ARTICLE VI.

THE LEGISLATIVE POWER

I. Powers of Congress in general

A. Legislative power (Sec. 1)
1. Meaning
CASES:
Ople vs. Torres, G.R. No. 127685 July 23, 1998 – delineation of Legislative and Executive powers (read also the opinions
of JJ. Vitug, Panganiban and Kapunan)
KMU v. Director General, G.R. No. 167798, April 19, 2006
David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006
B. Non-legislative powers
II. Composition of Congress (Sec. 2 & 5)
A. Senate
1. Number of members
2. Manner of election
B. HOR
1. Classification & number of members
a. District reps
b. Party-list reps
CASES:
Veteran’s Federation v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 13678, October 26, 2010
Banat v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009
Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013 (reversal of Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT rulings)
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190529, April 29, 2010
Abayon v. HRET, G.R. No. 189466, February 11, 2010
Lico v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205505, September 29, 2015
Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190793, June 19, 2012
2. Manner of election [Sec. 5(1)]
3. Basic requirement for legislative districts
a. apportionment – number of inhabitants, uniform and progressive ratio [Sec. 5(1)]; contiguous, compact and adjacent
territories [Sec. 5(3)]
CASES:
Macias v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-18684, September 14, 1961
Montejo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 118702, March 16, 1995
b. representation – each city with population of at least 250,000, or each province, shall have at least one representative
[Sec. 5(3)]
CASE: Aquino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010
III. Qualifications of members of Congress (Sec. 3 & 6)
A. Citizenship – natural born citizen
CASES:
Vilando v. HRET, G.R. Nos. 192147 & 192149, August 23, 2011
David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 221538, September 20, 2016
B. Age – 35 for Senators, 25 for representatives on the day of the election at the latest
C. Literacy – able to read and write
D. Registration as voter
E. Residence
CASES:
Co v. Electoral Tribunal, G.R. Nos. 92191-92 July 30, 1991
Marcos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995 (Read also the other opinions)
Aquino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120265, September 18, 1995 (Read also the other opinions)
IV. Term of office (Sec. 4 & 7, Art. VI; Sec. 2, Art. XVIII)
A. Commencement – noon of June 30 next following the election
B. Duration
1. Senators – 6 years; maximum of 2 consecutive terms
a. Senators elected in 1992, 1st 12 served for 6 years (until June 30, 1998), remaining 12 for 3 years (until June 30, 1995)
b. Overlapping of terms & the Senate as a continuing body
CASES:
Neri v. Senate Committee, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008 (decision); September 4, 2008 (resolution)
Garcillano v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 170338, December 23, 2008
Balag v. Senate, G.R. No. 234608, July 3, 2018
2. Representatives – 3 years; maximum of 3 consecutive terms
C. Effect of voluntary renunciation
V. Regular and special elections of members of Congress (Sec. 8 & 9)
VI. Salaries and accounts of Members of Congress (Sec. 10 & 20)
CASE: PHILCONSA v. Jimenez, G.R. No. L-23326, December 18, 1965
VII. Parliamentary immunities (Sec. 11)
A. Privilege from arrest
CASE: People v. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76, February 3, 2000 (Also read the concurrence of J. Gonzaga-Reyes)
B. Privilege of speech and debate
CASES:
Osmeña v. Pendatun, supra
Jimenez v. Cabangbang, G.R. No. L-15905, August 3, 1966
Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago, A.C. No. 7399, August 25, 2009
Trillanes v. Castillo-Marigomen, G.R. No. 223451, Mar 14, 2018
VIII. Disclosure and Notification Requirements (Sec. 12)
IX. Incompatible and Forbidden Offices (Sec. 13)
CASES:
Adaza v. Pacaña, G.R. No. L-68159, March 18, 1985
Liban v. Gordon, G.R. No.175352, July 15, 2009
X. Inhibitions and Disqualifications (Sec. 14)
CASES:
Puyat v. De Guzman, G.R. No. L-51122, March 25, 1982
