See. Ks 1° we Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec, Sec. Sec. Sec. rs ne qe t Ge 16 Career Civil Service Officers Dario v. Mison - 176 SCRA 84 [1989] (reorganization) Mendoza v. Quisumbing - 186 SCRA 108 [1990] Ontiveros v. CA. G.R. No. 145401 May 7, 2001 17-18 Readjustment of salary 19-21 Reversion of lands and real rights illegally acquired 22 Idle/Abandoned lands 23 Advertising Entities 24 Private Armies 25 Foreign Military Bases, Troops or Facilities Bayan v. Zamora, GR 138570, October 10, 2000 26 Sequestration Orders Joya v. PCGG ~ 225 SCRA 568 [1993] Republic v. Sandiganbayan ~ 221 SCRA 189 [1993] (powers of PCGG) Cojuangco v. Roxas ~ 195 SCRA 797 [1991] (vote of sequestered shares } Araneta =v. Sandiganbayan - 242 SCRA 482—_[1995] (investigate/prosecutory powers) Rumualdez v. Sandiganbayan ~ 244 SCRA 152 [1995] (authority over ill- gotten wealth) Republic v. Sandiganbayan - 240 SCRA 376 [1995] judicial action) Section 27. Effectivity Ts te 4. De Leon v. Esguerra, 152 SCRA 602 (1987) Section 26. Ill-Gotten Wealth; Sequestration/Freeze Orders Cojuangco v. Roxas, 195 SCRA 797 (1991) Classroom Policies Students are expected to have read the assigned materials for the class sessions and will be called for recitation. Attendance is checked. University rules governing absences are observed. Cell phones and other electronic devices must be kept in silent mode. Students must refrain from using these devices during classroom sessions. Plagiarism and cheating are grave offenses of intellectual dishonesty and are punishable by university rules. Consultation and discussion is available upon request of the student. Email me: ebaddiri@gmail.com 62* The Holy See v. Rosario ~ 238 SCRA 524 [1994] JUSMAG v. NLRC - 239 SCRA 224 [1994] * Larkins v. NLRC - 241 SCRA 598 [1995] « Minucher v. CA-GR 142396, Feb, 11, 2003 Aww Consent by Law G * Carabao v. Agricultural product Com. 35 SCRA 224 [1970] 7° Arcega v. CA — 66 SCRA 230 [1975] $+ Rayo v. CFI 110 SCRA 456 [1981] ‘* Municipality of San Fernando v. Fitme ~ 195 SCRA 692 [1991] lo* Republic v. NLRC ~ 263 SCRA 290 [1996] Exceptional Circumstance to avoid injustice \)* DOH v. Canchela - 475 SCRA 218 [2005] Agency ~ Propriety '2 ¢ United States v. Guinto ~ 182 SCRA 644 [ 1990] \3 « Fontanilla v. Maliaman - 194 SCRA 486 [1991] $+ PRC v. CA- 256 SCRA 667 [1996] 'S* Republic v, Purisima - 78 SCRA 470 [1977] ly * Santiago v. Republic - 87 SCRA 294 [1978] 17 ¢ Traders Royal Bank v. IAC ~ 192 SCRA 305 [1990] (g * Republic v. Sandoval - 220 SCRA 124 [1993] Iq * Delos Santos v. IAC - 223 SCRA 11 [1993] Ws DAv. NLRC - 227 SCRA 693 [1993] | ¢ EPG v. Sec. of DPWH - 354 SCRA 566 [2001] 2 * Philrock v. Board of Liquidators ~ 180 SCRA 171 [1989] 3+ Liang v. People - GR 125865 (January 28, 2000] ADB immunity) $+ Republic v. Hidalgo ~ 477 SCRA 12 [2005] (writ execution) J+ Philippine Agila v. Lichauco - 489 SCRA 22 [2006] G* U.P. v. Dizon - 679 SCRA 54 [2012] Section 4. AFP Section 5. AFP Requirement and Goals Section 6. Police Force “1+ Quilonia v. The General Court Martial - GR No. 9660, March 4, 1992 b+ Carpio v. Executive Secretary - 206 SCRA 290 (1992) 1+ Department of Budget v. Manila’s Finest, GR No. 169466, May 9, 2007 \+ Mendoza v. PNP, GR No. 189658, June 21, 2005 Section 7. War Veterans Section 8. Pensions and Benefits for Retirees Section 9. Protection of Consumers from Trade Malpractices 60\3 ¢ JG Summit Holdings v. CA 412 SCRA 10, Sept 24, 2003 {ris crystal clear that a shipyard cannot be considered a public utility. A shipyard is a place or enclosure where ships are built or repaired. Its nature dictates that it serves but a limited clientele whom it may choose to serve at its discretion. While it offers its facilities to whoever may wish to avail of its services, a shipyard is not legally obliged to render its services indiscriminately to the public. It has no legal obligation to render the services sought by each and every client. The fact that it publicly offers its services does not give the public a legal right to demand that such services be rendered. Section 12. Filipino First Policy I} * Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (1997) Section 13. Trade Policy |S Espina v. Zamora, 631 SCRA 17 Section 14. Development and Practice of Professions Section 15. Agency to Promote Cooperatives Section 16. Corporations \u ¢ NDC v. PVB, 192 SCRA 257 (1990) \1* Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. COA, GR 177131, 07 June 2011. Section 16, Article XII should not be construed so as to prohibit Congress from creating public corporation. In fact, Congress has enacted riumerous laws creating public corporations or government agencies or instrumentalities vested with corporate powers. Moreover, Section 16, Article XI, which relates to National Economy and Patrimony, could not have tied the hands of Congress in creating public corporation to serve any of the constitutional policies or objective. Section 17. Temporary Take-Over \% © Agan v. PIATCO, 420 SCRA 575 (1 * David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, GR No, 171396, May 2006 Section 18. Nationalization ‘+ Republic v. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620 (1968) | * PLDT v. NTC, 190 SCRA 717 (1990) 2 + PLDT y. Eastern Telecom, 213 SCRA 16 (1992) Section 19. Monopolies and Combinations 3° Energy Regulatory Board v. CA, GR No. 113079, April 20, 2001 4° Garcia v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 132451, December 17, 1999 S* Tatad v. Secretary of Energy, 281 SCRA 330 {+ Bastern Assurance v. LTFRB, GR No. 149717, Oct. 7, 2003 ‘TV Avon v. Luna, GR No. 153674, December 20, 2006 Section 21. Foreign Loans Section 22. Acts Inimical to the National Interest 58ic * Philippine Geothermal v. Napocor, GR No. 144302, May 27, 2004 \y ¢ La Bugal-B'laan v. Ramos, GR 127872, Dec. 1, 2004 \] * JG Summit Holdings v. CA G.R. No. 124293, January 31, 2005 The fact that PHILSECO owns land cannot deprive stockholders of their right of first refusal. No law disqualifies a person from purchasing shares in a landholding corporation even if the latter will exceed the allowed foreign equity, what the law disqualifies is the corporation from owning land. This is clear from the provision under Sec. 2, Article XII of the Constitution: xx the State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at leact sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens Alienation Ig ¢ Sta, Rosa Mining v. Liedo - 156 SCRA 1 [1987] (mining claims) 17° San Miguel Corporation v. CA - 185 SCRA 722 [1990] (possession in the concept of an owner) ‘+ Republic v. Bantigue Point development Corporation, GR 162322, 14 March 2012 (burden on applicant to prove land sought to be registered is alienable or disposable on a positive act the goverment) Utilization (+ Miners v. Factoran ~ 240 SCRA 100[1995] (Jura regalia) 2 Tano v. Socrates - 278 SCRA 154 [1997] (Subsistence fisherman) 3+ Villaflor v. CA - 280 SCRA 297 [1997] (private ownership) 4 * Republic v. CA and PREC - GR 103882, [November 25, 1998] 299 SCRA 199 & + Republic v. Rosemoor Mining and Dev't Corp. , GR 149927, Mar 30, 2004 G * Alvarez. v. PICOP — 606 SCRA 444 [2009] ) + IID v. PSALM - 682 SCRA 602 [2012] Section 3. Lands of the Public Domain § + Director of Lands v. Aquino, 192 SCRA 296 (1990) ‘J Republic v. CA, 160 SCRA 228 (1988) loe Apex Mining v. Southeast Mindanao Gold, Inc, GR No. 152613, June 23, 2006 \l + Dir. of Lands v. IAC, 146 SCRA 509 (1986) 1° Ten Forty Realty v. Lorenzana, GR No. 151212, Sept. 10, 2003 \2 ° Chavez v. PEA, GR No. 133250, July 9, 2002 \ 4° Republic v, Southside, 502 SCRA 587 if * Republic v. T.A.N., 555 SCRA 477 Section 4. Specific Limits of Forest Lands and National Parks Section 5. Ancestral Lands and Domain (re Cruz v, Sec. of DENR, 347 SCRA 128 (2000) Section 6. Common Good ty * Telecom v. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337 (1998) 56prerogatives; private title to land must be traced to some grant, express or implied from the Spanish Crown and thereafter, the Philippine Republic. 