development Council of the
undoubtedly exceeded the 72% ceiling imposed under Philippines (FDCP) and abolishing the Film
Section 168 of the Local Government Code. Hence, Development Foundation of the Philippines, Inc. and the
respondent's computation of the surcharge is oppressive Film Rating Board. According to petitioner, from the time
and unconscionable. RA 9167 took effect up to the present, all the cities and
municipalities in Metro Manila, as well as urbanized and
Lim v Colet independent component cities, with the sole exception of
Cebu City, have complied with the mandate of said law.
Facts: The Manila Revenue Code was enacted on June
22, 1993 by the City Council of Manila and approved on Issue: Are Sections 13 and 14 of RA 9167
June 29, 1993 by then Manila Mayor Alfredo S. Lim unconstitutional for violating local fiscal autonomy?
(Lim). Shortly thereafter, Ordinance No. 7807 was
enacted by the City Council of Manila on September 27, Ruling: YES. The court held that Secs. 13 and 14 of RA
1993 and approved by Mayor Lim on September 29, 9167 are contrary to the basic policy in local autonomy
1993, already amending several provisions of the Manila that all taxes, fees, and charges imposed by the LGUs
Revenue Code. Section 21 of the Manila Revenue Code, shall accrue exclusively to them, as articulated in Article
as amended, imposed a lower tax rate on the X, Sec. 5 of the 1987 Constitution. This edict, according
businesses that fell under it. The City of Manila, through to the court, is a limitation upon the rule-making power of
its City Treasurer, began imposing and collecting the Congress when it provides guidelines and limitations on
business tax under Section 21(B) of the Manila Revenue the local government unit’s (LGU’s) power of taxation.
Code, as amended, beginning January 1994. Therefore, when Congress passed this “limitation,” it
went beyond its legislative authority, rendering the
questioned provisions unconstitutional.
MCIAA vs CITY OF LAPU-LAPU Ruling: Ordinance No. SP-2095, S-2011 is valid and
constitutional, since it is a tax which is within its power to
Facts: Petitioner Mactan-Cebu International Airport impose. It is also consistent with Section 43 of Republic
Authority (MCIAA) was created by Congress on July 31, Act No. 7279. On the other hand, Ordinance No. SP-
1990 under Republic Act No. 6958 to "undertake the 2235, S-2013 is invalid and unconstitutional, since the
economical, efficient and effective control, management authority of a municipality or city to impose fees is limited
and supervision of the Mactan International Airport in the to the collection and transport of non-recyclable and
Province of Cebu and the Lahug Airport in Cebu City x x special wastes and for the disposal of these into the
x and such other airports as may be established in the sanitary landfill.
Province of Cebu." Upon its creation, petitioner enjoyed
exemption from realty taxes under the following Alta Vista Golf and Country Club v. Cebu City
provision of Republic Act No. 6958:
Facts: On June 21, 1993, the Sangguniang Panlungsod
Section 14. Tax Exemptions.– The Authority of Cebu City enacted City Tax: Ordinance No. LXIX,
shall be exempt from realty taxes imposed by the otherwise known as the "Revised Omnibus Tax:
National Government or any of its political subdivisions, Ordinance of the City of Cebu" (Revised Omnibus Tax:
agencies and instrumentalities: Provided, That no tax Ordinance). Section 42 of the said tax ordinance on
exemption herein granted shall extend to any subsidiary amusement tax was amended by City Tax Ordinance
which may be organized by the Authority. Nos. LXXXII and LXXXIV (which were enacted by the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City on December 2,
On September 11, 1996, however, this Court 1996 and April 20, 1998.
rendered a decision in Mactan-Cebu International Airport
Authority v. Marcos (the 1996 MCIAA case) declaring Issue: Is Section 42 of the Revised Omnibus Tax
that upon the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7160 (The Ordinance, as amended, imposing amusement tax on
Local Government Code of 1991), petitioner was no golf courses within the authority of Cebu City to enact
longer exempt from real estate taxes. under the Local Government Code?

Issue: Whether or not can the City of Lapu-Lapu tax Ruling: No. A local government unit may exercise its
MCIAA? residual power to tax when there is neither a grant nor a
prohibition by statute; or when such taxes, fees, or
Ruling: No. MCIAA is an instrumentality of the charges are not otherwise specifically enumerated in the
government. Its properties actually is exclusively used Local Government Code, National Internal Revenue
for public purpose, consisting of the airport terminal Code, as amended, or other applicable laws. In the
building, airfield, runway, taxiway and the lots on which present case, Section 140, in relation to Section 131 (c),
they are situated, are not subject to real property tax. of the Local Government Code already explicitly and
clearly cover amusement tax and respondent Cebu City
Ferrer vs Bautista
must exercise its authority to impose amusement tax
Facts: Two Quezon City ordinances—Ordinance No. within the limitations and guidelines as set forth in said
SP-2095, S-2011 or the Socialized Housing Tax of statutory provisions. With that, section 42 of the Revised
Quezon City and Ordinance No. SP-2235, S-2013 on Omnibus Tax Ordinance, as amended, imposing
Garbage Collection Fees—were questioned by the amusement tax on golf courses is beyond the authority
petitioner as unconstitutional. The petitioner filed for a of respondent Cebu City to enact under the Local
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with prayer Government Code. The Court held section 42 to be null
for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and void.
seeking to declare unconstitutional and illegal Ordinance
Abundo vs Comelec
Nos. SP-2095, S-2011 and SP-2235, S-2013 on the
Socialized Housing Tax and Garbage Fee, respectively, Facts: For four (4) successive regular elections, Abundo
which are being imposed by the respondents. vied for the position of municipal mayor of Viga,
Catanduanes. In both the 2001 and 2007 runs, he
Issue: Are Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-2095, S-2011
emerged and was proclaimed as the winning mayoral
and Ordinance No. SP-2235, S-2013 on the Socialized
candidate and accordingly served the corresponding
Housing Tax and Garbage Fee valid and
terms as mayor. In the 2004 electoral derby, however,
the Viga municipal board of canvassers initially
proclaimed as winner one Jose Torres (Torres), who, in
due time, performed the functions of the office of mayor.
Abundo protested Torres’ election and proclamation. all the qualified registered voters of Nueva Ecija should
Abundo was eventually declared the winner of the 2004 then be allowed to participate in the plebiscite called for
mayoralty electoral contest, paving the way for his that purpose. Respondents’ apprehension that requiring
assumption of office starting May 9, 2006 until the end of the entire province to participate in the plebiscite will set
the 2004-2007 term on June 30, 2007, or for a period of a dangerous precedent leading to the failure of cities to
a little over one year and one month. convert is unfounded. Their fear that provinces will
always be expected to oppose the conversion in order to
Issue: Is the service of a term less than the full three retain the city’s dependence is speculative at best. In
years by Mayor Abundo, in view of an election protest, any event, any vote of disapproval cast by those directly
considered as full service of the term for purposes of the affected by the conversion is a valid exercise of their
application of the three consecutive term limit for elective right to suffrage, and our democratic processes are
local officials? designed to uphold the decision of the majority,
regardless of the motive behind the vote. It is
Ruling: NO. The almost two-year period during which
unfathomable how the province can be deprived of the
Abundo’s opponent actually served as Mayor is and
opportunity to exercise the right of suffrage in a matter
ought to be considered an involuntary interruption of
that is potentially deleterious to its economic viability and
Abundo’s continuity of service. An involuntary interrupted
could diminish the rights of its constituents. To limit the
term, cannot, in the context of the disqualification rule,
plebiscite to only the voters of the areas to be partitioned
be considered as one term for purposes of counting the
and seceded from the province is as absurd and illogical
three-term threshold.
as allowing only the secessionists to vote for the
Abundo vs COMELEC secession that they demanded against the wishes of the
majority and to nullify the basic principle of majority rule.
Issue: Under what instances are the consecutive terms
not involuntary broken or interrupted? ARTICLE XI. ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC
Ruling: (1) Assumption of Office by Operation of Law,
(2) Recall Election, (3) Conversion of a Municipality into Gutierrez vs. House Com of Justice
a City, (4) Period of Preventive Suspension, (5) Election
Facts: On July 22, 2010, private respondents (Baraquel
group) filed an impeachment complaint against petitioner
Umali vs. COMELEC upon the endorsement of Party-List
Representatives. On August 3, 2010, another
Facts: On July 11, 2011, the Sangguniang Panlungsod impeachment complaint was filed against petitioner by
of Cabanatuan City passed Resolution No. 183-2011, private respondents (Reyes group), with a resolution of
requesting the President to declare the conversion of endorsement by Party-List Representatives. After
Cabanatuan City from a component city of the province hearing, the public respondent, by Resolution of
of Nueva Ecija into a highly urbanized city (HUC). September 7, 2010, found the two complaints, which
Acceding to the request, the President issued both allege culpable violation of the Constitution and
Presidential Proclamation No. 418, Series of 2012, betrayal of public trust, were sufficient in substance. The
proclaiming the City of Cabanatuan as an HUC subject petitioner was served also on September 7, 2010 a
to "ratification in a plebiscite by the qualified voters notice directing her to file an answer to the complaints
therein, as provided for in Section 453 of the Local within 10 days. On September 13, 2010, petitioner filed
Government Code of 1991." with this Court the present petition with application for
injunctive reliefs. The petitioner basically anchors her
Issue: In the plebiscite for the proposed conversion of claim on alleged violation, among others, on the one-
Cabanatuan City to a highly urbanized city, who are year bar provision (Art. XI, Sec 3, par. 5) of the
qualified to cast their votes: the registered voters of Constitution and reckons the start of the one-year bar
Cabanatuan City only or the registered voters of Nueva from the filing of the first impeachment complaint against
Ecija? her.