 Belgica v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013
XI. Sessions (Sec. 15); Read also Sec. 4 and 10, Art. VII
A. Regular session
B. Special sessions
XII. Officers of each House [Sec. 16 (1)]
A. Senate
1. Senate President
CASE: Avelino v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-2821, March 4, 1949 (decision); March 14, 1949 (resolution of the MR)
2. Others
CASE: Santiago v. Guingona, G.R. No. 134577, November 18, 1998
B. House of Representatives
1. Speaker
2. Others
CASE: Baguilat v. Speaker Alvarez, G.R. No. 227757, July 25, 2017
XIII. Quorum [Sec. 16 (2)]
A. Requirement – majority of each House
CASE: Avelino v. Cuenco, supra
B. If quorum is absent, a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent members EXCEPT
when such absence is based on a valid reason
CASES:
People v. Jalosjos, supra
Trillanes v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 179817, June 27, 2008
C. As long as there is quorum, the Houses of Congress may conduct business and hold session; within a quorum, a vote of majority
is generally sufficient to enact laws; GR: majority of those constituting a quorum sufficient to repeal a law
CASE: Kida v. Senate, G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011
XIV. Rule-making power and power of internal discipline [Sec. 16(3)]
A. Rule-making power
CASES:
Osmeña v. Pendatun, supra
Arroyo v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997
B. Discipline of members
CASES:
Osmeña v. Pendatun, supra
Alejandrino v. Quezon, G.R. No. 22041, September 11, 1924)
XV. Legislative journals and records [Sec. 16(4)]
A. Journals
CASES:
U.S. v. Pons, G.R. No. L-11530, August 12, 1916
Arroyo v. De Venecia, supra
B. Legislative journal vs. enrolled bill
CASES:
Morales v. Subido, February 27, 1969 (resolution)
Astorga v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-23475, April 30, 1974
Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, G.R. No. 105371, November 11, 1993
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, August 25, 1994
Fariñas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 147387, December 10, 2003
XVI. The Electoral Tribunals (Sec. 17 & 19)
A. Jurisdiction
CASES:
Lazatin v. HRET, G.R. No. 84297, December 8, 1988
Limkaichong v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 178831-32, April 1, 2009
Reyes v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013
Lico v. COMELEC, supra (distinguish with Reyes v. COMELEC)
B. Composition (Sec. 17)
CASES:
Abbas v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 83767, October 27, 1988
Bondoc v. Pineda, G.R. No. 97710, September 26, 1991
C. Time of constitution/organization
D. Independence from the House concerned
CASES:
Bondoc v. Pineda, supra
Angara v. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. L-45081, July 15, 1936
E. Authority to promulgate rules of procedure: exclusive
CASES:
Angara v. Electoral Commission, supra
Lazatin v. HRET, supra
F. Judicial review of decisions of Electoral Tribunals
CASES:
Co v. Electoral Tribunal, supra
Lerias v. HRET, G.R. No. 97105, October 15, 1991
Tagolino v. HRET, G.R. No. 202202, August 23, 2011
XVII. The Commission on Appointments
CASES:
Coseteng v. Mitra, G.R. No. 86649, July 12, 1990
Guingona v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 106971, October 20, 1992
XVIII. Manner of the conduct of sessions and voting in Congress
XIX. Specific powers of Congress
A. Power to enact statutes
1. Origin of laws (Sec. 24)
CASES:
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, supra (Read also the other opinions)
Abakada Guro v. Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005
2. Prohibited measures (Sec. 25(5), 28(4), 30 & 31; also Sec. 3, Art. IX-D; Sec. 4, 5, 10 Art. III; Sec. 2, Art. VIII]
 3. The “one-subject, one-bill” rule [Sec. 26(1)]
CASES:
PHILCONSA v. Jimenez, supra
Tobias v. Abalos, G.R. No. 114783, December 8, 1994
Tatad v. Secretary, G.R. No. 124360, November 5, 1997
Fariñas v. Executive Secretary, supra
Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service, G.R. No. 197676, February 4,
2014
4. Procedure in the passage of bills in Congress [Sec. 26(2), Art. VI]
a. General Rule: Three readings on separate days; exception