5. FORESHORE LAND - that strip of land that lies between the high and low water marks and that is alternatively wet and dry according to the flow of the tide; inalienable unless converted by law int alienable lands. ©. SUBMERGED LAND ~ all lands permanently or periodically covered by tidal waters up to but not above the line of mean high tide 7. ANCESTRAL DOMAIN - an all-embracing concept referring to lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and includes ancestral lands, ete., and othe: lands individually owned, whether alienable or not, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, etc.; They include lands which may no longer be exclusively used by indigenous cultural communities but traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities ANCESTRAL LAND - narrower concept referring to lands utilized by cultural communities under the claim of individual or traditional group ownership; includes, but are not limited to residential lots, rice terraces, cte.; Those held under the same conditions but are limited to lands that are not merely occupied and possessed but are also utilized by cultural communities. 9. PRIVATE LAND - lands of private ownership including both lands owned by private individuals and those which are patrimonial property of the State or of municipal corporation 10. PUBLIC UTILITY — a utility corporation that renders service to the general public for compensation; service is not confined to privileged individuals but is open to an indefinite public. 11 FILIPINIZATION - Filipino ownership. 12 NATIONALIZATION - State ownership. 13, MONOPOLY - when there is only one seller or producer of a product or service for which there are no substitute; joint acquisition or maintenance by members of a conspiracy, formed for that purpose, of the Power to control and dominate trade and commerce in a commodity to such an extent that they are able, as a group, to exclude actual or potential competitors from the field, accompanied with the intention and purpose to exercise such power. 14, __ MINERAL ~ refers to all naturally occurring inorganic substance in solid, gas, liquid, or any intermediate state excluding energy materials such as coal, petroleum, natural gas, radioactive materials and geothermal energy. (Sec. 4 (e), A.M. No. 09-6-8-C) 38. WILDLIFE ~ means wild forms and varieties of flora and fauna, in all developmental stages including those which are in captivity or are being bred or propagated. (Sec. 4 (g), A.M. No. 09-6-8-C) 16. WRIT OF KALIKASAN - a remedy available to a natural or juridical person entity authorized by law, people’s organization, NGO, or any public interest group on behalf of persons constitutional right to a balance and healthful ecology is violate or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or a private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants. 17, _ MINERAL LAND - refer to those lads of public domain which has been classified as such by the Secretary of Natural Resources in accordance with the prescribed and approved criteria, guidelines and procedure. (See. 3 (9), P.D. No. 705) 18. NATIONAL PARK ~ refers to a forest land reservation essentially of primitive or wilderness character which has been withdrawn from settlement or occupancy and set aside as such exclusively to preserve the scenery, the natural and historic objects and the wild animals or plants therein, and to provide enjoyment of these features in such a manner as. 54+ People v. Sandiganbayan ~ 451 SCRA 413 [2005] © * Laxina v. Ombudsman - 471 SCRA 542 [2005] 7* Gemma P. Cabalit v. Commission On Audit-Region VII, Gr 180236, 17 January 2012 (Power of the Ombudsman to determine and impose administrative liability is mandatory) $+ Gonzales Ill v. OP - 679 SCRA 614 [2012] Section 13. Powers; Functions; Duties In General 1.* Cruz v. Sandiganbayan ~ 194 SCRA 474 [1991] \0* Maceda v. Vasquez - 221 SCRA 464 [1993] \\¢ Macalino v. Sandiganbayan — 376 SCRA 452 \L* Garcia v. Miro, GR No. 148944, Feb 5, 2003 \» ¢ Honasan II v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors ~ GR No. 159747, April 13, 2004 \y* Samson v. OMB, GR 117741, Sept 29, 2004 18 ¢ Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, GR 162214, Nov. 11, 2004 \y* Khan, Jr. v, Ombudsman, GR No. 125296, July 20, 2006 ‘1 * Ombudsman v. Estandarte, GR No. 168670, April 13, 2007 \¥ ¢ Ombudsman v. Lucero, November 24, 2006 \" ¢ Ombudsman v. CA, GR No. 169079, July 17, 2007 ys Sangguniang Barangay v. Punong Barangay, GR No. 170626, March 3, 2008 + Perez v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 166062, September 26, 2006 * Buencamino v. CA, GR No. 175895, April 4, 2007 Medina v. COA, GR No. 176478, February 4, 2008 Villas Nor v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 180700, March 4, 2008 Ombudsman v. Rodriguez, GR No. 172700, July 23, 2010 OMB v. Estendarte - 521 SCRA 155 [2007] Salvador v. Mapa - 539 SCRA 34 [2000] OMB v. Masing - 542 SCRA 253 [2008] Medina v. COA - 543 SCRA 684[2008] * Borja v, People ~ 553 SCRA 250 [2008] Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties (I * Buenaseda v. Favier - 226 SCRA 645 [1993] fle Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole - 251 SCRA 243 [1995] '3 © Vasquez v. Hobilla-Alinio - 271 SCRA 67 [1997] 14 © OMB v. CA-491 SCRA 92 Ig * OMB v. Madriaga - 503 SCRA 631 (y * OMB v. CA 507 SCRA 593 17 * Estorja v. Ranada ~ 492 SCRA 652 \¢ * OMB v. Lucero ~ 508 SCRA 593 Balbastro v. Junio ~ 527 SCRA 680 [2007] OMB v. CA ~ 527 SCRA 798 [2007] COA v. CA - 529 SCRA 245 [2007 OMB v. Santiago ~ 533 SCRA 305 [2007] Govenciong v. CA - 550 SCRA 502 [2008] * Marahomsalic v. Cole ~ 547 SCRA 98 * OMB v. Lisondra ~ 548 SCRA 83 82 G4Aads haee — ote -8Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers Section 1. Public Office Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be gecountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives % + Hipolito v. Mergas ~ 195 SCRA 6 [1991] 1+ Bornasal, Jr. v, Montes - 280 SCRA 181 [1997] (0+ Almario v. Resus ~ AM NO. P941076, [November 22, 1999] \l¢ Juan v. People, GR 132378, January 18, 2000 2 «Re; AWOL of Antonio Makalintal, AM 99-11-06-SC, February 15, 2000 (3 ¢ Estrella v. Sandiganbayan, GR 125160, June 20, 2000 '\« Malbas v. Blanco, A.M P99-1350, December 12, 2001 (6 * Manaois v. Lemeo, AM MTJ-03-1492, Aug. 26, 2003 ly * Re; Gideon Alibang, AM 2003-11-SC June 15, 2004 ‘1 * ABAKADA v. Purisima - 562 SCRA 251[2008] [6 Salumbides v. OMB, GR 180917, April 23, 2010 Section 2. Officers Subject to Removal by Impeachment The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust, All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment. !1¢ Ombudsman v. CA ~ 452 SORA 714 [2005] (exclusive list) Impeachable Officer in a Quo Warranto Proceedi 20* Republic vs. Sereno, G.R. 237428 Impeachment is not an exclusive remedy by which an invalidly appointed or invalidly elected impeachable official may be removed from the office. ‘The language of Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution does not foreclose @ quo warranto action against impeachable officers. The provision uses the permissive term “may” which denote discretion and cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect, indicative of a mere possibility, an opportunity or an option. Section 3. Procedure for Impeachment | ¢ In re Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771 (1988) * Marcoleta v. Brawner ~ 582 SCRA 474 [2009]) * Romulo v. Yniguez, 141 SCRA 260 (1986) Francisco v. House of Representatives, 415 SCRA 44 Estrada v. Desierto, 353 SCRA 452 (2001); MR, 356 SCRA 108 (2001) Gutierrez v. Committee on Justice, 643 SCRA 198 oF aos Section 4. Sandiganbayan 7° Nunez v. Sandiganbayan - 111 SCRA 433 [1982] (creation of Sandiganbayan) * Lecaros v. Sandiganbayan - 128 SCRA 324 [1984] (crimes in relation to public office) * Cunanan v. Arceo ~ 242 SCRA 88 [1995] (averment of the nature of the crime committed) 50Section 6. Share in National Taxes le Pimentel v. Aguirre, 336 SCRA 201 (2000) Province of Batangas v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 152774, May 27, 2004 Alternative Center v. Zamora, GR No. 144256, June 8, 2005 League of Cities v. COMELEC August 24, 2010 Section 7, Equitable Share in the National Wealth Section 8. Term of Local Officials ae Ge Te $e qe (ve We te lbe Ite [Ge lve ne We Borja v. COMELEC, 295 SCRA 157 Lozanida v. COMELEC, GR No. 135150, July 28, 1999 Adormeo v. COMELEC, GR No. 147927, February 4, 2002 Socrates v. COMELEC, 391 SCRA 457 (2002) Latasa v. COMELEC, GR No. 154829, Dec. 10, 2003 David v. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 90 (1997) Rivera v. COMELEC ~ 523 SCRA 41 Montebon v. COMELEC, 551 SCRA 50 Ong v. Alegre, GR No. 163295, January 23, 2006 Laceda v. Lumena ~ GR 182867, November 25, 2008 Dizon v. COMELEC, GR No. 182088, January 30, 2009 Bolos v. COMELEC ~ 581 SCRA 786 [2009] Aldovino v. COMELEC ~ 609 SCRA 234 [2009] Datu Michel Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR 196271, February 2012 (reconsideration; holdover provision in RA 9054 Unconstitutional as Congress in passing RA 10153 has made clear) Section 9. Sectoral Representatives he Supangan Jr. v. Santos, GR No. 84662, August 24, 1990 Section 10. Creation, Abolition, Change of Boundaries We le Seapen Tan v. COMELEC, 142 SCRA 727 (1986) Tobias v. Abalos - 239 SCRA 106 [1994] (metes and bounds) Mun. of Jimenez v. Judge Baz~ 265 SCRA 182 [1996](de jure corporation) Cawaling v. COMELEC - GR146319, October 26, 2001 League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC, GR 176951, Nov. 29, 2008 Sema v. COMELEC, 558 SCRA 700 Camid v. Office of the President, GR No. 161414, January 17, 2008 Navarro v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 180050, February 10, 2010 Section 11. Metropolitan Political Subdivisions ge loe MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association Assoc., GR No. 135962, March 27, 2000 MMDA v. Garin, GR No. 130230, April 15, 2005 Gancayco v. City Government of Quezon City, 658 SCRA 853 Section 12. Highly Urbanized Cities, Component Cities Kos Abella v, COMELEC, GR No. 100710, September 3, 1991 Section 13. Local Government Units Grouping Themselves 48D. Commission of Audit Section 1. Qualifications; Term (1° Mison v. COA, 187 SCRA 445 Section 2. General Function; Powers Government revenues and Government expenditures \$¢ Blue Bar Coconut Phil. Tantuico ~ 163 SCRA 716 [1988] (]* DBP v. COA ~ 231 SCRA 202 [1994] We Eslao v, COA ~ 236 SCRA 161 [1994] \* J.RF. Manacop v. CA - 266 SCRA 235 [1997] 2¢ Polloso v. Gangan, GR 140563, July 14, 2000 3* Uy. COA, GR 130685, March 21, 2000 4 Aguinaldo v. Sandiganbayan ~ 265 SCRA 121 [1996] Se DBP v. COA, 422 SCRA 459 [2004] 4 * Home Development Mutual Fund v. COA, GR 142297, June 15, 2004 7 * DBP v. COA ~ 498 SCRA 537 [2006] $+ Nava v. Palattao - 499 SCRA 745 [2006] ‘\* Gualberto De Lana v. COA, GR 180989, 7 Feb. 2012 lee Candelario L, Versoza Jr. v. Guillermo N Carague, GR 157838, 7 February 2012 Philippine Coconut v. Republic - 663 SCRA 514 [2012] Audit Jurisdiction Caltex v. COA ~ 208 SCRA 726 [1992] Mamaril v. Domingo ~ 227 SCRA 206[1993] Philippine Airlines v. COA ~ 245 SCRA 39 [1995] IS * CIR v. COA - 218 SCRA 203 [1993] lye CSC v. Pobre, GR 160568, Sept. 15, 2004 De Luciano Velos, et al. v. Commission On Audit, GR 193677,6 Sept. 20011 \t* Boy Scout of the Philippines v. COA, GR 177131, 7 June 2011 \1¢ Dela Liana v. COA - 665 SCRA 176 [2012] Settle Government Account ‘+ Philippine Operations, Inc. v. Auditor General, 94 Phil 868 [1953-1954] | ICNA v. Republic, 21 SCRA 40 [1967] 2 Dingcong v. Guingona, 162 SCRA 782 [1988] 43+ NHC v. COA - 226 SCRA 55 [1993] ‘te Euro-Med v. Province of Batangas, 495 SCRA 30 [2006] Define Scope and Techniques of Auditing Procedures S¢ Danville Maritime v. COA,175 SCRA 701 [1989] Promulgate Accounting and Auditing Rules Gs Leycano v. COA, 482 SCRA 215 Decide Administrative Cases Involving Expenditures of Public Funds Je NCMH vy. COA, 265 SCRA 390 [1996] &« Ramos v. Aquino, 39 SCRA 256 [1971] 4/* Salva v. Carague, 511 SCRA 258 fee City of Basilan v. Hechanova, 58 SCRA 711 [1974] 46, Section 2. Powers and Functions Adi rative Power we Ve we le Le Se Ge Se Ge Alfiado v. Comelec, GR 141787, September 18, 2000 Columbres v. Comelec, GR 142038,September 18, 2000 Sahali v. Comelec, GR 134169, February 2, 2000 Claudio v. Comelec, GR 140560, May 4, 2000 De Guzman v. Comelec, GR 129118, July 19, 2000 Social Weather Station, Inc v. COMELEC, GR NO. 147571, May 5, 2001 Information Technology Foundation v. Comelec, GR 159139, Jan 13, 2004 Buac v. Comelec, 421 SCRA 92 Capalla v. COMELEC - 673 SCRA 1 [2012] Election Contests Te ge qe loe lle (a Ibe ie Ke lye Tle Flores v. COMELEC - 184 SCRA 484 [1990] Galido v. COMELEC ~ 193 SCRA 78 [1991] Mercado v. BES ~ 243 SCRA 422 [1995] Relampagos v. Cumba ~ 243 SCRA 690 [1995] People v. Delgado ~ 189 SCRA 715 [1990] Garces v. CA ~ 259 SCRA 99 [1996] Zarate v. Comelec and Lallave - GR 129096, November 19, 1999 Regalado v. CA, GR 115962, February 15, 2000 Faelnar v. People,GR 140850-51, May 4, 2000 Tan v. Comelec, GR 148575, Dec. 10, 2003 Alauya v. Comelec, GR 158830, August 10, 2004 Powers Not Given Deputi Law Enforcement Agencies Re; People v. Basilla - 179 SCRA 87[1989} stration of Parties and Organization \{* LDP v. Comelec, GR 161265, February 24, 2004 Ue le Atienza v. COMELEC - 612 SCRA 761 [2010] Lokin v. COMELEC - 674 SCRA 538[2012] Prosecution of Election Offenses te De qe fe ue People v. Inting - 187 SCRA 788 [1990] Corpus v. Tanodbayan ~ 149 SCRA 281[1987] COMELEC y, Silva - 286 SCRA 177/1998] Comelec v. Hon. Espanol, GR 149164, Dec. 10, 2003 Arroyo v. DOJ - 681 SCRA 181[2012] 44Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure Cause for Removal: PARAGRAPH 3 1. Loss confidence fe Hernandez v. Villegas - 14 SCRA 544 [1965] 2. Abolition of Office S* Briones v. Osmena - 104 PHIL, 588 [1958] &* Bugene v. CSC - 243 SCRA 196 [1995] 3. Reorganization Jt Romualdez-Yap v. CSC ~ 225 SCRA 285 [1993] $+ Femandez v. Sto Tomas ~ 242 SCRA 192 [1995] ‘\* Chato v. Natividad - 244 SCRA 787 [1995] los Divinagracia v. Sto. Tomas ~ 244 SCRA 595 [1995] (par.3) lle Vinzon-Chato v. Zenarosa, GR 120539, October 20, 2000 Ive De Guzman v. Comelec, GR 129118, July 19, 2000 \3* Cuevas v. Bacal, GR 139382, December 6, 2000 4. Qualification for Eligibility \+* Mayor v. Macaraig - 194 SCRA 672 [1991 5. Abandonment; Acceptance of Incompatible/Other Employment [Se Canonizado v. Aguirre, 323 SCRA 312 [2001] [\ * Salvador v. CA, GR 127501, May 5, 2000 Due Process in Removal ‘Ve Enrique v. CA - 229 SCRA 180 [1994] \be CSC v. Magnaye - 619 SCRA 347 [2010] ‘Se Rubenecia v. CSC ~ 244 SCRA 640 [1995] “Ps Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office Board Of Directors v. Marie Jean C. Lapid, GR 191940, 12 April 2011 Security of Tenure \ + Chua v. CSC ~ 206 SCRA 65 [1992] 2 NLTD v. CSC ~ 221 SCRA 145 3* Cabagnot v. CSC - 223 SCRA 59 ( 4 Marohombsar v. CA, GR 126481, February 18, 2000 $* Ong v. OP - 664 SCRA 413 [2012] Electioneering or Partisan Political Activity Ge Santos v. Yatco - 106 PHIL 21 = * People v. De Venecia - 14 SCRA 864 [1965] Right to Self-Organization and Right to Strike 4 + SSS Employees v. CA ~ 175 SCRA 686 [1989] ‘+ Balingasan v. CA ~ 276 SCRA 557 [1997] \O« Jacinto v. CA - 281 SCRA 557 [1997] \l* De la Cruz v. CA - 305 SCRA 303 Ie GSIS v. Kapisanan - 510 SCRA 622 Temporary Employees \b* Gloria v. CA, GR 119903, August 15, 2000 2Section 4. Power to Appoint Section 5. Fiscal Autonomy S * CSC v. DBM, 482 SCRA 233 Section 6. Promulgation of Rules $* Macalintal v. COMELEC, GR No. 157013, July 10, 2003 G* Sabili v, COMELEC, GR 193261, April 24, 2012 Section 7. Decisions of the Commissions Review of final orders, resolutions and decisions: 1. Rendered in the exercise of quasi-judicial functions 2. Rendered in the exercise of administrative functions (* Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v. Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25 Je Saligumba v. CA, 117 SCRA 669 Gs PTTC v, COA, 146 SCRA 190 (1986) “| « Cua v. COMELEC, 156 SCRA 582 (1987) \Oe Estrella v. COMELEC, GR No. 160465, May 27, 2004 \le Mison v. COA, 187 SCRA 445 (1990) (Le Paredes v. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 653 (1984) (© Ambil v. COMELEC, 344 SCRA 358 [2000] \4* Mateo v. CA, GR No. 113219, August 14, 1995 \S * Reyes v. Regional Trial Court, GR No. 108886, May 5, 1995 (y+ ABS-CBN v. COMELEC, 323 SCRA 611 {1 ¢ Salva v. Makalintal, GR 132603, September 18, 2000 \s ¢ Garces v. CA, GR, No. 114 795, July 17, 1996 ‘4+ Dumayas v. COMELEC, GR Nos, 141952-53, April 29, 2001 Aguilar v. COMELEC, GR No. 185140, June 30, 2009 Cayetano v. COMELEC, GR 193846, April 12, 2011 Dela Llana v. The Chairperson, COA, GR 180989, February 7, 2012 Cagas v. COMELEC, 663 SCRA 644 (2012) wet Section 8. Other Functions B. Civil Service Commission Section 1. Composition; Qualifications; Term ‘'* Gaminde v. COA -347 SCRA 655 (2000) Se Mathay Jr. v. CA, GR No. 124374, December 15, 1999 Section 2. Scope of the system ( * Cuevas v. Bacal, GR 139382, December 6 2000 Under Civil Service Law PARAGRAPH 1 Te MWSS v. Hernandez ~ 143 SCRA 602 [1986] 4+ NSC v. NLRC - 168 SCRA 122 ‘{* UP v. Regino - 221 SCRA 598 [1993] We Mateo v. CA - 247 SCRA 284 [1995] l\* DOH v. NLRC ~ 251 SCRA 700 [1995] {Le Juco v. NLRC - 277 SCRA 528 [1997] \7* Feliciano v. Gison ~ 629 SCRA 103 [2010] 40Sec. 14. Contents of Decision; Petition for Review; Motion for Reconsideration Decision expressing clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it Sufficient \q* Air France v. Carrascoso- 18 SCRA 155 [1966] Pe People vy. Bravo- 227 SCRA 285 [1993] 1 © Hernandez v. CA- 208 SCRA 429 [1993] Le Francisco v. Permskul- 173 SCRA 324 [1989] 4 People v. Landicho- 285 SCRA 1 [1996] “te People v. Co- 245 SCRA 733 [1995] S « People v. Macoy- 275 SCRA 1 [1997] (.* ABD v. NLRC- 286 SCRA 454 [1998] |» People v. Gastador, GR 123727 [April 14, 1999] %* People v. Ordonez, GR 136591, July 10, 2000 “\* People v, Orbita, GR 1365891, July 11, 2002 \Us Lorbes v. CA, 351 SCRA 716 \l+ People v. Mendoza, GR 143702, Sept. 13, 2001 \e Asia Traders v. CA- 423 SCRA 114 [2004] (+ Tichangco v. Enriquez- 433 SCRA 324 [2004] \4¢ Ceferina Lopez Tan v. Spouses Antazo, GR 187208, 23 February 2011. is ¢ Donnina C. Halley v. Printwell, Inc. GR 157549, 30 May 2011 \q¢ Hon. Waldo Q. Flores v. Atty. Antonio F. Montemayor, GR 17046, 8 June 2011 \\¢ Reiting Solid Homes v. Laserna. Art VIII, Section 14 applies only to the judiciary) Insufficient [3 © People v. Escober- 157 SCRA 541 [1988] \4* Nicos v. CA - 206 SCRA 127 [1992] ‘We People v. Viernas - 262 SCRA 641 [1996] |* People v. Bugarin - 273 SCRA 384 [1997] 2 People v. Nadera - 342 SCRA 490 [2000] 4¢ Madrid v. CA, GR 130683, May 31 2000 4* Yaov. CA, GR 132428, October 24, 2000 f+ People v. Dumaging, GR 135516, September 20, 2000 G* Ong Chiu Kwan, GR 13006, November 23, 2000 V* Spouse Yu Eng Cho v. Pan America World Airways, Inc., GR 123560, March 27, 2000 Ye Kao v. C.A., G.R. No. 105014, December 18,2001 ~1* People v. Pastor, 379 SCRA 181 (2002) ! People v. Lizada, GR 143468, Jan 24, 2003 {le Consing v. CA-425 SCRA 192 [2004] I Velarde v. SUS-428 SCRA 283 [2004] b« Report on the Judicial Audit (MTC of Tambulig)- 472 SCRA 419 [2005] I4e Lacurom v. Tienzo- 535 SCRA 252 [2007] (Se Salazar v. Marigomen- 537 SCRA 25 [2007] Ike Dela Pena v. CA- 579 SCRA 396 [2009] (|* Office of the President and Presidential Anti- Graft Commission v. Calixto R, Cataquiz, GR 183445, 14 September 2011 38‘Vr CIR v. San Roque Power Corporation, GR 187485, Oct 8, 2013 (Operative Fact Doctrine does not apply to a mere administrative practice. there must be a law or executive issuance) Automatic Review; Paragraph 2 (d) 1 Garcia, et al. v. People- 318 SCRA 434 1 Pearson v. IAC, GR 74454, Sept. 3, 1998 J* People v. Mateo- 433 SCRA 640 4* People v. Duavis, GR 190681, 07 December 2011 Question of Law; Paragraph 2(e! 5 * Cebu Woman’s Club v, De la Victoria- GR 120060 [March 9, 2000) Change of Venue; Paragraph 4 (* People v. Gutierrez- 36 SCRA 172 [1970] Power to Promulgate Rules; Paragraph 5 Enforcement of Constitutional Rights, Pleading, Practice, and Procedure in All Courts ‘Te First Lepanto v. CA- 231 SCRA 30 [1994] $* Lina v. Purisima- 82 SCRA 344 [1978] 4* Santero v. CFI- Cavite- 153 SCRA 728 [1965] foe Damasco v. Laqui- 166 SCRA 214 [1988] \* Carpio v. Sulu Resources- GR 148267, August 8, 2002 Ibe Baguio Market Vendors v. Hon. Cortes- GR 165922, February 26, 2010 b+ In re Petition for Recognition- 612 SCRA 193 [2010] \{* In re Exemption of NPC- 615 SCRA 1 [2010] (Ce Inre: in the matter of clarification of Exemption from payment of all Court Sheriff's Fees of Cooperatives, A.M. 12-2-03-0,13 March 2012-668 SCRA 1 [2012] \ © Sto. Tomas v. Paneda- 685 SCRA 245 (2012) Admission to the Practice of Law, the Integrated Bar, Disciplinary Powers, and Legal Assistance to the Underprivileged ‘Le Inre Cunanan- 94 PHIL, 534 [953-1954] \¢* Javellana v. DILG 212 SCRA 475 [1993] 1 Velez v. De Vera- A.C, No. 6697, July 25, 2006 ‘We In re letter of UP Law Faculty- 644 SCRA 543 [2011] Simplified and Inexpensive Procedure for Speedy Disposition Uniform for All Courts of the Same Grade Not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights | ¢ Bustos v. Lucero- 81 PHIL. 648 [1948] 2 PNB v, Asuncion- 80 SCRA 321 [1977] * Fabian v. Desierto, GR 129742, September 16, 1998 People v. Lacson- 400 SCRA 267 [2003] Planters v. Fertiphil- 426 SCRA 414 [2004] Tan v. Bausch- 478 SCRA 115 [2005] Republic v. Gingoyon- 478 SCRA 474 [2005] Camp John Hay v. BIR- GR 172457, December 24, 2008 ate maw 36Citizens and Associations; Transcendental Importance iy ie ae ce ° Pe ee Te Gs qe Joe \le le De fe Ke Legaspi v. CSC- 150 SCRA 530 [1987] Oposa v. Factoran- 224 SCRA 792 [1993] PASEI v. Torres-225 SCRA 417 [1993] Joya v. PCGG- 225 SCRA 540 [1995] Kilosbayan v. Morato- 246 SCRA 436 [1995] Tatad v. Garcia 243 SCRA 436 [1995] Board of Optometry v. Colet- 260 SCRA 88 [1996] Anti-Graft League of the Philippines- 260 SCRA 250 [1996] Telecom v. COMELEC- 289 SCRA 337 [1998] Chavez. v. PCGG- GR 130716 [May 19,1999] IBP v. Zamora- GR 141284 [August 15, 2000] Bayan v. Zamora- GR 138570, October 10, 2000 Cruz v. Secretary of DENR- gr 135385, December 6, 2000 Lozano v. Macapagal-Arroyo - GR 146579, February 6, 2001 Lim v. Exec. Secretary- GR 151445 April 11, 2002 Chavez v. PEA- GR 133250, July 9, 2002 Tolentino v. COMELEC- 420 SCRA 438 [2004] Agan v, PIATCO- 420 SCRA 575 [2004] Tichangco v. Enriquez- 433 SCRA 324 [2004] Automotive Industry Workers Alliance v. Rumolo- 449 SCRA 1 Pimentel v. Office of the Executive Secretary- 462 SCRA 622 Senate v. Ermita- 488 SCRA 1 [2006] Purok v. Yuipco- 489 SCRA 382 [2006] David v. Arroyo- 489 SCRA 162 [2006] Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies ae te we 1 be 4° 10° Ve Rn, Be Ito Ge Wye De \ge ii 108 le 2e ge 4e Holy Spirit v. Defensor- 497 SCRA 581 [2006] Henares v. LTFRB- 505 SCRA 104 [2006] Francisco v. Fernando- 507 SCRA [2006] Public interest Center v, Roxas- 513 SCRA 457 [2007] Garcia v. J.G. Summit- 516 SCRA 483 [2007] Kilosbayan v. Ermita- 526 SCRA 353 [2007] Tondo Medical v. CA- 527 SCRA 746 [2007] Anak Mindanao v. Executive Secretary- 531 SCRA 583 [2007] Pharmaceutical v. Duque- 535 SCRA 265 Chavez v. Gonzales-545 SCRA 441 [2008] Akbayan v. Aquino- 558 SCRA 468 [2008] SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board- 570 SCRA 410 [2008] Garcillano v. House- GR 170338, Dec. 23,2008 White Light v. City of Manila- 576 SCRA 416 [2009] Chamber of Real Estete v, Romulo- 614 SCRA 605 [2010] Chamber of Real Estate v, ERC- 624 SCRA 556 [2010] Southern Hemisphere v. ATC- 632 SCRA 146 [2010] Orlando A. Reyes v. City of Manila, GR 196063, 14 December 2011 velbert B. Galicto v. H.E. President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino, Ill, GR 193978, 28 February 2012. : Bayan v. Romulo- 641 SCRA 244 [2011] Magallona v. Ermita- 655 SCRA 476 [2011] 3aPlenary Judicial Power; Derivative; PET (0 + Macalintal v. PET - 635 SCRA 783 [2010] {I «Hacienda Luisita v. PARC, GR No. 171101, November 22, 2011 '0 « Sana v. CESB, GR No. 192926, November 15, 2011 '2 ¢ Madrigal v. DOJ GR No. 168903, 726 SCRA 544, June 18, 2014 I4 © Torrecampo v. MWSS, 649 SCRA 482 Sec. 2. Power of Legislative Apportion Jurisdiction ‘Se Mantruste Systems v. CA -179 SCRA 136 [1989] 'ye Malaga v, Penachos - 213 SCRA 516 [1992] (\* Lupangco v. CA, 160 SCRA 848 (1988) Sec. 3 Fiscal Autonomy \6¢ Radiowealth v. Agregado ~ 86 Phil. 429 [1950] \4 * Benggzon v. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133 (1992) We In re clarifying and strengthening the Philippine Judicial Academy - 481 SCRA 1 | * RE: Petition for the recognition of the exemption of GSIS, A.M. No. 08-2- 01-0, February 11, 2010 + In re COA Opinion on Computation of Appraised Value of Properties -678 SCRA 1 [2012] 2 Sec. 4. Composition; En Banc and Division Cases Filling-in Vacancy in Supreme Court; 90 days 3 De Castro v. JBC - 615 SCRA 666 [2010] Referral to En Bane; Par. 3; Case Only; Modification of Doctrine 4 Fortich v. Corona ~ GR 131457, August 19, 1997 ge People v. Dy, GR 115326-37, Jan. 16, 2003 G* People v. Ebio, GR 147750, Sept 29, 2004 7* Firestone Ceramics v. CA, GR No. 127245, June 28, 2000 * Republic v. Garcia ~ 527 SCRA 495 [2007] ‘|* Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc v. Land Bank of the Philippines, GR 164195, 05 April 2011. lor In re; Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Re: G.R. No. 178083 - Flight Attendant and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, Inc (PAL), et al., A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC, 13 March 2012 Sec. 5. Powers of Supreme Court Judicial Review Requisites lle Macasiano v, NHA - 224 SCRA 236 [1993] JU * Liban v. Gordon - 639 SCRA 709 [2011] Administrative Agencies; No Power \} © Serrano v. Gallant - 582 SCRA 254 [2009] First: Ripe for Adjudication Ve PACU v. Secretary of Education - 97 Phil. 806 [1955] IS Tan v, Macapagal - 43 SCRA 678 [1972] ‘YW * Solicitor General v. MMDA - GR 102782, December 18, 1991 32Section 20. Foreign Loans 2 Spouses Constantino v. Cuisia, GR 106064, October 13, 2005 Section 21. Foreign Relations: Senate Concurrence in International Agreements 3 ¢ USAFFE Veterans Association v. Treasurer, 105 PHIL 1030, 1959 46 Gonzales v. Hechanova- 9 SCRA 230 [1963] §* World Health Organization v. Aquino, 48 SCRA 242 &* Bayan v. Executive Secretary Zamora, 343 SCRA 449, 2000 1* Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, 2005 $+ Lim v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 151445, April 11, 2002 41+ Secretary of Justice v. Judge Lantion, GR No. 139465, Oct. 17, 2000 '0¢ Abaya v. Ebdane- 315 SCRA 720 (2007) \'6 Pharmaceutical v. DOH- GR 173034, October 9, 2007 (be Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, GR No, 162230, April 28, 2010 \3 6 Bayan Muna v. Romulo, 641 SCRA 244 Other Foreign Affairs Power \}* Vinuya v. Romulo- 619 SCRA 533 [2010] Article VIII: Judicial Department Section 1. Judicial Power Definition and Scope '€ © Marbury v. Madison ~ Cranch 137 [1803] (y + Santiago v. Baustista - 32 SCRA 188 [1970] 4 * Radiowealth v. Agregado ~ 86 Phil. 429 [1950] \% © Inre Laureta - 148 SCRA 382 [1987] \9 * Imre Borromeo - 241 SCRA 405 [1995] ® « Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice - GR 132601, January 19, 1999 ‘ « Planters v. Fertiphil - 548 SCRA 485 [2008] 2 RE: Letter to UP Law Faculty, A.M. No. 10-10-4-C, June 7, 2011 3+ Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary- 677 SCRA 408 [2012] Limits 4° Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transit Co. 57 Phil. 60 [1932-1933] ¢° Noblicjas v. Techankee ~ 23 SCRA 405 [1968] G* Erdito Quarto v. Honorable Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo, et al., GR 169042, 05 October 2011 Principle of Judicial Restraint ‘1¢ Francisco Jr v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 10 November 2003 Grave Abuse of Discretion $e PCGG v. Desierto, GR 132120 , Feb. 10, 2003 ‘| + Estipona v. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017 10+ Domingo v. Scheer - 421 SCRA 468 [2004] I. Presidential Ad Hoe v. Desierto - 548 SCRA 205 [2008] Le Reyes v. Belisario - 596 SCRA 31 [2009] 30{0 Datu Michael Abas Kida v, Senate of the Philippines, reconsideration, GR 196271, February 2012 Kinds of Presidential Appointments || ¢ Pimentel v. Ermita- 471 SCRA 587 [2005] Scope of the Power of the Commission on Appointments [2+ Sarmiento Ill v. Mison- 156 SCRA 549 [1987] (3+ Bautista v. Salonga- 172 SCRA 1260 [1989] 'F* Quintos- Deles v. CA- 177 SCRA 259 [1989] [s* Pobre v. Mendieta- 224 738 [1993] ly ¢ Flores v. Drilon- GR 104732, June 22, 1993 Rufino v. Endriga- 496 SCRA 13 [2006] Congress Requiring Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments on Other Appointments 'G Calderon v. Carale- 208 SCRA 254 [1992] \7¢ U-sing v. NLRC- 221 SCRA 680 [1993] ‘+ Tarrosa v. Singson- 232 SCRA 553 [1994] |'* Manolo v. Sistoza- 312 SCRA 239 [1999] 1 * Soriano v. Lista, GR 153881, March 24, 2004 Recess or Ad- Intern Appointments and Temporary Appointments $« Pimentel v, Ermita, GR 164978, October 13, 2005 * Quintos-Deles v. Commission on Appointments, 177 SCRA 259, 1989 © + Matibag v. Benipayo, GR No. 149036, April 2, 2002 (+ Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR No. 196271, October 18, 2011 Section 17. Power of Control ‘7 * Lacson-Magallanes v. Pano 21 SCRA 395, 1967 $s Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr 197 SCRA 771 ‘J+ Roque v. Director of Lands, L-25373, July 1, 1976 lo Ang-Angco v. Castillo 9 SCRA 619, 1963 ll * NAMARCO v. Arca 29 SCRA 648, 1969 \L* Drilon v. Lim 235 SCRA 135, 1994 [5 * Joson v. Torres 290 SCRA 279, 1998 \¢* PASEL v. Torres-225 SCRA 417 [1993] [S* De Leon v. Carpio- 178 SCRA 457 [1989] \y* Hutchison v. SBMA- GR 131367, August 31, 2000 ‘1 * Dadole v. COA, GR No. 125350, Dec. 3, 2002 '$¢ Domingo v. Zamora, GR 142283, Feb. 6, 2003 '1+ DENR v. DENR Employees, GR No. 149724, Aug. 19, 2008 ®« Villaluz v. Zaldivar, 15 SCRA 710 («Chavez v. Romulo- 431 SCRA 534 [2004] 1 © KMU v. Dir-Gen. of NEDA- 487 SCRA 623 [2006] 4* Tondo Medical Center Employees v. CA, GR No. 167324, July 17, 2007 4° Malaria Employees v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 160093, July 31, 2007 $* Orosa v. Roa, GR No. 14047, July 14, 2006 @* Phillips Seafood v. BOI, GR No. 175787, February 4, 2009 7 Biraogo v. Truth Commission, GR No. 192935, December 7, 2010 S + Angeles v. Gaite- 605 SCRA 409 [2009] 28Invalid Exercise ‘Laurel v. Garcia- 187 SCRA 797 [1990] \6 + Review Center v. Ermita- 583 SCRA 42 [2009] | * Biraogo v. Truth Commission- 637 SCRA 78 [2010] Executive Privilege We US v. Nixon- 418 US 683 [1974] \'¢ Almonte v Vasquez- 244 SCRA 286 [1995] 2+ Senate v. Ermita- GR 169659, April 20, 2006 [E.0. 464 3 Neriv. Senate- GR 180643, March 25, 2008 4 © Akbayan v. Aquino- GR 170516, July 16, 2008 Immunity from Suit * Soliven v. Makasiar 167 SCRA 393 [1988] & * Harlow v. Fitzgerald 457 US 800 [1982] 4 * Clinton v. Jones 520 US 681 [1997] 6 © Gloria v. CA-GR 119903, August 15, 2000 41. ¢ Estrada v. Desierto- GR 146740-15 and GR 146738, March 2, 2001 and MR- April 3, 2001 !0+ David v. Arroyo- 289 SCRA 162 [2006] The Cabinet {1+ Constantino v. Cuisia- 472 SCRA 505 [2005] Section 2. Qualifications of the President {te Tecson v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004 \@ + Poe-Llamanzares v.COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016 Section 3. Vice President Section 4. Election, Term Limits and Canvass “4 © Anson-Roa v. Arroyo, GR 162384, March 24, 2004 Congress as National Board of Canvassers {$+ Macalintal v. COMELEC GR NO 157013, July 10, 2003 (G+ Brillantes v. COMELEC- 432 SCRA [2005] ‘+ Pimentel v. Joint Committee- GR 163783, June 22, 2004 \G Lopes v. Senate- GR 163556, June 8, 2004 ‘Te BANAT v, COMELEC, GR 177508, August 7, 2009 Breaking President or Vice-President Tie ‘W * Presidential or Vice- Presidential Controversies | + Defensor- Santiago v. Ramos- 253 SCRA 559 [1996] 2. Tecson v. Lim- 424 SCRA 277 [2005] 3 Poe v. GMA, Pet Case No. 002, March 29, 2005 4% Macalintal v. PET- 635 SCRA 783 [2010] Term Limit on the President {+ Pormento v. Estrada, GR 191988, August 31, 2010 & * Macalintal v. COMELEC, GR No. 157013, July 10, 2003 7 ¢ Pimentel v. Joint Canvassing Committee, June 22, 2004 26|¢ Abakada v. Ermita- 469 SCRA 1 and MR [Sept. 1, 2005 & Oct. 18, 2005) 2. BANAT v. COMELEC- 595 SCR 477 [2009] %* Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR 196271, 18 October 2011 ‘be Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011 Sec. 27. Procedure in Passage of Bills; Item Veto Passage of Bills S © Arroyo v. De Venecia, 277 SCRA 268 [1997] &* Abakada v. Ermita- 469 SCRA 1 Presidential Veto "Te CIR vs. CTA- 185 SCRA 329 [1990] %* Gonzales v, Macaraig- 191 SCRA 452 [1990] 4* Bengzon v. Drilon- 208 SCRA 133 [1992] \* Philconsa v. Enriquez- 235 SCRA 506 [1994] I ¢ Bolinao Electronics v. Valencia, 11 SCRA 486 (1964) (ve Tanada v. Tavera, 146 SCRA 446 (1986) Sec. 28. Taxation Scope and Purpose \b¢ Planters v, Fertiphil- 548 SCRA 485 Limitations on the Power: Uniform and Equitable \f* CIR v. CA- 261 SCRA 236 [1996] IS* Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Lingayen Gulf Electric Power Co., Inc, 164 SCRA 27 ly * Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance- 235 SCRA 506 ‘)* Tan v. Del Rosario- 237 SCRA 324 [1994] Progressive System Delegated Tax Legislation 'G * Southern Cross Cement v. Phil. Cement, GR 158540, July 8, 2004 \1* Abakada v. Ermita- 469 SCRA 1 [2005] ‘W* Spouses Constantino v. Cuisia, GR 106064, Oct. 13. 