Ruling: In view of these changes in the economic and Issue: Should the impeachment against Gutierrez be
political rights of the province of Nueva Ecija and its considered a prohibited second impeachment
residents, the entire province certainly stands to be proceedings initiated within one-year?
directly affected by the conversion of Cabanatuan City
into an HUC. Following the doctrines in Tan and Padilla,
Ruling: No. Article XI, Section 3, paragraph (5) of the documents, to be secured from both private and public
Constitution states that “No impeachment proceedings offices. The list of proposed witnesses included Justices
shall be initiated against the same official more than of the Supreme Court, and Court officials and employees
once within a period of one year.” Following the who will testify on matters, many of which are internal to
Francisco ruling, the term initiate means to file the the Court.
complaint and take initial action on it. The initiation
starts with the filing of the complaint which must be Issue: Can an impeachment court compel by
accompanied with an action to set the complaint compulsory process SC Justices, officials and
moving. The proceeding is initiated or begins when a employees to testify on matters pertaining to their
verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee adjudicatory functions?
on Justice for action. This is the initiating step which
Ruling: No. Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec 24 states that
triggers the series of steps that follow. In the case at
public officials are disqualified from testifying on
hand, contrary to petitioner’s emphasis on impeachment
information they acquire in confidence in the course of
complaint, what the Constitution mentions is
their duties. The Members of the Court may not be
impeachment proceedings. Referring the complaint to
compelled to testify in the impeachment proceedings
the proper committee ignites the impeachment
against the Chief Justice or other Members of the Court
about information they acquired in the performance of
With a simultaneous referral of multiple their official function of adjudication. In addition,
complaints filed, more than one lighted matchsticks light jurisprudence (in Senate of the Ph vs. Exec. Sec.
the candle at the same time. What is important is that Ermita) implies that justices and judges may not be
there should only be ONE CANDLE that is kindled in a subject to any compulsory process in relation to the
year, such that once the candle starts burning, performance of their adjudicatory functions.
subsequent matchsticks can no longer rekindle the
Issue: Can court records and information be
subpoenaed and divulged before an impeachment
Issue: Should an impeachment complaint only allege proceeding?
one impeachable offense under the “one offense, one
Ruling: NO. Court records which are “predecisional” and
complaint” rule of the Rules on Criminal Procedure?
“deliberative” in nature are thus protected and cannot be
Ruling: NO. Without going into the effectiveness of the the subject of a subpoena if judicial privilege is to be
suppletory application of the Rules on Criminal preserved. The privilege in general insulates the
Procedure in carrying out the relevant constitutional Judiciary from an improper intrusion into the functions of
provisions, which prerogative the Constitution vests on the judicial branch and shields justices, judges, and
Congress, and without delving into the practicability of court officials and employees from public scrutiny or the
the application of the one offense per complaint rule, the pressure of public opinion that would impair a judge’s
initial determination of which must be made by the ability to render impartial decisions. The deliberative
House which has yet to pass upon the question, the process can be impaired by undue exposure of the
Court finds that petitioner’s invocation of that particular decision-making process to public scrutiny before or
rule of Criminal Procedure does not lie. Suffice it to state even after the decision is made.
that the Constitution allows the indictment for multiple
Additionally, two other grounds may be cited for
impeachment offenses, with each charge representing
denying access to court records, as well as preventing
an article of impeachment, assembled in one set known
members of the bench, from being subjected to
as the "Articles of Impeachment." It, therefore, follows
compulsory process: (1) the disqualification by reason of
that an impeachment complaint need not allege only one
privileged communication and (2) the pendency of an
impeachable offense.
action or matter.
In Re: Production of Court Records and Documents and
Duncano vs. Sandiganbayan
the Attendance as Witnesses for the Impeachment
Prosecution Panel Facts: Petitioner Danilo A. Duncano is, at the time
material to the case, the Regional Director of the Bureau
Facts: During the impeachment proceedings against
of Internal Revenue (BIR) with Salary Grade 26 as
Chief Justice Corona, the Prosecution Panel manifested
classified under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6758. On March
in a COMPLIANCE dated January 27, 2012 that it would
24, 2009, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP),
present about 100 witnesses and almost a thousand
Office of the Ombudsman, filed a criminal case against
him for violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 11 of petitioner is a Regional Director of the BIR, his position
R.A. No. 6713, allegedly committed as follows: That on is classified as Director II with Salary Grade 26.
or about April 15, 2003, or sometime prior or subsequent
thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the Arroyo vs. People
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused DANILO
Issue: Considering Sec. 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of
DUNCANO y ACIDO, a high ranking public officer, being
Court, can the Supreme Court review on certiorari the
the Regional Director of Revenue Region No. 7, of the
Sandiganbayan Order denying accused’s Demurrer to
Bureau of Internal Revenue, Quezon City, and as such
is under an obligation to accomplish and submit
declarations under oath of his assets, liabilities and net Ruling: Yes, since the Sandiganbayan gravely abused
worth and financial and business interests, did then and its discretion in denying GMA’s demurrer to evidence.
there, wilfully, unlawfully and criminally fail to disclose in The exercise of the Court’s power to correct grave abuse
his Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities and of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
Networth (SALN) for the year 2002, his financial and on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
business interests/connection in Documail Provides Government cannot be thwarted by rules of procedure to
Corporation and Don Plus Trading of which he and his the contrary or for the sake of the convenience of one
family are the registered owners thereof, and the 1993 side. This is because the Court has the bounden
Nissan Patrol motor vehicle registered in the name of his constitutional duty to strike down grave abuse of
son VINCENT LOUIS P. DUNCANO which are part of discretion whenever and wherever it is committed.
his assets, to the damage and prejudice of public
interest. Prior to his arraignment, petitioner filed a Motion Gonzales vs. Office of the President
to Dismiss With Prayer to Defer the Issuance of Warrant
of Arrest before respondent Sandiganbayan Second Issue: Does the Ombudsman have the power to
Division. As the OSP alleged, he admitted that he is a discipline and remove his deputies and the Special
Regional Director with Salary Grade 26. Citing Inding v. Prosecutor?
Sandiganbayan and Serana v. Sandiganbayan, et al.,
Ruling: Yes. The power to discipline or remove an
he asserted that under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
official of the Office of the Ombudsman should be lodged
1606, as amended by Section 4 (A) (1) of R.A No. 8249,
only with the Ombudsman and not with the Office of the
the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction to try and hear
President, in light of the independence the Constitution
the case because he is an official of the executive
guarantees the Office of the Ombudsman.
branch occupying the position of a Regional Director but
with a compensation that is classified as below Salary The Office of the Ombudsman is a very powerful
Grade 27. government constitutional agency tasked to enforce the
accountability of public officers. Section 21 of The
Issue: Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over
Ombudsman Act of 1989 (RA No. 6770) concretizes this
Duncano who is a BIR Regional Director with Salary
constitutional mandate by providing that:
Grade 26?
Section 21. Officials Subject to Disciplinary
Ruling: NO. The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction
Authority; Exceptions. - The Office of the Ombudsman
over violations of Section 3(a) and (e), Republic Act No.
shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and
3019, as amended, unless committed by public officials
appointive officials of the Government and its
and employees occupying positions of regional director
subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including
and higher with Salary Grade "27" or higher, under the
Members of the Cabinet, local government, government-
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989
owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries,
(Republic Act No. 6758) in relation to their office. In
except over officials who may be removed only by
ruling in favor of its jurisdiction, even though petitioner
impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the
admittedly occupied the position of Director II with Salary
Grade "26" under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), the The Ombudsman's duty to protect the people
Sandiganbayan incurred in serious error of jurisdiction, from unjust, illegal and inefficient acts of all public
and acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to officials emanates from Section 12, Article XI of the
lack of jurisdiction in suspending petitioner from office, Constitution. These broad powers include all acts of
entitling petitioner to the reliefs prayed for. In the same malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance of all
way, a certification issued by the OIC – Assistant Chief,
Personnel Division of the BIR shows that, although
public officials, including Members of the Cabinet and Facts: On 28 March 2014, the Ombudsman issued in
key Executive officers, during their tenure. OMB-C-C-13-0313 and OMB-C-C-13-0397 a Joint
Resolution which found probable cause to indict Sen.
To support these broad powers, the Constitution Estrada and his co-respondents with one count of
saw it fit to insulate the Office of the Ombudsman from plunder and 11 counts of violation of Section 3(e) of RA
the pressures and influence of officialdom and partisan No. 3019. Sen. Estrada filed a Motion for
politics and from fear of external reprisal by making it an Reconsideration (of the Joint Resolution dated 28 March
"independent" office. 2014) dated 7 April 2014. Sen. Estrada prayed for the
issuance of a new resolution dismissing the charges
Ombudsman vs. Valencerina
against him. Without filing a Motion for Reconsideration
Facts: Sometime in October 1997, Ecobel Land, Inc. of the Ombudsman’s 27 March 2014 Order denying his
(Ecobel) through its Chairman, Josephine Boright Request, Sen. Estrada filed the present Petition for
(Boright), applied for a medium-term loan financial Certiorari under Rule 65 and sought to annul and set
facility with the Government Service Insurance System aside the 27 March 2014 Order.
(GSIS) Investment Management Group (or Finance
Group) to finance the construction of its condominium
project in Ermita, Manila (project). In a Memorandum
dated January 27, 1998, respondent Alex M.
Valencerina (Valencerina), then Vice-President for
Marketing and Support Services of the GSIS General Ruling: NO. Ang Tibay, as amplified in GSIS, should
Insurance Group (GIG), submitted Ecobel’s Guarantee apply to preliminary investigations will mean that all past
Payment Bond application for evaluation and and present preliminary investigations are in gross
endorsement of the GSIS Investment Committee violation of constitutional due process. Moreover, a
(INCOM). Consequently, Valencerina, in the letters person under preliminary investigation, as Sen. Estrada
dated February 12 and 24, 1999, informed Boright that is in the present case when he filed his Request, is not
the subject bond was "invalid and unenforceable" and yet an accused person, and hence cannot demand the
that Ecobel’s check payment was disregarded by the full exercise of the rights of an accused person:
GSIS. In view of the foregoing events, the GSIS
conducted an investigation on the circumstances A finding of probable cause needs only to rest
surrounding the processing and issuance of the subject on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime
bond and forwarded its report to the Fact-Finding and has been committed and was committed by the
Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) of the Office of the suspects. Probable cause need not be based on clear
Ombudsman (OMB), which then conducted its own fact- and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence
finding investigation. establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and
definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute
Issue: As between Sec. 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman certainty of guilt. As well put in Brinegar v. United States,
Rule of Procedure and Sec. 12, Rule 43 of the Rules of while probable cause demands more than "bare
Court --- on the effect of appeal from the decision of the suspicion," it requires "less than evidence which would
OMB in administrative cases, which shall prevail? justify . . . conviction." A finding of probable cause
merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a
Ruling: Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of
pronouncement of guilt.
the Office of the Ombudsman supersedes the discretion
given to the CA in Section 12, Rule 43 of the Rules of Carpio-Morales vs. Binay
Court when a decision of the Ombudsman in an
administrative case is appealed to the CA. The provision Facts: On July 22, 2014, a complaint/affidavit was filed
in the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the by Atty. Renato L. Bondal and Nicolas "Ching" Enciso VI
Ombudsman that a decision is immediately executory is before the Office of the Ombudsman against Binay, Jr.
a special rule that prevails over the provisions of the and other public officers and employees of the City
Rules of Court. Specialis derogat generali. When two Government of Makati (Binay, Jr., et al), accusing them
rules apply to a particular case, that which was specially of Plunder and violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019,
designed for the said case must prevail over the other. otherwise known as "The Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act," in connection with the five (5) phases of
Estrada vs Ombudsman the procurement and construction of the Makati City Hall
Parking Building (Makati Parking Building).
Inc. Accordingly, the Ombudsman issued an Order dated
December 7, 2009 directing Capulong to file a counter-
Issue: Are the first and second paragraphs of Sec. 14 of affidavit.
RA No. 6770, valid and constitutional?
Issue: Did Capulong’s non-disclosure of his wife’s
Ruling: The second paragraph of Section 14 of business interest in his SALN constitute serious
Republic Act No. 6770 is declared dishonesty or grave misconduct?
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, while the policy against the
issuance of provisional injunctive writs by courts other Ruling: No. Capulong’s non-disclosure of his wife’s
than the Supreme Court to enjoin an investigation business interest does not constitute serious dishonesty
conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman under the or grave misconduct. Nothing in the records reveals that
first paragraph of the said provision is DECLARED Capulong deliberately placed "N/A" in his SALN despite
ineffective until the Court adopts the same as part of the knowledge about his wife’s business interest. As
rules of procedure through an administrative circular duly explained by Capulong, the SEC already revoked the
issued therefor; registration of the corporations where his wife was an
incorporator; hence, he deemed it not necessary to
Republic vs. Cojuangco indicate it in his SALN.
Issue: May the Prosecution of offenses arising from, ARTICLE XII. NATIONAL ECONOMY AND
relating or incident to, or involving ill-gotten wealth PATRIMONY
contemplated in Sec. 15, Article XI of the 1987
Constitution be barred by prescription? Dizon Copper vs. Dr. Dizon