CASES:
Tolentino v. Secretary, supra
Kida v. Senate, supra
b. no-amendment rule
CASE: Abakada Guro v. Ermita, supra (Read also the resolution dated August 14, 2008)
c. The Bicameral Conference Committee
CASE: Abakada Guro v. Ermita, supra
d. Vote requirement for passage of bill – majority of those constituting a quorum
CASE: Kida v. Senate, supra
e. Manner of voting by legislators
5. The enrolled bill doctrine
CASES:
Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc. v. Jimenez, G.R. No. L-17931, February 28, 1963
Morales v. Subido, G.R. No. L-29658, November 29, 1968 (decision)
Arroyo v. De Venecia, supra, concurring and dissenting opinion of J. Puno – evolution of the enrolled bill doctrine
6. Approval of bill into law; veto power of the President (Sec. 27)
a. The rule of presentment
b. Presidential veto
1) Procedure after President vetoes bill
2) Item/partial veto
CASE: Belgica v. Executive Secretary, supra
3) GR: Prohibition of veto of a condition attached to an item; EXC: if condition is an improper provision
CASES:
Bengzon v. Drilon, G.R. No. 103524, April 15, 1992
PHILCONSA v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994
c. “Legislative veto” and post-enactment congressional oversight
CASE: Abakada Guro v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008
d. Judicial review of President’s veto power
CASES:
PHILCONSA v. Enriquez, supra
Gonzales v. Macaraig, G.R. No. 87636, November 19, 1990
B. Power to Conduct Legislative Inquiry and Question Hour (Sec. 21 & 22)
1. Distinctions
CASE: Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006
2. The power of inquiry
a. Who exercises power – the Houses themselves or their respective committees
CASE: In re Camilo L. Sabio, G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006
b. Persons covered – anyone, including public officials and private individuals
CASE: Senate v. Ermita, supra
c. Purpose – in aid of legislation
CASES:
Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, G.R. No. 89914, November 20, 1991
Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate Committee on Banks, G.R. No. 167173, December 27, 2007
d. Scope
CASES:
Senate v. Ermita, supra
Akbayan v. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516, July 16, 2008
Neri v. Senate Committee, supra
Romero v. Estrada, G.R. No. 174105, April 2, 2009
e. Governing rules – duly published rules of procedure of either House
CASE: Garcillano v. House of Representatives Committees, G.R. No. 170338, December 23, 2008
f. rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected
CASE: Balag v. Senate, supra
g. when legislative inquiry terminates
CASE: Balag v. Senate, supra
h. Power of legislative inquiry under §21 repeals inconsistent provisions of law
CASE: In Re Camilo L. Sabio, supra
i. Judicial review of issues arising from legislative inquiries
CASE: De la Paz v. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, G.R. No. 184849, February 13, 2009
3. The question hour
C. Power of appropriation (Sec. 25 & 29)
1. Appropriation defined
2. Exclusive origination rule (Sec. 24)
CASES:
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, supra
Abakada Guro v. Ermita, supra
3. Stages (Guingona v. Carangue)
4. Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President [Sec. 25(1)]
5. Prohibition against riders [Sec. 25(2)]
CASES:
Garcia v. Mata, G.R. No. L-33713, July 30, 1975
Gonzales v. Macaraig, supra (read also counter-arguments in the dissent of J. Cruz)
6. Procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving appropriations for
 other departments [Sec.25(3)]
7. The power of augmentation [Sec.25(5)]
CASE: Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014
8. Discretionary funds [Sec. 25(6)]
9. Reenacted budget [Sec. 25(7)]
10. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law [Sec. 29(1)]
CASE: Belgica v. Executive Secretary, supra (re: the Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social Fund)
11. Prohibition against appropriation for sectarian purpose [Sec. 29(2)]
CASES:
Aglipay v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-45459, March 13, 1937
Garces v. Estenzo, G.R. No. L-53487, May 25, 1981
Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City, A.M.