2005 Exemptions \* Abra Valley College v. Aquino- 162 SCRA 106 [1988] vs Bayan v. Zamora, GR 138570, October 10,2000 3+ Republic v. City of Kidapawan- 477 SCRA 324 [2005] 4+ John Hay People’s Alternative Coalition v. Lim, GR 119775, Oct. 24, 2003 + Lung Center v. QC, GR 144104, June 29, 2004 G* Garcia v. Executive Secretary, GR 101273, July 3, 1992 J* Lladoc v. CIR, 14 SCRA 292 %+ Central Mindanao University v. DAR, GR 100091, October 22, 1992 1 * Commissioner v. CA, GR 124043, October 14, 1998 We Systems Plus Computer College v. Caloocan City, GR No. 146382, August 7, 2003 2a(0+ Lokin v. COMELEC - GR 179431-32 \e Sema v. HRET- GR 190734, March 26, 2010 (2 Duenas v. HRET 593 SCRA 316 {2010} Section 18. Commission on Appointments \3 + Daza v. Singson, 180 SCRA 496 (1989) \t « Coseteng v. Mitra, 187 SCRA 377 (1990) \S* Guingona v. Gonzales, 214 SCRA 789 (1992); MR, 219 SCRA 326 (1993) \Ge Drilon, et al v. Speaker, GR No. 180055, July 31, 2009 Section 19. Constitutions of the Electoral Tribunal and the Commission on Appointments Section 20. Records and Books of Accounts Section 21. Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Power of Inquiry ‘Te Senate v. Ermita- 488 SCRA 1 [2006] \@e Gudani v. Senga- 498 SCRA 671 [2006] He Remoro v. Estrada, G.R. NO. 174105, April 2, 2009 ‘®e Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008 | + Garcillano vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 170338, December 23, 2--8 Nature and Essence be Neg. 0. Il Elec. Coop. v. Sangguniang Panlungsod- 155 SCRA 421 [1991] Requisites 3* Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee- 203 SCRA 767 1, In aid of legislation 4e Standard v. Senate- 541 SCRA 456 [2007] © Dela Paz v. Senate- 579 SCRA 521 [2009] Ge Romero v. Estrada- 583 SCRA 396 [2009] 2. In Accordance with Duly Published Rules of Procedure 7 Garcillano v, House- GR 170338, December 23, 2008 3. Respect for the Rights of Persons Appearing In or Affected by Such Inquires @+ Neri v. Senate- 564 SCRA 152 [2008] Power to Punish a Person Under Investigation 41¢ Arnault v. Nazareno- 87 PHIL. 25 [1950] \0* Sabio v. Gordon- 504 SCRA 704 [2006] Sec. 22 Appearance of Heads of Departments in Congress lie Senate v. Ermita- 488 SCRA 1 [2006] 2Additional Qualifications 1% * Maquera v. Borra, 15 SCRA 7 (Ge Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, GR No. 157870, November 3, 2008 Section 7. Term of Representatives ‘+ Dimaporo v. Mitra, 202 SCRA 779 | + Farinas v. Executive Secretary, GR 147387 (Dec. 10, 2003) ‘1 * Quinto v. COMELEC, GR No. 189698, December 1, 2009 Section 8.Regular Elections 3 Codilla v. De Venecia GR No. 150605, December 10, 2002 Section 9. Special Elections 4* Tolentino v. COMELEC, GR 148334, January 21, 2004 Section 10. Salaries S* Philconsa v. Mathay, 18 SCRA 300 (1966) Section 11. Privilege from Arrest; Parliamentary Freedom of Speech Privilege from Arrest G* People v. Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 689 1 ¢ Trillanes v. Pimentel, 556 SCRA 471 Parliamentary Freedom of Speech ‘$+ Jimenez v. Cabangbang, 17 SCRA 876 (1966) 71 Antonino v, Valencia, 57 SCRA 70 \O~ Pobre v. Defensor Santiago, AC No. 7399, August 25, 2009 Ms Trillanes v. Castillo-Marigomen, GR. 223451 Section 12. Disclosure of Financial and Business Interests Section 13. Prohibitions on Members of Congress \Ce Liban v. Gordon, GR No. 175352, July 15, 2009 Section 14. Prohibitions Related to the Practice of Profession \3* Puyat v. De Guzman, 113 SCRA 31 Section 15. Regular Session; Special Session Section 16. Officers of Congress; Quorom; Discipline; Journal/Records Officers of Congress \t* Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona GR 134577 November 18, 1998 Meaning of “a quorum to do business” and “compulsion to attend” IS* Avelino v. Cuenco - 83 Phil. 17 [1949] \V* People v. Jalosjos - 324 SCRA 689 "Te Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR 196271, 18 October 2011 20Filling in the Details |e Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas, 242 SCRA 192 26 Chiongbian v. Orbos, 245 SCRA 253 2 Rodrigo v. Sandiganbayan, 309 SCRA 661 4 Tondo Medical v. CA, 527 SCRA 746 (2007) Se Pichay v, Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary, 677 SCRA 408 (2012) & * Arroyo v. DOJ, 681 SCRA 181 (2012) Undue Delegation of Legislative Power © People v. Vera, 65 PHIL 56 $e US v. Barrias, 11 SCRA 327 (1908) 4 USv. Panlilio, 28 PHIL 608 (1914) lo* People v. Maceren, 79 SCRA 450 (1977) tle People v. Dacuycuy, 173 SCRA 90 (1989) [2 Cebu Oxygen v. Drilon, 176 SCRA 24 (1989) [8* Ynot v. IAC, 148 SCRA 659 (1987) 1} Pharmaceutical v, DOH (2007) ISe Abakada v. Purisima 'Ge Philippine Coconut v. Republic, GR 178193, January 24, 2012 Executive Misapplication ‘Ve Tatad v. Secretary DOE, 281 SCRA 330 (1997) and MR 282 SCRA 337 (1997) Mere Directive \$ © Dagan v. PRC, 578 SCRA 585 (2009) PDAF Case Dap Case Section 2. Senate Composition Section 3. Qualifications of Senator '4 + Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, March 8, 2016 Section 4. Senator: Term of Office; Voluntary Renunciation Section 5. Composition of the House of Representatives; Apportionment; Party List Par. 2; Party-List Representation ‘« Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC GR 147589 | Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC GR 136781 2 AKLAT v. COMELEC 427 SCRA 712 3 Partido ng Manggagawa v, COMELEC 484 SCRA 671 4 Citizens v. COMELEC 521 SCRA 524 (+ Bantay v. COMELEC 523 SCRA 1 + Phil. Guardians v. COMELEC GR 190529 7+ BANAT v, COMELEC 586 SCRA 210 Albayon v. COMELEC GR 189466 Layug v. COMELEC 666 SCRA 321 18Section 19. Self-Reliant and Independent National Economy | + Garcia v. BOI, 191 SCRA 288 (1990) 2 ¢ Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (1997) ° Association of Philippine Coconut Dessicators v. PCA, GR 110526, Feb 10, 1998 4 Pharmaceuticals v. Duque, Oct 9, 2007: Free enterprise does not call for the removal of protective regulations, Section 20. Role of Private Sector {+ Marine Radio Communications Association of the Philippines v. Reyes, 191 SCRA 205 G © Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. The Province of Aklan, 674 SCRA S55 (2012) Section 21. Promotion of Comprehensive Rural and Agrarian Policy 7+ Wilson P. Gamboa v. Finance Secretary Margarito Teves, et al GR 176579 June 28, 2011 (See Dissent of Abad- Section 21 is not self-executing, thus need for CARL) ADD Hacienda Luisita case 4 Section 22. Promotion of Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities Section 23. Community-Based Private Organizations Section 24. Vital Role of Communications 4 PLDT v. NTC, 190 SCRA 717 Section 25. Local Economy lo* Rodolfo G. Navarro, et al. v. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, et al., GR 180050, 12 April 2011. (Section 25 as part of IRR of LGU provision on local autonomy) \l © Belgica v. ES, 2013 *With PDAF, a Congressman can simply bypass the local development council and initiate project on his own. Thus, insofar as. individual legislators are authorized to intervene in purely local matters and thereby subvert genuine local autonomy, the 2013 PDAF Article and similar forms are deemed unconstitutional. !2 © ADD Mandanas case Section 26. Equal Access to Political Opportunities and Political Dynasties \3 * Pamatong v. COMELEC, 427 SCRA 96 (2004) Section 27. Honesty and Integrity in Public Service Section 28. Full Public Disclosure Executive Privilege It « Neri v. Senate, GR 180643, March 25, 2008 iS Wilson P. Garcia v. Finance Secretary Teves l@* Briccio Pollo v. Chairperson Karina David, GR 181881 «Philippine Savings Bank and Pascual Garcia Ill v. Senate Impeachment Court, GR 200238, Feb 9, 2012 I$ + In Re: Production of Court Records, 14 February 2012 16Section 5. Maintenance of Peace and Order % + Kilosbayan v. Morato, 246 SCRA 540 (1995) and MR 250 SCRA 130 4 * Kulayan v. Tan, 675 SCRA 482 (2012) Section 6. Separation of Church and State \O * United Church of Christ in the Philippines, Inc v. Bradford United Church of Christ, Inc 674 SCRA 92 (2012) Section 7. Independent Foreign Policy ll ¢ Lim v, Executive