Ruling: As to the main issue, petitioner maintains that, Facts: On 13 November 1935, Celestino M. Dizon
although the charge against respondents was for (Celestino) filed with the Office of the Mining Recorder,
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, its Declarations of Location over 57 mining claims in San
prosecution relates to its efforts to recover the ill-gotten Marcelino, Zambales. In 1966, herein petitioner Dizon
wealth of former President Ferdinand Marcos and of his Copper-Silver Mines, Inc. was organized. Among its
family and cronies. Section 15, Article XI of the 1987 incorporators were Celestino and his son, respondent
Constitution provides that the right of the State to Dr. Luis D. Dizon. On 27 January 1967, Celestino, for
recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials himself and as attorney-in-fact of the other registered
or employees is not barred by prescription, laches, or claim-owners, assigned their 57 mining claims to
estoppel. petitioner. On 6 September 1975, petitioner entered into
an Operating Agreement with Benguet Corporation
Ombudsman vs. Capulong (Benguet). In such agreement, petitioner authorized
Benguet to, among others, "explore, equip, develop and
Facts: The case arose from the Complaint-Affidavit for
operate" the 57 mining claims. On 4 July 1991, Benguet
violation of Section 8 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713,
filed an MPSA application with the DENR. The
Perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code,
application, designated as MPSA-P-III-16, seeks to
and serious dishonesty and grave misconduct under the
place all existing mining claims and interests then
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
operated by Benguet under production sharing
Service filed on July 27, 2009, before the Ombudsman,
agreements in line with Executive Order No. 279 of 25
docketed as OMB-C-C-09-0560-J (LSC) and OMB-C-A-
July 1987.
09-0570-J (LSC), by Joselito P. Fangon, Acting Director
of the General Investigation Bureau of the Ombudsman, Issue: What is a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement
against respondent Jose T. Capulong (Capulong), (MPSA)? Is it violative of Sec. 2, par. 2, Article XII of the
Customs Operation Officer V of the Bureau of Customs Constitution?
Ruling: An MPSA is one of the mineral agreements
These charges were based on two particular innovated by the 1987 Constitution by which the State
acts: first, for failure to file the required Statements of takes on a broader and more dynamic role in the
Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for calendar exploration, development and utilization of the country’s
years 1987, 1990, 1991, 1993 and 1998; and second, for mineral resources. By such agreements, the government
failure to disclose in his SALNs for calendar years 1999 does not become a mere licensor, concessor or lessor of
to 2004 his wife’s business interest in two corporations, mining resources—but actually assumes "full control and
namely, SYJ Realty Corporation and Radsy Production, supervision" in the exploration, development and
utilization of the concerned mining claims in consonance Issue: Can dry river beds be acquired by acquisitive
with Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. Therefore, prescription?
it is not violative of Sec. 2, par. 2, Article XII of the
Constitution. Ruling: NO. Subject to the exceptions defined in Article
461 of the Civil Code (which declares river beds that are
IDEALS vs. PSALM abandoned through the natural change in the course of
the waters as ipso facto belonging to the owners of the
Facts: Respondent PSALM is a government-owned and land occupied by the new course, and which gives to the
controlled corporation created by virtue of Republic Act owners of the adjoining lots the right to acquire only the
No. 9136,otherwise known as the "Electric Power abandoned river beds not ipso facto belonging to the
Industry Reform Act of 2001" (EPIRA). Sometime in owners of the land affected by the natural change of
August 2005, PSALM commenced the privatization of course of the waters only after paying their value), all
the 246-megawatt (MW) AHEPP located in San Lorenzo, river beds remain property of public dominion and
Norzagaray, Bulacan. AHEPP’s main units built in 1967 cannot be acquired by acquisitive prescription unless
and 1968, and 5 auxiliary units, form part of the Angat previously declared by the Government to be alienable
Complex which includes the Angat Dam, Angat and disposable. Considering that Lot 4998-B was not
Reservoir and the outlying watershed area. On shown to be already declared to be alienable and
December 15, 2009, PSALM’s Board of Directors disposable, respondents could not be deemed to have
approved the Bidding Procedures for the privatization of acquired the property through prescription.
the AHEPP.
Fortuna vs. Republic
Issue: Did the sale of AHEPP to a foreign corporation
pursuant to the privatization mandated by EPIRA violate Facts: In December 1994, the spouses Fortuna filed an
Sec.2, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution? application for registration of a 2,597-square meter land
identified as Lot No. 4457, situated in Bo. Canaoay, San
Ruling: No. The Court rules that while the sale of Fernando, La Union. The spouses Fortuna claimed that
AHEPP to a foreign corporation pursuant to the they, through themselves and their predecessors-in-
privatization mandated by the EPIRA did not violate Sec. interest, have been in quiet, peaceful, adverse and
2, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution which limits the uninterrupted possession of Lot No. 4457 for more than
exploration, development and utilization of natural 50 years, and submitted as evidence the lot’s survey
resources under the full supervision and control of the plan, technical description, and certificate of
State or the State’s undertaking the same through joint assessment.
venture, co-production or production sharing agreements
with Filipino corporations 60% of the capital of which is Issue: Is Lot No. 4457 an alienable and disposable land
owned by Filipino citizens, the stipulation in the Asset of public domain?
Purchase Agreement and Operations and Maintenance
Agreement whereby NPC consents to the transfer of Ruling: No. The court ruled that the nature of Lot No.
water rights to the foreign buyer, K-Water, contravenes 4457 as alienable and disposable public land has not
the aforesaid constitutional provision and the Water been sufficiently established. Jurisprudence has
Code. required that an applicant for registration of title acquired
through a public land grant must present incontrovertible
Republic vs. Ivan evidence that the land subject of the application is
alienable or disposable by establishing the existence of
Facts: Alleging continuous and adverse possession of a positive act of the government, such as a presidential
more than ten years, respondent Arcadio Ivan A. Santos proclamation or an executive order; an administrative
III (Arcadio Ivan) applied on March 7, 1997 for the action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands
registration of Lot 4998-B (the property) in the Regional investigators; and a legislative act or a statute.
Trial Court (RTC) in Paranaque City. On May 21, 1998,
Arcadio Ivan amended his application for land In this case, the notation in the survey plan and
registration to include Arcadio, Jr. as his co-applicant the Certification from the DENR Community
because of the latter’s co-ownership of the property. He Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO)
alleged that the property had been formed through are not proof/evidence of a positive act from the
accretion and had been in their joint open, notorious, government (i.e. President or the DENR Secretary)
public, continuous and adverse possession for more reclassifying and releasing Lot No. 4457 as alienable
than 30 years. and disposable agricultural land of the public
domain. Mere notations appearing in survey plans are
inadequate proof of the covered properties’ alienable occupants of the portions of lots identified as school
and disposable character. sites.

Yinlu Bicol Mining vs. Trans Asia Issue: Was CMU able to establish, through
incontrovertible evidence that the land reservations
Facts: On August 31, 2007, Yinlu Bicol Mining registered in its name are alienable and disposable
Corporation informed the DENR by letter that it had lands of Public Domain?
acquired the mining patents of PIMI from MBC/BDO by
way of a deed of absolute sale, stating that the areas Ruling: No. CMU failed to establish through
covered by its mining patents were within the areas of incontrovertible evidence that the land Reservations
Trans-Asia’s MPSA. Based on the documents submitted registered in its name are alienable and disposable
by Yinlu, four of the six transfer certificates of title (TCTs) lands of public domain. Because CMU did not present
it held covered four mining claims under Patent Nos. 15, any proof of a positive act of the government declaring
16, 17 and 18 respectively named as Busser, Superior, the said lands alienable and disposable, for lack of proof
Bussamer and Rescue Placer Claims, with an aggregate that the said land reservations have been reclassified as
area of 192 hectares. The areas covered occupied more alienable and disposable, the said lands remain part of
than half of the MPSA area of Trans-Asia. inalienable public domain; hence, they are not applicable
under Torrens system.
Issue: Are rights pertaining to mining patents issued
pursuant to the Philippine Bill of 1902 and existing prior Republic vs. AFP-RSBS
to November 15, 1935 vested rights that cannot be
impaired? Facts: Lots X, Y-1 and Y-2 were lands of public domain
located in General Santos. Pursuant to Proclamation No.
Ruling: Yes. In Republic v. Court of Appeals, the court 168, these disputed lands were reserved for recreation
stated that mining rights acquired under the Philippine and health purposes. A subsequent Proclamation
Bill of 1902 and prior to the effectivity of the 1935 declared that 2 of the 3 lots were open for disposition to
Constitution were vested rights that could not be qualified applicants, leaving Lot X as the only remaining
impaired even by the Government. Indeed, the mining part of the reservation now known as Magsaysay Park.
patents of Yinlu were issued pursuant to the Philippine The respondents claimed that they had acquired vested
Bill of 1902 and were subsisting prior to the effectivity of interests over Lot X for having occupied the same for
the 1935 Constitution. Consequently, Yinlu and its more than 30 years.
predecessors-in-interest had acquired vested rights in
the disputed mineral lands that could not and should not Issue: May national parks be increased or diminished?
be impaired even in light of their past failure to comply
Ruling: Under the present Constitution, national parks
with the requirement of registration and annual work
are declared part of the public domain, and shall be
conserved and may not be increased nor diminished,
Central Mindanao University vs. Republic except by law.