No. 10-4-19-SC, March 7, 2017 (read also the dissent of J. Leonen)
12. Special taxes as a special fund [Sec. 29(2)]
13. The “pork barrel” system
CASES:
PHILCONSA v. Enriquez, supra
Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty v. Secretary, G.R. No. 164987, April 24, 2012
Belgica v. Executive Secretary, supra
14. Riders in an appropriations law
CASE: Garcia v. Mata, supra
D. Power of taxation (Sec. 28)
1. Rule in taxation: uniformity, equitability, and progressiveness [Sec. 28(1)]
CASES:
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, supra
Abakada Guro v. Ermita, supra
2. GR: Power of taxation cannot be delegated; EXC: delegation to the President of the power to fix tariff rates, import and
export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts [Sec. 28(2)]
CASE: Abakada Guro v. Ermita, supra
3. Tax exemptions
a. to religious, charitable and educational institutions [Sec. 28 (3)]
CASES:
Lladoc v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-19201, June 16, 1965
Lung Center v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 144104, June 29, 2004
b. needs concurrence of majority of all members of Congress [Sec. 28(4)]
E. The power of concurrence/confirmation
1. To a grant of amnesty by the President (Sec. 19, Article VII)
2. To a treaty or international agreement (Sec. 21, Art. VII)
3. To confirm President’s nomination of Vice-President (Sec. 9, Article VII)
F. The war powers [Sec. 23(1), Art. VI]
G. Power to grant emergency powers to the President [Sec. 23(2)]
CASES:
David v. Arroyo, supra
Araneta v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. L-2044, August 26, 1949 (no longer controlling)
Rodriguez v. Gella, G.R. No. L-6266, February 2, 1953 (no longer controlling)

ARTICLE VII. THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

I. Executive Power (Sec. 1)

CASES:
Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989 (Read also the concurring opinion of CJ Fernan, and the dissenting
opinions of J. Sarmiento & Cruz)
Laurel v. Garcia, G.R. No. 92013 July 25, 1990 (read also the concurrence of J. Padilla and dissent of J. Feliciano)
II. Qualifications (Sec. 2)
A. Citizenship – natural-born citizen
CASES:
Fornier v. COMELEC, G. R. No. 161824, March 3, 2004 (read also the concurrences and dissents for additional nuances)
Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G. R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016
B. Registered voter
C. Literacy requirement – able to read and write
D. Age on election day – at least 40
E. Residence – at least 10 years immediately preceding election day
CASE: Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, supra
III. Election, Canvass & Proclamation (Sec. 4)
A. Election
B. Canvass & proclamation
CASE: Macalintal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013
C. Proclamation of winner
D. The Presidential Electoral Tribunal
CASES:
Tecson v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004
Macalintal v. PET, G.R. No. 191618, November 23, 2010
Santiago v. Ramos, P.E.T. Case No. 001, February 13, 1996
Poe v. Macapagal-Arroyo, P.E.T. Case No. 002, March 29, 2005
Legarda v. De Castro, P.E.T. Case No. 003, March 31, 2005 (re PET power to correct manifest errors in the SOVs and COCs);
January 18, 2008 (protest mooted)
Roxas v. Binay, P.E.T. No. 004, August 16, 2016
IV. Oath of office (Sec. 5)
V. Term of office (Sec. 4)
A. Duration
B. Eligibility for reelection
1. President: no
 CASE: Pormento v. Estrada, G.R. No. 191988, August 31, 2010
2. Vice-President: yes; 2 consecutive terms only
VI. Vacancies and manner of filling it in (Sec. 7, 8 & 10)
A. Possible causes of vacancy
CASE: Estrada v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001 (read also the concurring opinion of J. Mendoza re permanent
incapacity)
B. Effects of vacancy
C. Role of Congress
VII. Temporary incapacity & serious illness of the President (Sec. 11)
CASE: Estrada v. Arroyo, supra (read also the concurrence of J. Vitug regarding temporary incapacity)
VIII. Privileges and inhibitions (Sec. 6 & 13)
CASES:
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 83896, February 22, 1991
Public Interest Center Inc. v. Elma, G.R. No. 138965, June 30, 2006
Funa v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 184740, February 11, 2010
IX. Presidential Immunity
CASES:
Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001 – no post-tenure immunity from criminal prosecution
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) – post-tenure absolute immunity from civil litigation (for acts committed during incumbency)
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) – no immunity from civil litigation for pre-tenure acts
X. Specific Powers of the President
A. The Appointing Power (Sec. 16); Midnight appointments (Sec. 15)
CASES:
Sarmiento v. Mison, G.R. No. 79974 December 17, 1987
Kida v. Senate, G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011
Rufino v. Endriga, G.R. No. 139554, July 21, 2006
Pimentel v. Ermita, G.R. No. 164978, October 13, 2005
Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 203372, June 16, 2015 (read also the concurring and dissenting opinion
of J. Brion)
Javier v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-39451, February 20, 1989
Aytona v. Castillo, G.R. No. L-19313, January 19,
Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President, supra (read also the concurring and dissenting opinion of J. Brion)
In Re Appointments of Valenzuela and Vallarta, A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC November 9, 1998
De Castro v. JBC, G. R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010 (read also the dissent of J. Carpio-Morales)
B. The Power of Control and the Faithful Execution clause (Sec. 17)
CASES:
Gascon v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 78389, October 16, 1989
Maceda v. Macaraeg, G.R. No. 88291, May 31, 1991
Drilon v. Lim, G.R. No. 112497, August 4, 1994
David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006
Chavez v. NHA, G.R. No. 164527, August 15, 2007
Biraogo v. Truth Commission, G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010
Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 196425, July 24, 2012
C. The Military Powers (Sec. 18)
1. Distinctions
2. The Calling out power
CASES:
IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004
David v. Arroyo, supra
Ampatuan v. Puno, G.R. No. 190259, June 7, 2011
Kulayan v. Tan, G.R. No. 187298, July 3, 2012
3. Martial law & suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus
CASES:
Lagman v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 231658, July 4, 2017 (read also the separate opinions)
Padilla v. Congress, G.R. No. 231671, July 25, 2017 (joint voting vs. joint session)
Lagman v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 235935, February 6, 2018 (re 2nd extension)
Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 243522, February 19, 2019 (re 3rd extension)
4. Judicial review
CASES:
Lansang v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-33964, December 11, 1971
Aquino v. Enrile, G.R. No. L-35546, September 17, 1974
Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile, G.R. No. L-61388, April 20, 1983
Fortun v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 190293, March 20, 2012 (read also the dissent of J. Carpio)  Read, however, Lagman v.