Secretary, GR 151445, April 11, 2002 ID * Saguisag v. ES, GR 212426 \2* Bayan v. DND Sec. Gazmin, GR 212444 Section 8. Freedom from Nuclear Weapons \4 © Bayan v. Zamora, GR 138570, October 10, 2000 Section 9. Social Order Section 10, Social Justice I§* Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil 726 Section 11. Personal Dignity and Human Rights Section 12. Family Life; Mother; Unborn le * Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973) “© Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390 (1922) \Ge Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 262 US 510 (1925) (1 Wisconsin v. Yoder 40 LW 4476 (1972) ‘We Ginsberg v. New York, 390 US 629 (1968) \+ Orceo v. COMELEC, GR 190779 March 26, 2010 2+ Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014: The RH Law does not violate the right of an unborn child as guaranteed in $12, A2. The question of when life begins is a scientific and medical issue that should not be decided without proper hearing and evidence. The framers of the Constitution intended “conception” as “fertilization” and protection is given upon “fertilization.” Not all contraceptives are ban. Only those that kill or destroy the fertilized ovum are prohibited. The intent of the framers was to prevent the Legislature from passing a measure that would allow abortion. The IRR redefinition of abortifacient in S4a of the RH Law is violative of $12, A2. $7 of the RH Law which excludes parental consent in cases Where a minor undergoing a procedure is already a parent or has had a miscarriage is anti-family and is violative of S12, A2. 3* Orceo v. COMELEC, GR 190779, March 26, 2010 Section 13. Vital Role of Youth 4* Basco v. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 252 S* Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. COA, GR 177131, June 7, 2011 Section 14. Role of Women and Equality of Men and Women “4international law, which are considered to be automatically part of its own laws. 22. International Law- deals with the conduct of states and of international organizations and with their relations inter se, as well as with some other relations with persons, natural or juridical. 23. Family- means a stable heterosexual relationship. The family is not a creature of the State. Legal Value of Article II q \¢ * Tondo Medical v. CA, 527 SCRA 746 (2007) *non self-executing provisions * Bases Conversion and Development Authority vs. Commission on Audit, 580 SCRA 295 Fundamental Principles and State Policies \{° Tafada vs. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, May 1997 20 ' 2 db * Legaspi vs. CSC, G.R. No. L-72119, May 29, 1987 * Oposa vs. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993 + Imbong vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, G.R, No. 204819, April 8, 2014 (right to life as a natural law) * Espina vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 143855, September 21, 1010 Section 1. Philippines as a Democratic and Republican State Functions of Government 4/¢ Bacani v. NACOCO, 100 PHIL 468 (1956) s y 4 $ 4 \o " w \5 4 Is My u 6 4 w 1 * ACCFA v. CUGCO, 30 SCRA 649 (1969) + PVTA v. CIR, 65 SCRA 416 (1975) * PHHC v Court of Industrial Relations, 150 SCRA 296 * Spouses Fontanilla v. Hon. Maliaman, GR Nos. 55963, February 27, 1991 © VFP v. Reyes, 483 SCRA 526 (2006) + Ramiscal v. Sandiganbayan, 499 SCRA 375 (2006) + Alzaga v. Sandiganbayan, 505 SCRA 848 (2006) * Javier v. Sandiganbayan, 599 SCRA 324 (2009) * MIA v. CA, 495 SCRA 591 (2006) * Philippine Society v. COA, 534 SCRA 112 (2007) * Serana v. Sandiganbayan, 542 SCRA 224 (2008) + Shipside Inc v. CA, GR 143377, Feb 20, 2001 + PVTA v. CIR, GR L-32052, July 25, 1975 * Rosas v. Montor GR 204105, October 14, 2015 * People v. Perfecto, 43 Phil 887 * Vilas v. City of Manila, 229 US 345 * Laurel v. Misa, 77 Phil 856 De Jure and De Facto Government 2 Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh, 75 PHIL 113 (1945) * governments by the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation being de facto governments, it necessarily follows that the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts of justice of those governments, which are not of a political complexion, were good and valid, and, by virtue of the well-known principle of postliminy (postliminium) in international law, remained good and valid after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the American and Filipino forces under the leadership of General Douglas MacArthur. 219. Sovereignty- pertains to the exclusive legal authority of a state over. its waters, especially its internal waters and territorial seas. The state essentially has territorial sovereignty over these waters. 20. Sovereign right- is a term used in UNCLOS to pertain to the entitlements or privileges of a state to a defined area of a sea called the exclusive economic zone. SEE Article 56, paragraph 1 (A) of UNCLOS 1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal state has: (a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non. living, of the waters superjecent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds; Sovereignty 2 3 4 s 6 7 g + R.A. No. 3046 (As amended by RA No. 5446), An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines + R.A. No. 5446 An Act to Amend Section One of RA No. 3046, entitled “An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines” (Sabah) * PD No. 1596 Establishing an Exclusive Economic Zone and for Other Purposes, June 11, 1978 (Kalayaan Island Group) + RA. No. 9522 An Act to Amend Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 3046, as Amended by RA No. 5446, to Define the Archipelagic Baseline of the Philippines and for Other Purposes or the New Baselines Law of 2009. + 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea Reagan v. Commissioner, 30 SCRA 968 People v. Gozo, 53 SCRA 476 * Magaliona v. Ermita, 655 SCRA 476 * Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, 14 October 2008 * Most Rev Pedro Arigo v. Scott Swift, GR 206510, Sept 16, 2014 + The South China Sea Arbitration: Philippines v. China, July 12, 2016 * The South China Sea Dispute: Philippine Sovereign Rights and Jurisdiction in the West Philippine Sea (Justice Carpio’s Ebook) Concept of Auto Limitation a 0 * People vs. Gozo, G.R. No. L-36409, October 26, 1973 *is the property of a State-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self- determination and self-restriction.” * Magallona, et. al. vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011 Archipelagic Doctrine " * Magallona, et. al. vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011 Concept of the State wv * Laurel vs. Misa, G.R. No. L-409, January 30, 1947 State Immunity from Suit % 4 is lo + Lansang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102667, February 23, 2000 + Amigable vs, Cuenca, G.R. No. L-26400, February 29, 1972 * City of Caloocan vs. Judge Allarde, G.R. No. 107271, September 10, 2003 * Air Transportation Office vs, Ramos, G.R. No. 159402, February 23, 2011 20Separation of Church and State A pastor who was terminated by the Seventh Day Adventist sued that church before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). His dismissal was found to legal (i.e. the NLRC ruled in favor of the church). The pastor then appealed and argued that the NLRC had no jurisdiction over him because the matter was an ecclesiastical affair outside the NLRC's jurisdiction. In effect, the pastor was invoking separation of church and state. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the case, being a labor issue, did not concern an ecclesiastical (or purely religious affair). It was a secular matter and had no relation whatsoever with the practice of faith, worship or doctrines of the church, and thus the NLRC had jurisdiction, (Austria v. NLRC, (G.R. No. 124382)] Political Law Suacz.