Facts: Petitioner Central Mindanao University (CMU) is Beumer vs. Amores

an agricultural educational institution owned and run by
Facts: Petitioner, a Dutch national, and respondent, a
the State established by virtue of Republic Act No. 4498.
Filipina, married on March 29, 1980. After several years,
It is represented by its President, Dr. Maria Luisa R.
the RTC of Negros Oriental declared the nullity of their
Soliven in accordance with CMU Board of Regents
marriage on the basis of the former’s psychological
Resolution No. 02, s. 2011. The subjects of the
incapacity. Consequently, petitioner filed a Petition for
controversy are two parcels of land situated at Musuan,
Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership. He insisted that the
Maramag, Bukidnon identified as "Sheet 1, Lot 1 of Ir-
money used to purchase the foregoing properties came
1031-D" consisting of 20,619,175 square meters, and
from his own capital funds and that they were registered
"Sheet 2, Lot 2 of Ir-1031-D" consisting of 13,391,795
in the name of his former wife only because of the
square meters, more or less. In 1946, CMU took
constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership.
possession of the subject parcels of land and started
Thus, he prayed for reimbursement of one-half (1/2) of
construction for the school site upon the confirmation of
the value of what he had paid in the purchase of the said
the Secretary of Public Instruction. However, during the
properties, waiving the other half in favor of his ex-wife.
final survey in 1952, CMU discovered that there were
several adverse claimants, holders, possessors and
Issue: Can an alien husband seek reimbursement for Provided, That where a corporation and its non-Filipino
the value of the lands purchased with his funds and titled stockholders own stocks in a Securities and Exchange
in the name of his Filipina spouse? Commission (SEC) registered enterprise, at least sixty
percent (60%) of the capital stock outstanding and
Ruling: No, the Court cited In Re: Petition For entitled to vote of each of both corporations must be
Separation of Property-Elena Buenaventura Muller v. owned and held by citizens of the Philippines and at
Helmut Muller in its decision, the Court had already least sixty percent (60%) of the members of the Board of
denied a claim for reimbursement of the value of Directors of each of both corporations must be citizens
purchased parcels of Philippine land instituted by a of the Philippines, in order that the corporation shall be
foreigner Helmut Muller, against his former Filipina considered a "Philippine national."
spouse, Elena Buenaventura Muller. It held that Helmut
Muller cannot seek reimbursement on the ground of Republic vs. City of Parañaque
equity where it is clear that he willingly and knowingly
bought the property despite the prohibition against Facts: On January 8, 2010, the RTC rendered its
foreign ownership of Philippine land enshrined under decision dismissing PRA’s petition. In ruling that PRA
Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. was not exempt from payment of real property taxes, the
RTC reasoned out that it was a GOCC under Section 3
Gamboa vs. Teves of P.D. No. 1084. It was organized as a stock
corporation because it had an authorized capital stock
Facts: The issue started when petitioner Gamboa divided into no par value shares. Therefore, as a GOCC,
questioned the indirect sale of shares involving almost local tax exemption is withdrawn by virtue of Section 193
12 million shares of the Philippine Long Distance of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160 Local Government Code
Telephone Company (PLDT) owned by PTIC to First (LGC) which was the prevailing law in 2001 and 2002
Pacific. Thus, First Pacific’s common shareholdings in with respect to real property taxation.
PLDT increased from 30.7% to 37%, thereby increasing
the total common shareholdings of foreigners in PLDT to Issue: Is the Philippine Reclamation Authority a GOCC
about 81.47%. The petitioner contends that it violates under Sec. 16, Art. XII?
the Constitutional provision on filipinization of public
utility, stated in Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Ruling: NO. PRA is not a GOCC for Sec. 16 of Art. XII
Philippine Constitution, which limits foreign ownership of of the 1987 provides:
the capital of a public utility to not more than 40%. Then,
Section 16. The Congress shall not, except by
in 2011, the Court ruled the case in favor of the
general law, provide for the formation, organization, or
petitioner, hence, this new case, resolving the motion for
regulation of private corporations. Government-owned or
reconsideration for the 2011 decision filed by the
controlled corporations may be created or established by
special charters in the interest of the common good and
Issue: Who is a “Philippine national” entitled to own and subject to the test of economic viability.
operate a reserved public utility pursuant to Sec. 11, Art.
The fundamental provision above authorizes
XII of the Constitution?
Congress to create GOCCs through special charters on
Ruling: The term "Philippine national" shall mean a two conditions: 1) the GOCC must be established for the
citizen of the Philippines; or a domestic partnership or common good; and 2) the GOCC must meet the test of
association wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines; economic viability. In this case, PRA may have passed
or a corporation organized under the laws of the the first condition of common good but failed the second
Philippines of which at least sixty percent (60%) of the one - economic viability. Undoubtedly, the purpose
capital stock outstanding and entitled to vote is owned behind the creation of PRA was not for economic or
and held by citizens of the Philippines; or a corporation commercial activities. Neither was it created to compete
organized abroad and registered as doing business in in the market place considering that there were no other
the Philippines under the Corporation Code of which one competing reclamation companies being operated by the
hundred percent (100%) of the capital stock outstanding private sector. As mentioned earlier, PRA was created
and entitled to vote is wholly owned by Filipinos or a essentially to perform a public service considering that it
trustee of funds for pension or other employee was primarily responsible for a coordinated, economical
retirement or separation benefits, where the trustee is a and efficient reclamation, administration and operation of
Philippine national and at least sixty percent (60%) of the lands belonging to the government with the object of
fund will accrue to the benefit of Philippine nationals: maximizing their utilization and hastening their
development consistent with the public interest.
Vivas vs. Monetary Board which provides that the "State values the dignity of every
human person and guarantees full respect for human
Facts: The Monetary Board (MB) issued Resolution rights," Article XIII, Section 1 which mandates Congress
No. 27623 placing EuroCredit Community Bank, to "give highest priority to the enactment of measures
Incorporated (ECBI) under receivership in accordance that protect and enhance the right of all the people to
with the recommendation of the Integrated human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political
Supervision Department (ISD) II on the basis of the inequalities x x x" and Article XV, Section 3 which
examination findings, in its memorandum, which requires the State to defend the "right of children to
findings showed that the Eurocredit Community Bank, assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and
Inc. – a Rural heBank (Eurocredit Bank) (a) is special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse,
unable to pay its liabilities as they become due in t cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to
ordinary course of business; (b) has insufficient their development." Certainly, these provisions
realizable assets to meet liabilities; (c) cannot contradict an intent to discriminate against foundlings on
continue in business without involving probable account of their unfortunate status.
losses to its depositors and creditors; and (d) has
willfully violated a cease and desist order of the MB Villanueva vs. JBC
for acts or transactions which are considered unsafe
and unsound banking practices and other acts or Facts: After about a year from being appointed as a
transactions constituting fraud or dissipation of the MCTC judge, Judge Villanueva applied for the vacant
assets of the institution, and considering the failure position of presiding judge in some RTC branches
of the Board of Directors/management of Eurocredit (Branch 31, Tagum City; Branch 13, Davao City; and
Bank to restore the bank’s financial health and Branch 6, Prosperidad, Agusan Del Sur). The JBC
viability despite considerable time given to address however informed him that he was not included in the list
the bank’s financial problems, and that the bank of candidates for such position because the JBC’s long-
had been accorded due process, the Board, in standing policy requires 5 years of service as judge of
accordance with Section 30 of Republic Act No. first-level courts before one can apply as judge for
7653 (The New Central Bank Act). second-level courts.

Issue: Is the “Close Now, Hear Later” policy of the Issue: Does the JBC’s five-year requirement violate the
Monetary Board valid and tenable? constitutional provision on Social Justice and Human
Rights for Equal Opportunity of Employment?
Ruling: Yes, if circumstances warrant it, the MB may
forbid a bank from doing business and place it under Ruling: NO. As an offspring of the 1987 Constitution,
receivership without prior notice and hearing in the JBC is mandated to recommend appointees to the
accordance with Section 30 of R.A. No. 7653. Moreover, judiciary and only those nominated by the JBC in a list
in the case of Bangko Sentral Ng Pilipinas Monetary officially transmitted to the President may be appointed
Board v. Hon. Antonio-Valenzuela, the Court reiterated by the latter as justice or judge in the judiciary. Thus, the
the doctrine of "close now, hear later," stating that it was JBC is burdened with a great responsibility that is
justified as a measure for the protection of the public imbued with public interest as it determines the men and
interest. women who will sit on the judicial bench. While the 1987
Constitution has provided the qualifications of members
ARTICLE XIII. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN of the judiciary, this does not preclude the JBC from
RIGHTS having its own set of rules and procedures and providing
policies to effectively ensure its mandate.
Grace Poe vs. Comelec
JBC's ultimate goal is to recommend nominees
Issue: Is the declaration of foundlings as natural born and not simply to fill up judicial vacancies in order to
Filipino citizens in keeping with social justice? promote an effective and efficient administration of
justice. Given this pragmatic situation, the JBC had to
Ruling: Yes. As SC rules in this case in verbatim, “We
establish a set of uniform criteria in order to ascertain
find no such intent or language permitting discrimination
whether an applicant meets the minimum constitutional
against foundlings. On the contrary, all three
qualifications and possesses the qualities expected of
Constitutions guarantee the basic right to equal
him and his office. Thus, the adoption of the five-year
protection of the laws. All exhort the State to render
requirement policy applied by JBC to the petitioner's
social justice. Of special consideration are several
provisions in the present charter: Article II, Section 11
case is necessary and incidental to the function Issue: Was the concerted mass action of the DCWD
conferred by the Constitution to the JBC. employees well-within their rights and in keeping with
Sec 3, Art XIII of the 1987 Constitution?
Fuji TV vs. Espiritu
Ruling: Yes. Sec 3, Art XIII states that workers have a
Facts: Arlene S. Espiritu (Arlene) was engaged by Fuji right to strike “in accordance with law”. As defined in
Television Network, Inc. (Fuji) as a news Section 5 of CSC Resolution No. 02-1316 which serves
correspondent/producer. Arlene's employment contract to regulate the political rights of those in the government
initially provided for a term of one (1) year but was service, the concerted activity or mass action proscribed
successively renewed on a yearly basis with salary must be coupled with the "intent of effecting work
adjustment upon every renewal. Arlene was diagnosed stoppage or service disruption in order to realize their
with lung cancer. After several verbal and written demands of force concession". It is clear that the
communications, Arlene and Fuji signed a non-renewal collective activity of joining the fun run in t-shirts with
contract where it was stipulated that her contract would inscriptions on CNA incentives was not to effect work
no longer be renewed after its expiration. The contract stoppage or disrupt the service. As pointed out by the
also provided that the parties release each other from respondents, they followed the advice of GM Gamboa
liabilities and responsibilities under the employment "to be there" at the fun run. Respondents joined, and did
contract. The day after Arlene signed the non-renewal not disrupt the fun run. They were in sports attire that
contract, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and they were allowed, nay required, to wear. Else,
attorney's fees with the National Labor Relations government employees would be deprived of their
Commission (NLRC). constitutional right to freedom of expression. Thus, the
court rules against the findings of both the CSC and
Issue: What is the level of constitutional regulation and
Court of Appeals that the wearing of t-shirts with
protection afforded to contracts of employment? Are
grievance inscriptions constitutes as a violation of
there factors that may vary the level of protection?
Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations.
Ruling: Contracts of employment have a high level of
Security Bank vs. Singson
regulation because they are impressed with public
interest. Sec. 3, Art. XIII of the 1987 Philippine Facts: In 1985, respondent was initially employed by
Constitution guarantees the protection to labor. petitioner Premiere Development Bank (now Security
However, the level of protection to labor should vary Bank Savings Corporation [SBSC]) as messenger until
from case to case; otherwise, the state might appear to his promotion as loans processor at its Sangandaan
be too paternalistic in affording protection to labor. The Branch. Thereafter, he was appointed in June 2007 as
level of protection to labor must be determined on the Acting Branch Manager. On March 26, 2008, he was
basis of the nature of the work, qualifications of the assigned to its Quezon Avenue Branch under the
employee, and other relevant circumstances. supervision of Branch Manager Pinero and held the
position of Customer Service Operations Head (CSOH)
DCWD vs. Aranquez
tasked with the safekeeping of its checkbooks and other
Facts: Petitioner Davao City Water District is a bank forms.
government-owned and controlled corporation in Davao
On July 22, 2008, respondent received a show-
City. The private respondents are officers and members
cause memorandum from Ms. Ruby O. Go, head of
of Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Davao City Water
West Regional Operations, charging him of violating the
District (NAMADACWAD). They were charged with
bank's Code of Conduct when he mishandled various
several administrative cases due to acts committed
checkbooks under his custody.
during the anniversary celebration of DCWD such as
wearing of t-shirts with inscriptions and posting of bond Issue: Is respondent entitled to separation pay as a
papers outside the designated places. The inscriptions measure of social justice?
and postings bore employees’ grievances. On 8
November 2007, the officers and members of Ruling: No, the award of separation pay based on social
NAMADACWAD held an Emergency General Assembly justice would be improper. The Court holds that
and they agreed to wear NAMADACWAD t-shirts with separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social
inscriptions stating, "CNA Incentive Ihatag Na, Dir. justice only in those instances where the employee is
Braganza Pahawa Na!" on the day of the anniversary. validly dismissed for causes other than serious
misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character.
Where the reason for the valid dismissal is, e.g., habitual
intoxication or an offense involving moral turpitude, like property." In other words, therefore, the clear intent of
theft or illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker, the the Constitutional guarantee of just compensation,
employer may not be required to give the dismissed whether understood within the terms of Article III,
employee separation pay, or financial assistance, or Section 9 or of Article XIII, Section 4, is to secure to any
whatever other name it is called, on the ground of social owner the "full and fair equivalent" of the property taken.
justice. As petitioners aptly pointed out, the infractions, Regardless of whether the taking was pursued in the
while not clearly indicative of any wrongful intent, are "traditional" exercise of eminent domain or in its
serious in nature when one considers the employee's "revolutionary" exercise in the context of the State’s
functions, rendering it inequitable to award separation agrarian reform program, just compensation has but one
pay based on social justice. meaning and the State is obligated to pay the "fair and
full price of the property" even if the property is taken for
In the case at bar, respondent's established act social justice purposes.
of repeatedly allowing Branch Manager Pinero to bring
the checkbooks and bank forms outside of the bank's Delfino vs. Anasao
premises in violation of the company's rules and
regulations had already been declared by the Labor Facts: Delfino owned parcels of land in Laguna. The
Arbiter to be gross and habitual neglect of duty under tenanted portion being tilled by respondents was placed
Article 282 of the Labor Code. under PD 27. Delfino then filed an Application for
Retention over his land. The DAR Secretary gave him a
Land Bank vs. Eusebio maximum of 5 ha. as his right of retention.

