THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v.

COMELEC – The act of COMELEC ordering the Diocese to remove its big
tarpaulin where it impliedly asked voters to vote for the ‘Team Buhay’ Senators who opposed the
Reproductive Health Bill and against the members of ‘Team Patay’ is invalid because it violates the
freedom of speech.
– Political speech refers to speech both intended and received as a contribution to public deliberation
about the same issue fostering informed and civic-minded deliberation while commercial speech is a
speech that does no more than to propose a commercial transaction.
– Content-based regulation can either be based on the viewpoint of the speaker or the subject of the
expression. Content-based regulations bears a heavy presumption of invalidity and the Supreme
Court had consistently used the clear and present danger as a measure of its validity or invalidity. A
content-based restraint or censorship refers to restrictions based on the subject matter of the
utterance or speech. Content-neutral regulation controls merely on the incident of free speech such
as time, place or the manner of the speech.
– Political question: matter which is to be exercised by the people in their primary political capacity, or
that it has been specifically delegated to some other department or government official with
discretionary power to act
– Art. II, Sec. 1 (republic): people can be governed only by officials whom they themselves have placed
in office by their votes; suffrage is the cornerstone of the freedoms of speech, press, peaceful
assembly, and redress of grievances; the conduct of public affairs by our officials must be allowed to
suffer incessant and unabating scrutiny at all times

TAÑADA v. ANGARA – Principles in Article II are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for
enforcement through the courts. They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its
power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its enactment of laws.
– (No isolationist policy) While the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods,
services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange with
the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino
enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. E.g. reciprocity with
countries part of the WTO
– By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of
international law, which are considered to be automatically part of our own laws. Pacta sunt
servanda.

KULAYAN et al. v. GOV. TAN et al. – (Art. II, Sec. 3) A civilian President is the ceremonial, legal and
administrative head of the armed forces. The Constitution does not require that the President must be
possessed of military training and talents, but as Commander-in-Chief, he has the power to direct
military operations and to determine military strategy.

YNOT v. IAC – Inferior courts may also exercise the power of judicial review because it is a part of
judicial power which is available to all courts. The decision of lower courts declaring a law
unconstitutional is subject to review by the Supreme Court.
– The conferment on the administrative authorities of the power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed
offender is a clear encroachment on judicial functions and militates against the doctrine of
separation of powers.
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL v. GSIS – “FILIPINO FIRST POLICY” is self-executing
– Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the
constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch
or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and
effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it
is deemed written in every statute and contract.
– A constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred and the
liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an
examination and construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject is
referred to the legislature for action. A provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative
without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by
means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing.
– In case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather than non-self-
executing.

CHIONGBIAN v. ORBOS – The regrouping of contiguous provinces is not even analogous to a

redistricting or to the division or merger of local governments, which all have political consequences on
the right of people residing in those political units to vote and to be voted for. It cannot be
overemphasized that administrative regions are mere groupings of contiguous provinces for
administrative purposes, not for political representation.
– There is no abdication of legislative power in conferring on the President the power to merge
administrative regions in view of the power of general supervision over local governments, if there is
a legislative standard expressed or implied.

ICHONG v. HERNANDEZ – Legislature, which is the constitutional repository of police power and
exercises the prerogative of determining the policy of the State, is primarily the judge of necessity,
adequacy or reasonableness and wisdom, of any law promulgated in the exercise of the police power, or
of the measures adopted to implement the public policy or to achieve public interest. On the other
hand, courts, although zealous guardians of individual liberty and right, have nevertheless evinced a
reluctance to interfere with the exercise of the legislative prerogative. They have done so early where
there has been a clear, patent or palpable arbitrary and unreasonable abuse of the legislative
prerogative. Moreover, courts are not supposed to override legitimate policy, and courts never inquire
into the wisdom of the law.

IBP v. ZAMORA – The deployment of the Marines does not violate the civilian supremacy clause nor
does it infringe the civilian character of the police force. The Philippine experience reveals that it is not
averse to requesting the assistance of the military in the implementation and execution of certain
traditionally "civil" functions. There is mutual support and cooperation between military and civilian
authorities, not derogation of civilian supremacy.