Executive Secretary, supra
5. Consequences of ML proclamation or suspension of the privilege of the writ
CASE: Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34, G.R. No. L-54558, May 22, 1987 (concurring opinion of CJ Teehankee)
D. The power of executive clemency (Sec. 19)
1. Types – reprieves, commutations, pardons, remission of fines and forfeitures, and amnesty
2. Limitations
CASES:
Llamas v. Orbos, G.R. No. 99031 October 15, 1991
People v. Salle, G.R. No. 103567, December 4, 1995
3. Evolution of the Philippine laws on presidential pardon
CASE: People v. Salle, supra
4. Effect of grant of pardon
CASES:
Monsanto v. Factoran, G.R. No. 78239, February 9, 1989 (read also the concurrence of JJ. Padilla and Feliciano)
Risos-Vidal v. Estrada, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015
5. Effect of violation of clemency
CASES:
Espuelas v. Provincial Warden of Bohol, G.R. No. L-13223, May 30, 1960
Culanag v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-27206, August 26, 1967
 Torres v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 76872, July 23, 1987
In Re Wilfredo Sumulong Torres, G.R. No. 122338, December 29, 1995
6. Grant of amnesty
CASE: Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190793, June 19, 2012
7. President’s power of clemency vs. power of the courts to control the execution of final decisions
CASE: Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, January 19, 1999
E. The borrowing power (Sec. 20)
F. The diplomatic power (Sec. 21); also read: Sec. 25, Article XVIII
CASES:
Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000 (read also the dissent of J. Puno)
Nicolas v. Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009 (read also the dissent of JJ. Puno and Carpio)
G. The budgetary power (Sec. 22)
H. The informing power (Sec. 23)
I. The presidential pork barrel
CASE: Belgica v. Executive Secretary, supra
J. Other powers
1. delegated emergency powers [Sec. 23(2), Article VI; also Sec. 17, Article XII]
CASE: David v Arroyo, supra
2. power to call special session of Congress at any time (Sec. 15, Article VI)
3. power to certify urgent bills [Sec. 26(2), Article VI]
4. power to approve or veto legislation [Sec. 27(1), Article VI]
CASE: Belgica v. Executive Secretary, supra – pork barrel system violates the President’s constitutional line-item veto
power
5. delegated power to fix tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts [Sec.