Facts: Respondent Benecio Eusebio, Jr. was the owner Issue: In the agrarian reform, is retention by landowners
of a 790.4-hectare parcel of land situated in Corba, a constitutionally guaranteed right? If in the affirmative,
Cataingan, Masbate, covered by Transfer Certificate of is it absolute?
Title (TCT) registered in the name of Ricardo Tañada.
Eusebio purchased this parcel of land from Tañada. Ruling: Yes, The right of retention is a constitutionally
Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) then guaranteed right, which is subject to qualification by the
revalued the acquirable portion at ₱3,927,188.28, legislature making it not an absolute right. It serves to
pursuant to DAR Administrative Order. Eusebio likewise mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by
rejected this valuation. Meanwhile, the LBP opened a balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant and
trust account in the amount of ₱3,149,718.20 in favor of by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not
Eusebio and Tañada for the covered portion. The DAR meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner.
then took physical possession of the property, had TCT
The right to choose the area to be retained,
cancelled in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, and
which shall be compact or contiguous, shall pertain to
distributed the property at cost to the recognized farmer-
the landowner; Provided, however, That in case the area
selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted, the
Issue: Is the “just compensation” guaranteed to a tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain
landowner under Section 4, Art. XIII of the Constitution therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another
the same as the “just compensation” embodied in agricultural land with similar or comparable features. In
Section 9, Art. IIIof the Constitution? case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area,
he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his
Ruling: Yes. The court debunked this very same right to be a beneficiary under this Act. In case the
argument in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Honeycomb tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural
Farms Corporation whose factual circumstances closely land, he loses his right as a leaseholder to the land
mirror and are, in fact, related to those of the present retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this
case. In Honeycomb, they essentially pointed out that option within a period of one (1) year from the time the
the "just compensation" guaranteed to a landowner landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention.
under, Section 4, Article XIII of the Constitution is
precisely the same as the "just compensation" embodied SAMMANA vs. Tan
in Section 9, Article III of the Constitution. That is,
Facts: A Notice of Coverage had been issued over the
whether for land taken pursuant to the State’s agrarian
129.4227-hectare land in Barangay Ipag, Mariveles,
reform program or for property taken for purposes other
Bataan and that the 34 hectares sold by the PCGG to
than agrarian reform, the just compensation due to an
the respondent had been already identified for CARP
owner should be the "fair and full price of the taken
coverage and targeted for acquisition in the year 2000.
Samahan ng Magsasaka at Mangingisda ng Sitio CARL because it was in conflict of the constitutional
Naswe, Inc.claimed that its members "have resided in mandate firmly lodged in Section 4, Article XIII of the
the area for several years doing farming activities" from 1987 Constitution which seeks the just distribution of all
which they "derive their income for their daily agricultural lands to qualified farmers and farm workers
sustenance." to free them from oppressive tenancy agreements.

Issue: Is social justice in the land reform program Ferrer vs. Bautista
applicable only to farmers and farmworkers?
Facts: Effective for five (5) years, the Socialized
Ruling: Social justice in the land reform program also Housing Tax ( SHT ) shall be utilized by the Quezon City
applies to landowners, not merely to farmers and Government for the following projects: (a) land
farmworkers. This is precisely why the Comprehensive purchase/land banking; (b) improvement of
Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657) and the applicable rules current/existing socialized housing facilities; (c) land
provide for the procedure for determining the proper development; (d) construction of core houses, sanitary
beneficiaries and grantees or awardees of the lands cores, medium-rise buildings and other similar
covered or to be covered under the CARP. structures; and (e) financing of public-private partnership
agreement of the Quezon City Government and National
DAR vs. Woodland Housing Authority ( NHA ) with the private sector. Under
certain conditions, a tax credit shall be enjoyed by
Facts: Woodland is the registered owner of a parcel of
taxpayers regularly paying the special assessment.
agricultural land with an area of 10.0680 hectares
located at Subasta, Calinan, Davao City. On December Issue: can the Socialized tax be justified by social
11, 2003, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) justice?
issued a Notice of Coverage (NOC) placing 5.0680
hectares under the coverage of the Comprehensive Ruling: Yes. THE 1987 Constitution explicitly espouses
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) the view that the use of property bears a social function
and that all economic agents shall contribute to the
After the new title was issued in the name of the common good, and the tax is levied with a regulatory
Republic of the Philippines based on the NOC, purpose; in the case at bar, the constitutionality and
Certificates of Land Ownership Award were issued in legality of the socialized housing tax is sustained for
favor of farmer beneficiaries. Woodland filed a being consistent with section 43 of RA no. 7279.
complaint and contended that the issuance of the NOC
was illegal because R.A. 6657 had already expired on Alangdeo vs. City Mayor of Baguio
15 June 1998 and its amendatory, R.A. 8532, did not
extend the DAR's authority to acquire agrarian lands for Facts: Respondent Ernesto Lardizabal (Ernesto) filed ·a
distribution. complaint for demolition, before the City Engineer's
Office of Baguio City (City Engineer's Office),
Issue: Is R.A. No. 8532 which authorized the DAR to questioning the ongoing construction of a: residential
issue Notices of Coverage and Acquisition after June 15, structure and garage extension by petitioners on a
1998, or beyond the 10-year implementation, valid and parcel of land, situated at Barangay Atok Trail, Baguio
constitutional? City (subject property), allegedly owned by Mariano
Pangloy and Ernesto's father, Juanito Lardizabal. Upon
Ruling: Yes. The Court ruled that R.A. 8532 extended investigation, the City Engineer's Office found out that
the term of the implementation of the Comprehensive the construction had no building permit. Consequently,
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under the the City Mayor issued, through the Secretary to the
CARL. With that, the NOC dated December 11, 2003 Mayor, Demolition Order No. 05, series of 2005 (DO No.
and Notice of Acquisition (NOA) dated October 5, 2004 05) directing the City Demolition Team to summarily
issued over the portion of Woodland’s land are valid. demolish the said structures.

