POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

1ST Semester 2022-2023

Atty. Victoria V. Loanzon

Preliminary Statement:
This is a review class. The presumption is that you have successfully completed all
the prerequisite courses covered by this subject. The primary intention of this review
class is to close the gaps in all the prerequisite courses.
In reciting cases, it is presumed that all the students in the class have read the
assigned cases and are familiar with the facts of each case. Thus, when called upon
to recite, a student is only expected to extensively recite on the jurisprudential ruling
of the court and the ratio decidendi. The obiter dicta may be recited if such
discussion can enhance the appreciation of the case or any important concept in law.
A substantial portion of the course will be covered by lectures.
Course Learning Objectives (CLO)
By the end of this course, students should be able to:
1. Demonstrate a mastery of the several components of Political and Public
International Law as a bar subject.
2. Delineate the coverage of each component of Political and Public
International Law.
3. Understand the interplay of the different component of Political and Public
International Law.
4. Demonstrate a working knowledge of the provisions covered within the
subject component and the application of the concepts and provisions
based on the decisions of the Supreme Court.
5. Appreciate the distinction of the different subject components.
6. Display critical attitudes, which are necessary for “life-long learning” and
sensitivity to the importance of legal and ethical considerations and the
ability to confront dominant, popular opinions with constructive criticism.

FOR EACH COMPONENT OF THE SUBJECT COVERAGE

Specific knowledge, skill and lifelong value are expected from each student to
ensure their preparation for greater responsibilities as member of the legal
profession.
Given the scope of the components of the subject, the students are expected
to learn how to prepare legal research, legal opinions, case briefs and the
rudiments of pleadings involving constitutional issues.
Critical thinking is an aspect that the teaching methodology will develop
throughout the semester.

1|Page
Thus, the review course in Political and Public International Law is not only
oriented to pass the bar examinations but it is more intended to allow the
students to explore their protentional as future lawyers.

IN TERMS OF DEMONSTRATIVE LEARNING ACTIVITIES

For each class session, a student is expected to be prepared for the topics
covered for the week and to have a mastery of the provisions of the relevant
provisions of the Constitution and other assigned statutes to exhibit
comprehension of provisions, concepts, and principles.
In the discussion of cases, a student is required to –
[1] identify and describe key facts of the case
[2] discuss key constitutional issues raised
[3] understand how the Court applied the relevant provision
[4[ identify and explain the ratio decidendi
[5] distinguish the case’s legal and policy implications
[6] relate rulings to similar or contrasting cases

COURSE ACTIVITIES AND ASSESSMENT STANDARDS

Course Activities:
1. Students are expected to delineate the concepts and principles as well as specific
provision(s) of the Constitution and other statutes under discussion.
2. Recitations will require the students to show a sufficient retention,
comprehension and application of the relevant provisions, concepts, and
principles.
3. Students must demonstrate the application of the relevant provisions, concepts,
and principles to assigned cases. They are expected to be knowledgeable with the
facts, the issues, and the rationale behind the doctrinal ruling of the Court.
Formative and Summative Assessment:
Attendance will be monitored by the Class Beadle.
Recitations will be assessed by the Professor.
Note: Any student not prepared for recitation may be asked to leave the class
session as a penalty.
Attendance and recitations will have a weight of 25% in the final academic
assessment.
Midterm Examination will have a weight of 35%.
Final Examination will have a weight of 40%

House Rules:

2|Page
 1. Attend class regularly. There will be consequences for tardiness and
absences.
2. Come to class properly attired.
3. Respect the professor when she delivers her lecture; and when a student is
called upon to recite.
4. Speak audibly.
5. Do not engage in multi-tasking for the duration of the class.

I. POLITICAL ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE

[Weeks 1-4:]

B. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
B.2 PRELIMINARY MATTERS
The Constitution serves as a reconciling popular government with rule of law. [Read Wikipedia
entries on “popular government” and “rule of law.”]
1. Province of North Cotabato v. Government, 568 SCRA 402, 583-585 (Puno, J., concurring):
Under the contractarian theory, the Philippine constitution sets out what the government can and
cannot do. The people agree to be bound by the basic tenets of the constitution. The constitution is
considered a social contract.

2. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 10 (2003): The resulting government after the EDSA
Revolution was indisputably a revolutionary government bound by no constitution or legal
limitations except treaty obligations that the revolutionary government, as the de jure government
in the Philippines, assumed under international law. The protection accorded to individuals under
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("Covenant") and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights ("Declaration") remained in effect during the interregnum.

3. Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System, 267 SCRA 408 (1997): Adhering
to the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, the Filipino First provision is, as it should be,
impliedly written in the bidding rules issued by respondent GSIS, lest the bidding rules be
nullified for being violative of the Constitution. It is a basic principle in constitutional law that all
laws and contracts must conform with the fundamental law of the land. Those which violate the
Constitution lose their reason for being.

4. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (803): This is available online (Wikipedia). Congress does not
have the power to pass laws that override the Constitution, such as by expanding the scope of the
Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
5. Tañada v. Tuvera , 136 SCRA 27, 33-35, 30-41: Questions of rights claimed to have become
vested, of status, of prior determinations deemed to have finality and acted upon accordingly, of
public policy in the light of the nature both of the statute and of its previous application, demand
examination. An all-inclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be
justified.

3|Page
6. Araullo v. Aquino, G. R. No. 219287, July 1, 2014: The operative fact doctrine applies only to
cases where extraordinary circumstances exist, and only when the extraordinary circumstances
have met the stringent conditions that will permit its application. The doctrine of operative fact
recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the determination of its
unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences that cannot always be erased,
ignored, or disregarded. In short, it nullifies the void law or executive act but sustains its effects.