28(2), Article VI]
6. power to concur in the deputation of law-enforcement agencies and government instrumentalities by the COMELEC during
elections [Sec. 2(4), Article IX-B]
7. power to remove or discipline, upon the recommendation of the Comelec, any officer or employee deputized by the Comelec
during elections [Sec. 2(8), Article IX-C]
8. power to extend beyond three years the tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the AFP [Sec. 5(7), Article XVI]
9. powers implicit in the President’s as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief powers
CASES:
Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, supra – power to conduct peace negotiations
with rebel groups, and to agree to pursue reforms that would require new legislation and/or constitutional amendments
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, supra – power to declare a state of rebellion

ARTICLE VIII. THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

I. Judicial Power (Sec. 1)

A. Repository
B. Meaning
1. Traditional judicial power
2. Judicial review
a. Classification
1) Traditional appellate power [Sec. 5(2), Art. VIII]
2) Expanded power of judicial review (Sec. 1, Art. VIII)
CASE: Llamas v. Orbos, G.R. No. 99031 October 15, 1991
b. Functions
CASES:
Occeña v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-56350, April 2, 1981 (e.g., legal effect of the ruling of Javellana v. Executive Secretary)
Salonga v. Paño, G.R. No. L-59524, February 18, 1985
II. Power to define, prescribe, and apportion jurisdiction of courts [Sec. 2(1)]
A. GR: As the Constitution provides, or as Congress provides
CASE: COMELEC v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 171208, September 7, 2007
B. Limitation of the plenary power of Congress: It may not deprive SC of its jurisdiction under the Constitution
III. Security of tenure [Sec. 2(2)]
CASE: De la Llana v. Alba, G.R. No. L-57883, March 12, 1982 (citing the concurring opinion of J. Laurel in Zandueta v. De la Costa,
G.R. No. L-46267, November 28, 1938)
IV. Appointments to the judiciary (Sec. 9)
A. Qualifications
1. SC
CASE: Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018
2. lower courts
CASE: Villanueva v. JBC, G.R. No. 211833, April 7, 2015
B. The Judicial and Bar Council (Sec. 8)
1. under the supervision of the SC
CASE: Jardeleza v. Sereno, G.R. No. 213181, August 19, 2014 (Read also the concurrence of J. Brion and dissent of J.
Leonen)
2. composition
CASE: Chavez v. JBC, G.R. No. 202242, July 17, 2012 (decision); April 16, 2013 (resolution)
3. functions & rule-making power
V. Fiscal Autonomy [Sec. 3]
CASE: Bengzon v. Drilon, G.R. No. 103524 April 15, 1992
VI. The Supreme Court [Sec. 4]
A. Composition
B. Vacancies
1. How created
2. When filled up – within 90 days from the occurrence; appointments to vacancies in the judiciary not covered by the midnight
appointments ban
CASE: De Castro v. JBC, G. R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010
3. Disbarment against an incumbent SC Justice not allowed; BUT quo warranto is a viable remedy to remove an SC justice
whose appointment is void
 CASES:
Cuenco v. Fernan, A.M. No. 3135, February 17, 1988
Republic v. Sereno, supra
C. Jurisdiction
1. En Banc cases (per SC Internal Rules, A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC, promulgated on May 4, 2010)
a. cases involving the constitutionality or validity of a treaty, international or executive agreement, law, executive order,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation
b. appeals in criminal cases where the trial court imposes death penalty or reclusion perpetua
c. cases raising novel questions of law
CASES:
Laurel v. Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076, February 27, 2006 (decision, First Division); January 13, 2009 (resolution, En
Banc)
d. cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls
e. cases involving decisions, resolutions, and orders of the CSC, the COMELEC, and the COA
f. cases where the penalty recommended or imposed is dismissal of a judge, disbarment of a lawyer, suspension of any
of them for a period of more than 1 year, or a fine exceeding Php40,000.00
g. cases covered by the preceding paragraph and involving the reinstatement in the judiciary of a dismissed judge, the
reinstatement of a lawyer in the roll of attorneys, or the lifting of a judge’s or a lawyer’s suspension
h. cases involving the discipline of a Member of the SC, or a Presiding Justice, or any Associate Justice of the collegial
appellate court
i. cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the Court en banc or by a Division may be modified or reversed
CASE: Cabuay v. Malvar, G.R. No. 123780, September 24, 2002
j. cases involving conflicting decisions of two or more divisions
CASE: Cabuay v. Malvar, supra
k. cases where three votes in a Division cannot be obtained
l. Division cases where the subject matter has a huge financial impact on businesses or affects the welfare of a commu-
nity
m. other division cases that, in the opinion of at least 3 Members of the Division who are voting and present, are appropriate
for transfer to the Court en banc
CASE: Secretary of the DPWH v. Spouses Tecson, G.R. No. 179334, July 1, 2013 (decision); April 21, 2015 (reso-
lution)
n. cases that the Court en banc deems of sufficient importance to merit its attention
CASE: In Re Letters of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza, A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC, March 13, 2012
o. all matters involving policy decisions in the administrative supervision of all courts and their personnel
2. Division cases – cases not otherwise under the jurisdiction of the En Banc
D. Voting requirement for decisions/resolutions
1. En Banc
a. Concurrence requirement
b. Deadlock in voting
i. In decisions – dismiss the case
CASE: Cruz v. Secretary, G.R. No. 135385. December 6, 2000
ii. In resolution of an MR to a decision – deny MR
CASE: Santiago v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997 (decision); June 10, 1997 (resolution)
c. Flips
i. In the same case
CASES:
Navarro v. Ermita, G.R. No. 180050, April 12, 2011 (resolution on the MR, per J. Nachura, reversing the decision
promulgated on February 10, 2010, per J. Peralta)
Gonzales v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 196231, January 28, 2014 (“decision” on the MR, per J. Brion,
reversing the decision promulgated on September 4, 2012, per J. Bernabe)
Maliksi v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203302, April 11, 2013 (resolution on the MR, per J. Bersamin, reversing the
decision promulgated on March 12, 2013, per J. Carpio)
ii. In a separate case
CASES:
In Re Appointments of Valenzuela and Vallarta, A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC, November 9, 1998 (midnight appoint-
ments bar applies to the judiciary)  De Castro v. JBC, G. R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010 (midnight appointments
bar does not apply to the judiciary)
Philconsa v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994 (challenge against the Countrywide Development Fund
failed)  LAMP v. Secretary, G.R. No. 164987, April 24, 2012 (challenge against PDAF failed)  Belgica v.
Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013 (challenge against the PDAF article in the 2013 GAA and all other
similar congressional pork barrel allocations succeeded)
d. Flips, flops and flip-flops
CASE: League of Cities v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176951
(1) November 18, 2008 (6-5 decision granting petition and declaring the cityhood laws unconstitutional)
(2) March 31, 2009 (7-5 resolution denying MR)
(3) April 28, 2009 (6-6 Resolution denying 2nd MR)
(4) June 2, 2009 (Resolution clarifying the April 28, 2009 Resolution)
(5) Entry of Judgment
(6) December 21, 2009 (6-4 decision of reversal, granted respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution
of June 2, 2009 and declared the cityhood laws constitutional)
(7) August 24, 2010 (7-6 resolution granting petitioner’s Ad Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion to
Annul Decision dated December 21, 2009 and reinstating the November 18, 2008 decision)
(8) February 15, 2011 (7-6 resolution granting respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration of the August 24, 2010 Reso-
lution)
(9) April 12, 2011 (7-6 resolution denying with finality petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration)
2. Division
a. Concurrence requirement
b. MRs in a Division case
CASE: In Re Letters of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza, supra
c. Deadlocks in voting
i. In decisions – refer to En Banc
ii. In resolution to an MR of a decision – MR denied, decisions stands
 CASE: Fortich v. Corona, G.R. No. 131457, April 24, 1998 (Decision); November 17, 1998 (Resolution of the 1st
MR); August 19, 1999 (of the 2nd MR)
VII. Requisites of judicial review
A. actual case or controversy
CASES:
Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998 (read also the dissent of J. Kapunan)
Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003
Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel, G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008
Gutierrez v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice, G.R. No. 193459, February 15, 2011
Belgica v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013
Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014
1. Moot cases – GR: SC refuses to take cognizance or to decide on the merits; exception
CASES:
Salonga v. Paño, supra
Lacson v. Perez, G.R. No. 147780, May 10, 2001
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004
Enrile v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 132986, May 19, 2004
Akbayan v. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516, July 16, 2008
Corona v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 200242, July 17, 2012
B. legal standing
CASES:
Liban v. Gordon, supra (decision)
IBP v. Zamora, supra
Biraogo v. Truth Commission, supra
Chavez v. JBC, supra
Province of Batangas v. Romulo, G.R. No. 152774, May 27, 2004
Bayan v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006
White Light Corp. v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009
Quinto v. Comelec, G.R. No. 189698, December 1, 2009
C. earliest opportunity
CASES:
Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 191618, November 23, 2010
Hacienda Luisita Inc. v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, G.R. No. 171101, July 5, 2011
Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013
D. necessity of deciding the constitutional question (lis mota)
CASES:
Zandueta v. De la Costa, G.R. No. L-46267, November 28, 1938
Flores v. Comelec, G.R. No. 89604, April 20, 1990
Tarrosa v. Singson, G.R. No. 111243 May 25, 1994
Sameer Oversees Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014
Liban v. Gordon, G.R. No.175352, January 18, 2011 (resolution)
VIII. Declaration of unconstitutionality
A. Effect
1. Orthodox view – law declared unconstitutional is void and deemed inexistent from the very beginning
CASE: Yap v. Thenamaris Ship’s Management, G.R. No. 179532, May 30, 2011
2. Operative fact doctrine – actual existence of law before it is declared unconstitutional an operative fact with consequences
that cannot be ignored
CASES:
Manila Motor Company Inc. v. Flores, G.R. No. L-9396, August 16, 1956
Agbayani v. PNB, G.R. No. L-23127, April 29, 1971