The phrase "until the year 2008" used in Section Issue: Is DO No. 05, which ordered the summary
63 of R.A. 8532 unmistakably extends the DAR's demolition of petitioners’ structures, valid and tenable?
authority to issue NOCs for purposes of acquiring and
distributing private agricultural lands. The Court cannot Ruling: No, DO No. 5 is not valid and untenable. DO No.
subscribe to Woodland’s stance that DAR’s authority to 05, which ordered the summary demolition of petitioners'
issue NOCs and acquisition ceased after the 10-year structures, has no legal moorings and perforce was
implementation period mentioned in Section 5 of the invalidly issued. Accordingly, an injunctive writ to enjoin
its implementation is in order. It is well-settled that for an duty of improving the welfare of the elderly to the private
injunction to issue, two requisites must concur: first, sector? Is it in the nature of an exercise of police power
there must be a right to be protected; and second, the or eminent domain?
acts against which the injunction is to be directed are
violative of said right. Here, the two (2) requisites are Ruling: No. While Article XIII of the Constitution
present: there is a right to be protected -- that is, provides the precept for the protection of property,
petitioners' right over their structures which should be various laws and jurisprudence, particularly on agrarian
preserved unless their removal is warranted by law; and reform and the regulation of contracts and public utilities,
the act, i.e., the summary demolition of the structures continuously serve as x x x reminder[s] that the right to
under DO No. 05, against which the injunction is property can be relinquished upon the command of the
directed, would violate said right. State for the promotion of public good. Undeniably, the
success of the senior citizens program rests largely on
Imbong vs. Ochoa the support imparted by petitioners and the other private
establishments concerned.
Issue: By giving priority to the poor, does the
Reproductive Health Law violate the equal protection The law is a legitimate exercise of police power
clause of the 1987 Constitution? which, similar to the power of eminent domain, has
general welfare for its object. Police power as an
Ruling: No. According to the Court, To provide that the attribute to promote the common good would be diluted
poor are to be given priority in the government's considerably if on the mere plea of petitioners that they
reproductive health care program is not a violation of the will suffer loss of earnings and capital, the questioned
equal protection clause. In fact, it is pursuant to Section provision is invalidated. Moreover, in the absence of
11, Article XIII of the Constitution which recognizes the evidence demonstrating the alleged confiscatory effect
distinct necessity to address the needs of the of the provision in question, there is no basis for its
underprivileged by providing that they be given priority in nullification in view of the presumption of validity which
addressing the health development of the people. It every law has in its favor.
should be noted that Section 7 of the RH Law prioritizes
poor and marginalized couples who are suffering from KMU vs. Aquino
fertility issues and desire to have children. There is,
therefore, no merit to the contention that the RH Law Facts: PhilHealth made a partial deferral of the premium
only seeks to target the poor to reduce their number. rate increase until the end of CY 2013. From January to
While the RH Law admits the use of contraceptives, it December 2013, the minimum annual premium
does not, as elucidated above, sanction abortion. As contribution rate for IPP and OWP members was
Section 3(1) explains, the "promotion and/or stabilization pegged at Php1,800.00, instead of the full Php2,400.00.
of the population growth rate is incidental to the
Issue: Are PhilHealth Circular Nos. 0027, 0025, and
advancement of reproductive health."
0024, all series of 2013, which adjusted the premium
Manila Memorial Park vs. DSWD Sec. contribution rates for the National Health
Insurance Program, issued with grave abuse of
Facts: Petition for Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules discretion?
of Court filed by petitioners Manila Memorial Park, Inc.
and La Funeraria Paz-Sucat, Inc., domestic corporations Ruling: NO. Even if the procedural issues are
engaged in the business of providing funeral and burial disregarded, the petitions still failed to show that
services, against public respondents Secretaries of the PhilHealth gravely abused its discretion in issuing the
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) assailed circulars. On the contrary, PhilHealth acted with
and the Department of Finance (DOF). Petitioners assail reasonable prudence and sensitivity to the public's
the constitutionality of Section 4 of Republic Act (RA) needs. It postponed the rate increase several times to
No. 7432, as amended by RA 9257, and the relieve the public of the burden of simultaneous rate and
implementing rules and regulations issued by the DSWD price increases. It accommodated the stakeholders and
and DOF insofar as these allow business establishments heard them through consultation. In the end, it even
to claim the 20% discount given to senior citizens as a retained a lower salary bracket ceiling (Php35,000.00
tax deduction. instead of Php50,000.00) and a lower rate (2.5% rather
than the planned 3%).
Issue/s: Does the tax deduction scheme under R.A.
7432, violate Art. XIII, Sec. 11 of the Constitution Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan
because it shifts the State’s constitutional mandate or
Facts: Office of the Ombudsman charged Enrile and not anymore convene the Committee on Student
several others with plunder in the Sandiganbayan on the Discipline (COSD) to investigate the hazing incident.
basis of their purported involvement in the diversion and Petitioners filed a complaint for injunction and damages,
misuse of appropriations under the Priority Development assailing the Principal's decision to order the immediate
Assistance Fund (PDAF). Enrile respectively filed his transfer of petitioner students as a violation of their right
Omnibus Motion and Supplemental Opposition, praying, to due process because the COSD was not convened.
among others, that he be allowed to post bail should
probable cause be found against him. Issue: Is discipline in education specifically mandated by
the 1987 Constitution? Can school authorities impose
Issue: Will the grant of bail to Enrile be in keeping with discipline on students?
the national commitment to uphold the fundamental
human rights? Ruling: Yes. Discipline in education is specifically
mandated by the 1987 Constitution which provides that
Ruling: Yes. The national commitment to uphold the all educational institutions shall teach the rights and
fundamental human rights as well as value the worth duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual
and dignity of every person has authorized the grant of values, develop moral character and personal discipline.
bail not only to those charged in criminal proceedings Schools and school administrators have the authority to
but also to extraditees upon a clear and convincing maintain school discipline and the right to impose
showing: (1 ) that the detainee will not be a flight risk or appropriate and reasonable disciplinary measures.
a danger to the community; and (2 ) that there exist
special, humanitarian and compelling circumstance Go vs. Collegio de San Juan de Letran

Cudia vs. PMA Superintendent Facts: In October 2001, Mr. George Isleta, the Head of
Letran’s Auxiliary Services Department, received
Issue: In entering the PMA did Cudia surrender his information that certain fraternities were recruiting new
fundamental human rights? members among Letran’s high school students. He also
received a list of the students allegedly involved. School
Ruling: No. While it is true that a PMA cadet, by authorities started an investigation, including the conduct
enrolling at PMA, must be prepared to subordinate his of medical examinations on the students whose names
private interests for the proper functioning of the were on the list. On November 20, 2002, Dr. Emmanuel
educational institution he attends to, one that is with a Asuncion, the school physician, reported that six (6)
greater degree than a student at a civilian public school. students bore is njuries, probable signs of blunt trauma
However, a cadet facing dismissal from the military of more than two weeks, on the posterior portions of
academy for misconduct has constitutionally protected their thighs. Mr. Rosarda, the Assistant Prefect for
private interests (life, liberty, or property); hence, Discipline, conferred with the students and asked for
disciplinary proceedings conducted within the bounds of their explanations in writing.
procedural due process is a must.
Ruling: The right to establish disciplinary rules is
ARTICLE XIV. EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND consistent with the mandate in the Constitution for
TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE AND SPORTS schools to teach discipline; in fact, schools have the duty
to develop discipline in students. Corollarily, the Court
Jenosa vs U.S.A.
has always recognized the right of schools to impose
Facts: A number of University of San Augustin students disciplinary sanctions on students who violate
were caught engaging in hazing outside the school disciplinary rules. The penalty for violations includes
premises. Thereafter, dialogues and consultations were dismissal or exclusion from re-enrollment. The Court find
conducted among the school authorities, the Letran’s rule prohibiting its high school students from
apprehended students, and their parents. The parties joining fraternities to be a reasonable regulation, not only
then agreed that, instead of the possibility of being because of the reasons stated in DECS Order No. 20, s.
charged and found guilty of hazing, the students who 1991, but also because of the adult-oriented activities
participated in the hazing incident as initiators would just often associated with fraternities. Expectedly, most, if not
transfer to another school, while those who participated all, of its high school students are minors. Besides,
as neophytes would be suspended for one month. The Letran’s penalty for violation of the rule is clearly stated
parents of the apprehended students affixed their in its enrollment contracts and in the Students Handbook
signatures to the minutes of the meeting to signify their it distributes at the start of every school year.
conformity. In view of the agreement, the University did
People vs Bayabos
Facts: Fernando C. Balidoy, Jr. (Balidoy) was admitted "every citizen has a right to select a profession or course
as a probationary midshipman at the Philippine of study, subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable
Merchant Marine Academy. In order to reach an active admission and academic requirements." The thesis
status, all new entrants were required to successfully requirement and the compliance with the procedures
complete the mandatory "Indoctrination and Orientation leading to it, are part of the reasonable academic
Period,” which was set from May 2 to June 1, 2001. On requirements a person desiring to complete a course of
May 3, 2001, during the mandatory period, Balidoy study would have to comply with.
died. The respondents were charged as accomplices to
the crime of hazing due to their alleged consent and Yes. Under the UP System’s faculty manual, the
actual knowledge of the hazing perpetrated by the dean has complete discretion in approving or
principals and failed to take any action to prevent the disapproving the composition of a thesis committee. The
occurrence of the hazing and the infliction of academic freedom accorded to institutions of higher
psychological and physical injuries, causing the death of learning gives them the right to decide for themselves
Balidoy. their aims and objectives and how best to attain them.