CALALANG v. WILLIAMS – Social justice is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor
anarchy," but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State
so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social
justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of
measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society, through the
maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the
community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-
constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the
time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex. Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the
recognition of the necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the
protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social
and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting
the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest
number."

OPOSA v. FACTORAN – The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty
to refrain from impairing the environment.
– Minors representing their generation as well as those unborn is based on the concept of
Intergenerational responsibility. Their assertion of their right also constitutes the performance of
their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.

RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PROTECTED SEASCAPE TAÑON STRAIT v. SEC. ANGELO REYES –
Any Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, is welcome to bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws.
It is worth noting here that the Stewards are joined as real parties in the Petition and not just in
representation of the named cetacean species.

ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS v. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM – Although holding

neither purse nor sword and so regarded as the weakest of the three departments of the government,
the judiciary is nonetheless vested with the power to annul the acts of either the legislative or the
executive or of both when not conformable to the fundamental law. This is the reason for what some
quarters call the doctrine of judicial supremacy. The doctrine of separation of powers imposes upon the
courts a proper restraint, born of the nature of their functions and of their respect for the other
departments, in striking down the acts of the legislative and the executive as unconstitutional.
– Ordinary citizens and taxpayers were allowed to question the constitutionality of several executive
orders issued by President Quirino although they were invoking only an indirect and general interest
shared in common with the public; "The transcendental importance to the public of these cases
demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of
procedure."

CRUZ v. DENR SECRETARY – By recognizing their right to their ancestral lands and domains, the State
has effectively upheld their right to live in a culture distinctly their own.

LA BUGAL-B’LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION v. DENR SECRETARY – “Legal standing" or locus standi has
been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will
sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged, 64 alleging more than a
generalized grievance. Petitioners have standing to raise the constitutionality of the questioned FTAA as
they allege a personal and substantial injury. They claim that they would suffer "irremediable
displacement" as a result of the implementation of the FTAA allowing WMCP to conduct mining
activities in their area of residence.

LOLOY UNDURAN v. ARAMON ABERASTURI – NCIP has no jurisdiction over IPRA cases where one party
is a non-IP.

CHAVEZ v. PEA & AMARI – The right to information does not include privileged information rooted in
separation of powers, nor to information on military and diplomatic secrets, information affecting
national security, and information on investigations of crimes by law enforcement agencies before the
prosecution of the accused.

LIMBONAS v. MANGELIN - The Court distinguished between decentralization of administration and

decentralization of power. The latter is abdication by the national government of governmental powers;
while the former is merely delegation of administrative powers to the local government unit in order to
broaden the base of governmental powers.

AKBAYAN et al. v. AQUINO et al. – While the final text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Package
Agreement (JPEPA) may not be kept perpetually confidential, the offers exchanged by the parties during
negotiations continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA is published. It is reasonable to conclude
that the Japanese representatives submitted their offers with the understanding that “historic
confidentiality” would govern the same. Disclosing these offers could impair the ability of the Philippines
to deal not only with Japan but with other foreign governments in future negotiations

BELGICA v. OCHOA – The PDAF or Pork Barrel System is unconstitutional on the following grounds:
a. Separation of Powers: Congress should enact laws only and that the executive department shall
implement them. In this case, Congress will enact it but the individual members of Congress still
play a role in its implementation.
b. Non-Delegation of Legislative Powers: The power of appropriation is lodged in Congress as a
whole. The PBS confers on individual legislators the post-enactment authority on his “pork
barrel”.
c. Checks and Balances: The President is deprived of his veto power on “specific item” in the
General Appropriations Act since the PDAF does not contain “specific appropriations of money”.
Also, it violates Section 25 (4), Article VI which provides that special appropriations shall specify
the purpose for which it is intended – the PDAF empowers individual legislators to appropriate
them based on their discretion.
d. Accountability of Public Officers: Lump sum allocations cannot be monitored during budget
hearings through examination of the officials.
e. Autonomy of Local Government: Congress’ participation in the post=enactment implementation
of the funds covered by their “pork barrel” subverts local autonomy because legislators, in
effect, intervene in purely local matters.