* People v. Perfecto, 43 PHIL 887 Sy Gage Macariola v. Asuncion, AM No. 133-J, May 31 1982 Scope of Political Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Public Corporations/Local Government Code Law on Public Officers Election Laws Interpretation/Construction of the Philippine Constitution Francisco v. House of Representatives, GR 160261, Nov. 10, 2003 Civil Liberties Union v. ES, 194 SCRA 317 Toric otha 1. Verba Legis 2. Ratio Legiset Anima 3. Utmagisvaleat quam pereat Effectivity and Rules of Construction Poceraide De Leon vs. Esguerra, G.R. No. L-78059, August 31, 1987 Brief History Malolos Constitution 1900 McKinley’s Instructions Spooner Amendment 1902 Philippine Bill 1916 Jones Law (Philippine Autonomy Act) ‘Tydings-McDutffie Act (Philippine Independence Act) 1935 Constitution Japanese Occupation Order No. 1 (Philippine Executive Commission) 1973 Constitution Freedom Constitution 1987 Philippine ConstitutionThe doctrine of state immunity from suit applies to complaints filed against Public officials for acts done in the performance of their duties. The rule ig that the suit must be regarded as one against the state where satisfaction of the Judgment against the public official concerned will require the state itself to Perform a positive act, such as appropriation of the amount necessary to pay the damages awarded to the plaintiff. Where the public official is sued in his personal capacity, the doctrine of state immunity will not apply, even if the acts complained of were committed while the public official was occupying a public Position, [Lansang v. Court of Appeals, G.R, No. 102667, February 23, 2000] Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency The doctrine, recognizing that the Constitution has established a single and not a plural executive, postulates that all executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or the law to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive. [Villena v. Secretary of Interior, G.R. No. L-46570, April 21, 1939} Non-Delegation of Legislative Power Legislative power must remain where the people have lodged it. However, there are two exceptions to this rule: (1) by immemorial practice legislative power may be delegated to local governments, [Rubi v. Provincial Board, 39 Phil. 660 (1919)j (2) the Constitution itself might in specific instances allow delegation of legislative power, e.g. Article VI, Sections 23(2) and 28(2). It is by now commonplace learning that many administrative agencies exercise and perform adjudicatory powers and functions, though to a limited extent only, Limited delegation of judicial or quasi-judicial authority to administrative agencies (e.g., the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Labor Relations Commission) is well recognized in our jurisdiction, basically because the need for special competence and experience has been recognized as essential in the resolution of questions of complex or specialized character and because of a companion recognition that the dockets of our regular courts have remained crowded and clogged. [Antipolo Realty Corp. v. NHA 153 SCRA 399, August 31, 1987) Power of Control Control means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. [Mondano v. Silvosa, G.R. No. L-7708, May 30, 1955]Doctrine of Operative Fact Under the operative fact doctrine, the law is recognized as unconstitutional but the effects of the unconstitutional law, prior to its declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play. In fact, the invocation of the operative fact doctrine is an admission that the law is unconstitutional. The operative fact doctrine is a rule of equity. As such, it must be applied as an exception to the general rule that an unconstitutional law produces no effects. [League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176951, November 18, 2008} Political Question Doctrine It is well-settled doctrine that political questions are not within the province of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such questions has been conferred upon the courts by express constitutional or statutory provisions. It is not easy, however, to define the phrase ‘political question’, nor to determine what matters, fall within its scope. It is frequently used to designate all questions that lie outside the scope of the judicial questions, which under the constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government.” [16 Corpus Juris Secundum, 413, cited in Tartada v. Cuenco, G.R. No,, L-10520, February 28, 1957] In short, the term "political question" connotes, in legal parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. In other words, in the language of Corpus Juris Secundum (supra), it refers to "those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government." It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure. [Tariada v. Cuenco, G.R., No. L-10520, February 28, 1957 Inherent Powers of Government A. Police Power Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It has been defined as the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same. The power is plenary and its scope is vast and pervasive, reaching and justifying measures for public health, public safety, public morals, and the general welfare. It bears stressing that police power is lodged primarily in the National Legislature. It cannot be exercised by any group or body of individuals not Possessing legislative power. The National Legislature, however, may delegate this power to the President and administrative boards as well as the lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or local government units. Once delegated, the agents can exercise only such legislative powers as are conferred on them by the national lawmaking body. [MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association Inc., G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000]of powers and its concepts of autonomy and independence stem from the notion that the powers of government must be divided to avoid concentration of these powers in any one branch; the division, it is hoped, would avoid any single branch from lording its power over the other branches or the citizenry. To achieve this purpose, the divided power must be wielded by co-equal branches of government that are equally capable of independent action in exercising their respective mandates. Lack of independence would result in the inability of one branch of government to check the arbitrary or self-interest assertions of another or others. [Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., 710 SCRA 1, November 19, 2013) Principle of Checks and Balances This principle of separation of powers under the Presidential system goes hand in hand with the system of checks and balances, under which each department is vested by the Fundamental Law with some powers to forestall, restrain or arrest a possible or actual misuse or abuse of powers by the other departments. [ANNOTATION: Political or Justiciable Question, 59 SCRA 652, September 17, 1974] In San San Miguel Corporation v. Secretary of Labor (1975), petitioner seeks to anmul the decision of the NLRC, ordering the reinstatement of Gregorio Yangay to his position as operator. Yanglay raised a jurisdictional question which was not brought up by respondent officials, He contends that this court has no jurisdiction to review the decisions of the NLRC and the Secretary of Labor “under the principle of separation of powers” and that judicial review is not Provided for in Presidential Decree No. 21. It was held that there is an underlying Power in the Courts to scrutinize the acts of administrative agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction although no right of review is given by statute. This is designed to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and to protect. substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions. It is part of the system of checks and balances which restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudication. Principle of Comity Under the rules of comity, utility and convenience, nations have established @ usage among civilized states by which final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under certain conditions that may vary in different. /INDEX, 505 SCRA 867] In the absence of a special contract, no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country; however, under the rules of comity, utility and convenience, nations have established a usage among civilized states by which final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under certain conditions that may vary in different countries. [St Aviation Services Co., Pte., Ltd. vs. Grand International Airways, Inc., G.R. No. 140288, October 23, 2006]