Issue: What is the extent of liability of schools and Imbong vs. Ochoa
school authorities under R.A. No. 8049, aka the “Anti-
Issue: In mandating the teaching Age-and Development-
Hazing Law”?
Appropriate Reproductive Health Education under threat
Ruling: In the enactment of the Anti-Hazing Law (R.A. of fine and/or imprisonment, does the Reproductive
No. 8049), Section 4 provides that the failure by school Health Law violate academic freedom?
authorities, including faculty members, to take any action
Ruling: No. It is also the inherent right of the State to act
to prevent the offenses as provided by the law exposes
as parens patriae to aid parents in the moral
them to criminal liability as accomplices in the criminal
development of the youth. Indeed, the Constitution
acts. Thus, the institution and its officers cannot stand
makes mention of the importance of developing the
idly by in the face of patently criminal acts committed
youth and their important role in nation building.
within their sphere of responsibility. They bear the
Considering that Section 14 provides not only for the
commensurate duty to ensure that the crimes covered
age-appropriate reproductive health education, but also
by the Anti-Hazing Law are not committed.
for values formation; the development of knowledge and
Calawag vs. UP skills in self-protection against discrimination; sexual
abuse and violence against women and children and
Facts: The petitioners enrolled in the Master of Science other forms of gender based violence and teen
in Fisheries Biology at UP Visayas under a scholarship pregnancy; physical, social and emotional changes in
from the Department of Science and Technology- adolescents; women's rights and children's rights;
Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and responsible teenage behavior; gender and development;
Development. They finished their first year of study with and responsible parenthood, and that Rule 10, Section
good grades, and thus were eligible to start their thesis 11 of the RH-IRR and Section 4(t) of the RH Law itself
in the first semester of their second year. The petitioners provides for the teaching of responsible teenage
then enrolled in the thesis program, drafted their behavior, gender sensitivity and physical and emotional
tentative thesis titles, and obtained the consent of Dr. changes among adolescents - the Court finds that the
Rex Baleña to be their thesis adviser, as well as the legal mandate provided under the assailed provision
other faculty members’ consent to constitute their supplements, rather than supplants, the rights and duties
respective thesis committees. Dean Baylon wrote a of the parents in the moral development of their children.
series of memos addressed to Professor Sanares, Furthermore, as Section 14 also mandates that the
questioning the propriety of the thesis topics with the mandatory reproductive health education program shall
college’s graduate degree program. He subsequently be developed in conjunction with parent-teacher-
disapproved the composition of the petitioners’ thesis community associations, school officials and other
committees and their tentative thesis topics. interest groups, it could very well be said that it will be in
line with the religious beliefs of the petitioners. By
Issue: Is the right to education absolute? Does imposing such a condition, it becomes apparent that the
academic freedom give the dean the power to petitioners' contention that Section 14 violates Article
disapprove the composition of a thesis committee? XV, Section 3(1) of the Constitution is without merit.
Ruling: No. The right to education is not absolute. Cudia vs. PMA Superintendent
Section 5(e), Article XIV of the Constitution provides that
Issue: Does the Philippine Military Academy enjoy National Artists vs. Exec. Sec.
academic freedom?
Issue: Did the President validly confer the Order of
Ruling: Yes. As the premiere military educational National Artists to Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Manosa
institution of the AFP in accordance with Section 30, and Moreno as National Artists?
Article III of C.A. No. 1 and Sections 58 and 59, Chapter
9, Subtitle II, Title VIII, Book IV of E.O. No. 292 Ruling: No. The conferment of the Order of National
(“Administrative Code of 1987′′), the PMA is an Artists on respondents Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas,
institution that enjoys academic freedom guaranteed by Mañosa and Moreno was an entirely different matter.
Section 5(2), Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution. There is grave abuse of discretion when an act is (1)
done contrary to the Constitution, the law or
Issue: If in the affirmative, is it within academic freedom jurisprudence or (2) executed whimsically, capriciously
for PMA to impose disciplinary measures and to enforce or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or personal bias. In the
its internal rules and regulations on its students? case at bar, there was a violation of the equal protection
clause of the Constitution when the former President
Ruling: Yes. The school’s power to instill discipline in gave preferential treatment to respondents Guidote-
their students is subsumed in their academic freedom Alvarez, Caparas, Mañosa and Moreno. The former
and that “the establishment of rules governing university- President’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the
student relations, particularly those pertaining to student laws and observe the rules, guidelines and policies of
discipline, may be regarded as vital, not merely to the the NCCA and the CCP as to the selection of the
smooth and efficient operation of the institution, but to its nominees for conferment of the Order of National Artists
very survival.” In this regard, the Court has always proscribed her from having a free and uninhibited hand
recognized the right of schools to impose disciplinary in the conferment of the said award. The manifest
sanctions, which includes the power to dismiss or expel, disregard of the rules, guidelines and processes of the
on students who violate disciplinary rules. NCCA and the CCP was an arbitrary act that unduly
favored respondents Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Mañosa
International School vs. ISAE
and Moreno. The conferment of the Order of National
Issue: Can a teacher be dismissed on account of Artists on said respondents was therefore made with
academic freedom in view the high standards set up by grave abuse of discretion and should be set aside.
the school?
Ruling: YES. The Court enunciated in Peña v. National
Imbong vs. Ochoa
Labor Relations Commission that "it is the prerogative of
the school to set high standards of efficiency for its Issue: Is Section 7 of the RH Law which debars parental
teachers since quality education is a mandate of the consent where the minor, who will be undergoing a
Constitution. As long as the standards fixed are procedure, is already a parent or had a miscarriage,
reasonable and not arbitrary, courts are not at liberty to valid and constitutional?
set them aside." Moreover, the prerogative of a school to
provide standards for its teachers and to determine Ruling: No. Section 7 of the R.A. No. 10354 was ruled
whether these standards have been met is in as invalid and unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
accordance with academic freedom, which gives the The exclusion of parental consent in cases where a
educational institution the right to choose who should minor undergoing a procedure is already a parent or has
teach. had a miscarriage is anti-family and violates Article II,
Section 12 of the Constitution, which states: “The natural
The CBA between ISAE and the School for the and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of
years 1992-1995 also recognized the exclusive right of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of
the School to "hire and appoint qualified faculty subject moral character shall receive the support of the
to such reasonable rules and regulations as it may Government.”
prescribe," as well as the right of the School to discipline
its faculty and determine reasonable levels of Kalaw vs. Fernandez
performance. Section 8 of Appendix A of the CBA also
states that "[a]ll faculty members must meet the high Facts: Petitioner failed to prove that his wife
standard of performance expected by the SCHOOL and (respondent) suffers from psychological incapacity. He
abide by all its policies, procedures and contractual presented the testimonies of two supposed expert
terms." witnesses who concluded that respondent is
psychologically incapacitated, but the conclusions of As such, the Constitution decrees marriage as legally
these witnesses were premised on the alleged acts or inviolable and protects it from dissolution at the whim of
behavior of respondent which had not been sufficiently the parties.
proven. Petitioner’s experts heavily relied on petitioner’s
allegations of respondent’s constant mahjong sessions, Republic vs. Romero
visits to the beauty parlor, going out with friends,
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining the
adultery, and neglect of their children. Petitioner’s
RTC’s declaration of nullity on the ground of
experts opined that respondent’s alleged habits, when
psychological incapacity?
performed constantly to the detriment of quality and
quantity of time devoted to her duties as mother and Ruling: Yes. After a thorough review of the records of
wife, constitute a psychological incapacity in the form of this case, the Court finds that the foregoing requirements
NPD. do not concur. As aptly pointed out by the petitioners,
Reghis’ testimony shows that he was able to comply with
Issue: What is psychological incapacity as a ground for
his marital obligations which, therefore, negates the
the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the family
existence of a grave and serious psychological
incapacity on his part. Thus, absent sufficient evidence
Ruling: Psychological incapacity as a ground for the to prove psychological incapacity within the context of
nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code Article 36 of the Family Code, the Court is compelled to
refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party uphold the indissolubility of the marital tie.
even prior to the celebration of the marriage that is
Manila Memorial Park vs. DSWD Sec.
permanent as to deprive the party of the awareness of
the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond Facts: On April 23, 1992, R.A. 7432 was passed into
he or she was about to assume law, granting qualified senior citizens 20% discount from
all establishments specified in the aforementioned
Issue: Should the marriage of the petitioner and
law. The petitioners assail the constitutionality of
respondent be voided?
Section 4 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7432, as amended
Ruling: Yes. In this case, the marriage never existed by RA 9257, and the implementing rules and regulations
from the beginning because the respondent was afflicted issued by the DSWD and DOF insofar as these allow
with psychological incapacity at and prior to the time of business establishments to claim the 20% discount
the marriage. Hence, the Court should not hesitate to given to senior citizens as a tax deduction.
declare the nullity of the marriage between the parties.
Issue: Does the tax deduction scheme under R.A. 7432,
Republic vs. Romero violate Article XV, Section 4 of the Constitution because
it shifts the State’s constitutional mandate or duty of
Facts: Married couple Reghis and Olivia Romero improving the welfare of the elderly to the private sector?
experienced a turbulent and tumultuous marriage, often
having violent fights and jealous fits. Reghis could not Ruling: No. Pursuant to Article XV, Section 4 of the
forgive Olivia for dragging him into marriage and Constitution, it is the duty of the family to take care of its
resented her condescending attitude towards him. They elderly members while the State may design programs
became even more estranged when Reghis secured a of social security for them. The validity of the 20%
job as a medical representative and became engrossed senior citizen discount and tax deduction scheme under
in his career and focused on supporting his parents and R.A. 7432 (amended by RA 9257), as an exercise of
siblings. As a result, he spent little time with his family, police power of the State for the common good, has
causing Olivia to complain that Reghis failed to be a real already been settled in the court’s ruling on Carlos
husband to her. In 1986, the couple parted ways. Reghis Superdrug Corporation.
filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, citing
Imbong vs. Ochoa
his psychological incapacity to comply with his essential
marital obligations Issue: In mandating the teaching of Age-and
Development-Appropriate Reproductive Health
Issue: What is the constitutional policy on the family?
Education, does the RH Law violate Sec 3(1), Art XIV,
Ruling: The policy of the Constitution is to protect and 1987 Constitution?
strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social
Ruling: Any attack on the validity of Section 14 of the
institution, and marriage as the foundation of the family.
RH Law, in relation to Section 24 thereof, mandating the
teaching of Age-and Development-Appropriate Atty. Adriano died of acute emphysema. At that time,
Reproductive Health Education, is premature because Rosario was in the United States spending Christmas
the Department of Education, Culture and Sports has yet with her children. As none of the family members was
to formulate a curriculum on age-appropriate around, Valino took it upon herself to shoulder the
reproductive health education. One can only speculate funeral and burial expenses for Atty. Adriano. When
on the content, manner and medium of instruction that Rosario learned about the death of her husband, she
will be used to educate the adolescents and whether immediately called Valino and requested that she delay
they will contradict the religious beliefs of the petitioners the interment for a few days but her request was not
and validate their apprehensions. Thus, considering the heeded. The remains of Atty. Adriano were then interred
premature nature of this particular issue, the Court at the mausoleum of the family of Valino at the Manila
declines to rule on its constitutionality or validity. Memorial Park. Respondents were not able to attend the
interment. Claiming that they were deprived of the
Issue: Is Section 23(a) (2) 9(i) Reproductive Health Law chance to view the remains of Atty. Adriano before he
unconstitutional for intruding into marital privacy and was buried and that his burial at the Manila Memorial
autonomy? Park was contrary to his wishes. Respondents
commenced suit against Valino praying that they be
Ruling: Yes. Decision-making involving a reproductive
indemnified for actual, moral and exemplary damages
health procedure is a private matter which belongs to the
and attorney’s fees and that the remains of Atty. Adriano
couple, not just one of them. Any decision they would
be exhumed and transferred to the family plot at the Holy
reach would affect their future as a family because the
Cross Memorial Cemetery in Novaliches, Quezon City.
size of the family or the number of their children
significantly matters. The decision whether or not to Issue: As between the legal wife and the common-law
undergo the procedure belongs exclusively to, and wife, who has the legal right over the remains of
shared by, both spouses as one cohesive unit as they deceased patriarch?
chart their own destiny. It is a constitutionally guaranteed
private right. Unless it prejudices the State, which has Ruling: It is clear that the law gives the right and duty to
not shown any compelling interest, the State should see make funeral arrangements to Rosario, she being the
to it that they chart their destiny together as one family. surviving legal wife of Atty. Adriano. The fact that she
As highlighted by Justice Leonardo-De Castro, Section was living separately from her husband and was in the
19(c) of R.A. No. 9710, otherwise known as the "Magna United States when he died has no controlling
Carta of Women," provides that women shall have equal significance. To say that Rosario had, in effect, waived
rights in all matters relating to marriage and family or renounced, expressly or impliedly, her right and duty
relations, including the joint decision on the number and to make arrangements for the funeral of her deceased
spacing of their children. Indeed, responsible husband is baseless. The right and duty to make funeral
parenthood, as Section 3(v) of the RH Law states, is a arrangements, like any other right, will not be considered
shared responsibility between parents. Section as having been waived or renounced, except upon clear
23(a)(2)(i) of the RH Law should not be allowed to betray and satisfactory proof of conduct indicative of a free and
the constitutional mandate to protect and strengthen the voluntary intent to that end.
family by giving to only one spouse the absolute
authority to decide whether to undergo reproductive ARTICLE XVI. GENERAL PROVISIONS
health procedure. The right to chart their own destiny
Lockheed vs. UP
together falls within the protected zone of marital privacy
and such state intervention would encroach into the Facts: Petitioner Lockheed Detective and Watchman
zones of spousal privacy guaranteed by the Constitution. Agency, Inc. (Lockheed) entered into a contract for
security services with respondent University of the
Valino vs. Adriano
Philippines (UP).
Facts: Atty. Adriano, a partner in the Pelaez Adriano
Several security guards assigned to UP filed
and Gregorio Law Office, married respondent Rosario.
separate complaints against Lockheed and UP for
The marriage, however, turned sour and they were
payment of underpaid wages, 25% overtime pay,
eventually separated-in-fact. Years later, Atty. Adriano
premium pay for rest days and special holidays, holiday
courted Valino, one of his clients, until they decided to
pay, service incentive leave pay, night shift differentials,
live together as husband and wife. Despite such
13th month pay, refund of cash bond, refund of
arrangement, he continued to provide financial support
deductions for the Mutual Benefits Aids System (MBAS),
to Rosario and their children (respondents). In 1992,
unpaid wages from December 16-31, 1998, and Hermano Oil vs. TRB
attorneys fees.
Facts: Hermano Oil Manufacturing & Sugar Corporation
A Notice of Garnishment was issued to owned a parcel of land at NLEX. The petitioner
Philippine National Bank (PNB) UP Diliman Branch for requested that respondent Toll Regulatory Board (TRB)
the satisfaction of the award. grant an easement of right of way, for it had been
deprived of its enjoyment and possession by the fence
The CA held that although the subject funds do that barred its entry. TRB denied based on the Limited
not constitute public funds, in light of the ruling in the Access Highway Act. Hence, petitioner sued TRB and
case of National Electrification Administration v. Morales Engr. Dumlao demanding specific performance, the
mandates that all money claims against the government grant of the easement of right of way and damages
must first be filed with the Commission on Audit (COA). being deprived of its property without due process, just
Hence, petitioner filed this petition before the SC. compensation and equal protection of the law. As to the
matter of non-suability, the Court notes that while
Issue: Having a charter with which it can sue and be
respondent PNCC is a government owned and
sued, can UP funds be garnished?
controlled corporation, the other respondents are either
Ruling: Yes. UP is a juridical personality separate and agencies of the State (DPWH and TRB) or an employee
distinct from the government and has the capacity to sue of a government agency. Petitioner argued that the
and be sued. Thus, also like NEA, it cannot evade principle of non-suability of the state does not apply
execution, and its funds may be subject to garnishment when the government acted in a non-governmental
or levy. capacity. The Court, however, notes that petitioner
merely cites cases to this effect but did not put forward
DOH vs. Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc. any argument why the maintenance of NLEX should be
considered as a non-governmental function. It cannot be
Facts: Based on the “Report on Violative Products” denied that the maintenance of the highways is part of
issued by the BFAD, it found out that some products, the necessary functions of the government of
including those of Phil Pharma Wealth, Inc. (PPI) which maintaining public infrastructures.
were being sold to the public, were unfit for human
consumption. With this, PPI and the other drug Issue: What is the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity?
companies were directed to submit within 10 days their
respective explanations on the adverse findings covering Ruling: A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of
their respective products. However, PPI’s belated reply any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the
was found “untenable” by Undersecretary Galon and logical and practical ground that there can be no legal
informed the former that, effective immediately, its right against the authority that makes the law on which
accreditation has been suspended for two years the right depends. An unincorporated government
pursuant to AO 10 and Memorandum No. 171-C. PPI agency without any separate juridical personality of its
then filed a complaint, for which the herein petitioners own enjoys immunity from suit because it is invested
considered as a suit against the State. with an inherent power of sovereignty. Accordingly, a
claim for damages against the agency cannot prosper;
Issue: Does the mantle of non-suability extend to otherwise, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is violated.
complaints filed against public officials? In the case at bar, TRB and DPWH correctly invoke the
doctrine of sovereign immunity because its function is
Ruling: Yes. The mantle of non-suability extends to governmental or incidental to such function.
complaints filed against public officials for acts done in
the performance of their official functions. The State Issue: Did TRB, DPWH, and PNCC correctly invoke the
may not be sued without its consent. Likewise, public doctrine of sovereign immunity?
officials may not be sued for acts done in the
performance of their official functions or within the scope Ruling: I Qualify. The TRB and the DPWH correctly
of their authority. With that, the suability of a invoked the doctrine of sovereign immunity in their favor.
government official depends on whether the official The TRB and the DPWH performed purely or essentially
concerned was acting within his official or jurisdictional government or public functions. As such, they were
capacity, and whether the acts done in the performance invested with the inherent power of sovereignty. Being
of official functions will result in a charge or financial unincorporated agencies or entities of the National
liability against the government. Government, they could not be sued as such. On the
other hand, PNCC being a private business entity, was
not immune from suit. The PNCC was incorporated in Lambino vs. Comelec
1966 under its original name of Construction
Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP) for Facts: On 25 August 2006, Lambino et al filed a petition
a term of fifty years pursuant to the Corporation Code. In with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify
1983, the CDCP changed its corporate name to the their initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution
PNCC to reflect the extent of the Government's equity under Section 5(b) and (c)2 and Section 73 of Republic
investment in the company, a situation that came about Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act. The
after the government financial institutions converted their Lambino Group’s initiative petition changes the 1987
loans into equity following the CDCP's inability to pay the Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI
loans. Although the majority or controlling shares of the (Legislative Department) and Sections 1-4 of Article VII
PNCC belonged to the Government, the PNCC was (Executive Department) and by adding Article XVIII
essentially a private corporation due to its having been entitled “Transitory Provisions.” These proposed
created in accordance with the Corporation Code, the changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential
general corporation statute. More specifically, the PNCC system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of
was an acquired asset corporation under Administrative government. On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group
Order No. 59, and was subject to the regulation and filed an Amended Petition with the COMELEC indicating
jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission. modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory
Consequently, the doctrine of sovereign immunity had Provisions) of their initiative. The COMELEC denied the
no application to the PNCC. petition citing Santiago v. COMELEC declaring RA 6735
inadequate to implement the initiative clause on
Arigo vs. Commander Swift proposals to amend the Constitution.