Umali v. Comelec, G.R. No. 203974, April 22, 2014
B. Partial unconstitutionality
CASES:
In Re Cunanan), [un-docketed], March 18, 1954 (resolution)
Salazar v. Achacoso, G.R. No. 81510 March 14, 1990
C. Significance of the separability clause
CASE: Tatad v. Secretary, G.R. No. 124360, November 5, 1997
D. Relative constitutionality
CASE: Central Bank Employees Association v. BSP, G.R. No. 148208, December 15, 2004
IX. Powers of the Supreme Court [Sec. 5]
A. Original jurisdiction
B. Appellate jurisdiction (review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari)
C. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require
1. temporary assignment shall not exceed 6 months without the consent of the judge concerned
D. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice
E. Rule-making
1. Scope
a. protection and enforcement of constitutional rights
CASE: Razon v. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, December 3, 2009
b. pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts
CASE: Re Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the GSIS From Payment of Legal Fees, A.M. No. 08-2-
01-0, February 11, 2010
c. admission to the practice of law
CASE: In re Garcia, [un-docketed], August 15, 1961
d. the integrated bar
CASE: In re Edillon, A.M. No. 1928, August 3, 1978
e. legal assistance to the under-privileged
2. Limitations
a. shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases
b. shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade
c. shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights
CASE: Primicias v. Ocampo, G.R. No. L-6120, June 30, 1953
 3. Includes power to review the rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, which shall remain effective
unless SC disapproves
CASE: De Guzman v. People, G.R. No. L-54288, December 15, 1982
4. Not subject to repeal, alteration or supplementation by Congress (unlike the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions)
CASE: Primicias v. Ocampo, supra
F. Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law
CASE: Re: Memorandum dated July 10, 2017 from AJ Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, A.M. No. 17-07-05-SC, July 3, 2018
G. Administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof [Sec. 6]; power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order
their dismissal [Sec. 11]
CASES:
Ampong v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 167916, August 26, 2008
Civil Service Commission v. Andal, G.R. No. 185749, December 16, 2009
Re: Request for Guidance/Clarification on Section 7, Rule III of R.A. 10154, A.M. 13-09-08-SC, October 1, 2013
In Re Justice Gregory Ong, A.M. No. SB-14-21-J, September 29, 2014
X. Tenure of Judges (Sec. 11)
CASE: Re: Report on the Judicial Audit in RTC-Branch 15, Ozamiz City, A.M. RTJ-04-1849, September 20, 2004
XI. Consultations and Decisions (Sec. 13 & 14)
A. Prior consultation and assignment of a ponente – SC conclusions in any case shall be reached in consultation before the case
the case assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the Court
B. CJ certification that there was prior consultation before assignment to ponente
CASE: Prudential Bank v. Castro, A.M. No. 2756, March 15, 1988
C. Voting must be explained
D. Decision shall express the facts and the law on which it is based
CASES:
Bernabe v. Geraldez, G.R. No. L-39721, July 15, 1975
University of the Philippines v. Dizon, G.R. No. 171182, August 23, 2012
E. petition for review or motion for reconsideration shall not be denied due course without stating the legal basis therefor
CASES:
Mendoza v. CFI, G.R. No. L-35612-14, June 27, 1973 (read also the concurrence of J. Barredo)
Borromeo v. CA, G.R. No. L-82273, June 1, 1990 – validity of minute resolutions
XII. Salaries of Judges [Sec. 10]
CASE: Nitafan v. CIR, G.R. No. 78780, July 23, 1987
XIII. Periods of Decision [Sec. 15]
CASE: Marcelino v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-42428, March 18, 1983
XIV. Annual Report [Sec. 16]
XV. Non-designation of SC Members to quasi-judicial and administrative bodies [Sec. 12]
CASES:
In Re: Designation of Judge Rodolfo U. Manzano, A.M. No. 88-7-1861-RTC, October 5, 1988
Macalintal v. PET, G.R. No. 191618, November 23, 2010