Facts: The USS Guardian is an Avenger-class mine Issue: Whether the Lambino Group’s Initiative petition
countermeasures ship of the US Navy. The US Embassy complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution
in the Philippines requested diplomatic clearance for the on amendments to the Constitution through a people’s
said vessel “to enter and exit the territorial waters of the initiative?
Philippines and to arrive at the port of Subic Bay for the
purpose of routine ship replenishment, maintenance, Ruling: No. The Lambino Group miserably failed to
and crew liberty.” Sometime in January 2013, while comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution
transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on the for conducting a people's initiative. The Lambino Group
northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs, did not attach to their present petition with this Court a
about 80 mi. east-southeast of Palawan. No one was copy of the paper that the people signed as their
injured in the incident, and there have been no reports of initiative petition. They just submitted to this Court a
leaking fuel or oil. Petitioners claim that the grounding, copy of a signature sheet after the oral arguments of 26
salvaging and post-salvaging operations of the USS September 2006 when they filed their Memorandum on
Guardian cause and continue to cause environmental 11 October 2006. Thus, there is even no need to revisit
damage of such magnitude as to affect the provinces of Santiago, as the present petition warrants dismissal
Palawan, Antique, Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros based alone on the Lambino Group's glaring failure to
Occidental, Negros Oriental, Zamboanga del Norte, comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution.
Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-tawi, which events violate their For following the Court's ruling in Santiago, no grave
constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology. abuse of discretion is attributable to the Commision on
Issue: Did the United States waive state immunity under
the Visiting Forces Agreement? Art. XVIII. TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Ruling: The waiver of state immunity under the VFA Cojuangco vs. Republic
pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special
Facts: In 1971, R.A. No. 6260 was enacted creating the
civil actions such as the present petition for issuance of
Coconut Investment Company (CIC) to administer the
a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from
Coconut Investment Fund (CIF), which, under Section 8
Section 17, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court that a criminal
thereof, was to be sourced from a PhP 0.55 levy on the
case against a person charged with a violation of an
sale of every 100 kg of copra. Of the PhP 0.55 levy of
environmental law is to be filed separately.
which the copra seller was–––or ought to be–––issued
Art. XVII. AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS COCOFUND receipts, PhP 0.02 was placed at the
disposition of COCOFED, the national association of
coconut producers declared by the Philippine Coconut
Administration (PHILCOA, now PCA) as having the Issue: What quantum of evidence is required in the
largest membership. recovery of ill-gotten wealth? Was the Republic able to
establish the ill-gotten nature of the Bakunawa’s wealth?
The declaration of martial law in September
1972 saw the issuance of several presidential decrees Ruling: Only a preponderance of evidence is needed to
purportedly designed to improve the coconut industry prove the demand for reconveyance or recovery of ill-
through the collection and use of the coconut levy fund. gotten wealth. This is clear from Section 1 of EO No. 14-
While coming generally from impositions on the first sale A. preponderance of evidence refers to the comparative
of copra, the coconut levy fund came under various weight of the evidence presented by the opposing
names. Charged with the duty of collecting and parties. As such, it has been defined as “the weight,
administering the Fund was PCA. Like COCOFED with credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either
which it had a legal linkage, the PCA, by statutory side,” and is usually considered to be synonymous with
provisions scattered in different coco levy decrees, had the term greater weight of the evidence or greater weight
its share of the coco levy. of the credible evidence. It is proof that is more
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that
Issue: Is the PCA-Cojuangco Agreement involving coco- which is offered in opposition thereto. Although the
levy funds constitutional? evidence of the plaintiff may be stronger than that of the
defendant, there is no preponderance of evidence on the
Ruling: No. As the coconut levy funds partake of the
plaintiff’s side if its evidence alone is insufficient to
nature of taxes and can only be used for public purpose,
establish its cause of action. The evidence of the
and importantly, for the purpose for which it was
Republic did not preponderantly establish the ill-gotten
exacted, i.e., the development, rehabilitation and
nature of the Bakunawas’ wealth.
stabilization of the coconut industry, they cannot be used
to benefit–––whether directly or indirectly–––private POTC and PHILCOMSAT vs. Sandiganbayan
individuals, be it by way of a commission, or as the
subject Agreement interestingly words it: compensation. Facts: After the successful People Power Revolution on
Consequently, Cojuangco cannot stand to benefit by February 1986, the new President Corazon Cojuangco
receiving, in his private capacity, 7.22% of the FUB Aquino, issued Executive Order Nos. 1 and 2, creating
shares without violating the constitutional caveat that the PCGG to recover properties amassed by the
public funds can only be used for public purpose. unseated President Ferdinand Edralin Marcos, Sr., his
Accordingly, the 7.22% FUB (UCPB) shares that were immediate family, relatives, and cronies, "by taking
given to Cojuangco shall be returned to the Government, undue advantage of their public office and/or using their
to be used "only for the benefit of all coconut farmers powers, authority, influence, connections or
and for the development of the coconut industry." relationship,"and to sequester and take over such
Republic vs. Bakunawa
Pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1 and 2, on 14
Facts: The Republic appeals the adverse decision March 1986, then PCGG Commissioner Ramon A. Diaz
rendered on April 10, 2002, and the resolution issued on issued a letter directing Officer-In-Charge Carlos M.
November 8, 2007, whereby the Sandiganbayan Ferrales to:
respectively dismissed the complaint for reconveyance,
reversion, accounting, restitution and damages filed 1. Sequester and immediately take over POTC
against respondents in Civil Case No. 0023, and denied and PHILCOMSAT among others, and
the Republic’s motion for reconsideration.
2. To freeze all withdrawals, transfers and/or
Civil Case No. 0023 is an action for remittances under any type of deposit accounts, trust
reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and accounts or placements.
damages brought by the Republic against respondents
for having allegedly acquired and accumulated ill-gotten POTC is a private corporation, which is a main
wealth consisting of funds and other property “in stockholder of PHILCOMSAT, a government-owned and
unlawful concert with one another” and “in flagrant controlled corporation, which was established in 1966
breach of trust and of their fiduciary obligations as public and was granted a legislative telecommunications
officers, with grave abuse of right and power and in franchise by virtue of Republic Act No. 5514, as
brazen violation of the Constitution and laws of the amended by Republic Act No. 7949, to establish and
Republic of the Philippines, thus resulting in their unjust operate international satellite communication in the
enrichment.” Philippines.
Issue: What is the effect of the failure to properly
implead POTC and PHILCOMSAT in the light of Sec. 26,
Art. XVIII of the 1987 Constitution?

Ruling: Section 26, Article XVIII of the Constitution

mandates that if no judicial action has been filed within
six (6) months after the ratification of the 1987
Constitution, the writ of sequestration shall automatically
be lifted. In the case at bar, there was no judicial action
filed against POTC and PHILCOMSAT. There has never
been any appropriate judicial action for reconveyance or
recovery ever instituted by the Republic against POTC