7. Municipality of Tupi v. Faustino, G.R. No. 231896, August 20, 2019: The doctrine of operative
fact is an exception to the general rule, such that a judicial declaration of invalidity may not
necessarily obliterate all the effects and consequences of a void act prior to such declaration. As a
general rule, the nullification of an unconstitutional law or act carries with it the illegality of its
effects. However, in cases where nullification of the effects will result in inequity and injustice,
the operative fact doctrine may apply.
8. Santiago v. Commission on Elections, 270 SCRA 106 (1997): Read only pages 106-118, 135-154,
157-158, focus on the discussion on the fact that People’s Initiative under Article XVII of the
Constitution requires an enabling law and the distinctions between referendum and initiative.

9. Lambino v. Commission on Elections, 505 SCRA 160 (2006) and 21 November 2006 Resolution:
Read pages 219-223, 228-261; Take note of the tests applied and distinction between an
amendment and a revision of the Constitution.

10. De Leon v. Esguerra, 153 SCRA. Read pages 602-607; 607-616 (Teehankee, J. concurring): The
effectivity date of the amended or revised constitution is on the date the people cast their vote and
not the date the COMELEC announced the result of the ratification by the electorate.

11. Magallona v. Ermita, 655 SCRA 476 (2011 ):The revision of the Philippine Baselines Law (R.A.
8522) is a congressional prerogative to make the existing Philippines Baselines Law (R. A. 3045)
compliant with UNCLOS II; Read the discussion as to the nature of UNCLOS.
12. In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration Before An Arbitral Tribunal Constituted under
Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Between The Republic of
the Philippines and The People’s Republic of China, PCA Case No. 2013-19, 12 July 2016
(https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf)

13. Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GWcgKNMxjo&feature=youtu.be (Justice Carpio’s

Lecture: “Defending Philippine Sovereign Rights in the West Philippine Sea”)

14. Republic v. Province of Palawan, G.R. No. 170867, December 4, 2018: Read only the portion of
the decision where the Court made a distinction between municipal waters and that of the territorial
waters of the state. This is case must be read in the context of Section 7 of Article X.

B.3 STATE IMMUNITY[SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

15. Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Central Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 197593, [October 12,
2020], HERNANDO, J: The function of the CBP as the central monetary authority is a purely
governmental function. Prior to its creation, the supervision of banks, banking and currency, and

4|Page
 the administration of laws relating to coinage and currency of the Philippines was lodged with the
Bureau of Treasury under the immediate supervision of the Executive Bureau.

16. University of the Philippines v. Hon. Dizon, 679 SCRA 54 (2012): Take note of the distinction of
government powers, concept of instrumentality of the national government, distinction between
liability and suability, role of COA on claims against the government.

17. Arigo v. Swift, 735 SCRA 102 (2014): Observe the rule on claim of state immunity invoked by
the Philippine government on behalf of the U.S. government and its agents; read the discussion on
the liability of the U.S. government despite the fact that it is not a signatory of UNCLOS.
18. Bases Conversion and Development Authority v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
G.R. No. 205466, [January 11, 2021], HERNANDO, J.: BCDA is a government
instrumentality vested with corporate powers. As such, it is exempt from the payment of
docket fees.(Read Section 22, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court.)
19. Republic v. Jose Gamir-Consuelo Diaz Heirs Association, Inc., G.R. No. 218732, November 18,
2018: Read intently the portion of the decision when government can rightfully refuse the claim
of a private property owner. When government enters into a Deed of Absolute Sale, the terms will
govern the parties and property owner cannot belatedly ask interest payment from the government.

A.3. SEPARATION OF POWERS AND CHECKS AND BALANCES

20. Commission on Audit v. Hon. Pampilo, G.R. Nos. 188760. 189660, and 189333, June 30, 2020,
HERNANDO, J.: The trial court may not intervene with a provision of R.A. 8479 by creating a
new set of examiners to replace the DOE-DOJ Joint Task Force.
Note: Relate this to the concept of parens patriae, the prohibition against monopolies and
exercise of police power.
21. Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1 (2006): Read the constitutional mandate on the
conduct of congressional inquiry of Congress under Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution
and appreciate its application in the decision.
22. Pulido v. People, G.R. No. 220149, [July 27, 2021]: It is well-settled that the criminalization of
acts is a policy matter that belongs to the legislative branch of the government. Therefore, the
solution to bridge this apparent gap in our laws is remedial legislation, which is left to the
Congress' prerogative.

23. Falcis III v. Civil Registrar General, G.R. No. 217910, September 3, 2019: Read portion of
the decision related to cognate rights and other alleged violation of other constitutional
rights of the petitioner; Read the extent of power of judicial review of the Supreme Court.

24. People v. Edgardo S. Go, G.R. No. 210816, December 10, 2018: The determination of
probable cause to file criminal information is an executive function and the Court cannot
intervene unless there is a palpable grave abuse of discretion.
25. Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013: Read the portion of the decision
where there is a discussion on the restriction of post-enactment participation of Congress.

5|Page
A.3. DELEGATION OF POWERS

26. Sema v. Commission on Elections, 558 SCRA 700 (2008): Read the limitation on the power
of Congress to delegate legislative powers. The creation of provinces cannot be delegated to
the ARMM Legislative Assembly.
27. NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC DAMA) v. National Power Corporation
(NPC), 845 SCRA 487 (2017): Take note of the discussion on non-delegation of powers;
significance of designation of specific persons to compose the Board of Directors of NPC;
and appreciate the discussion of personal judgment or discretion of public officers mandated
by statute and those of designated public officers as alternates.
28. CoteSCUP v. Secretary of Education, G.R. No. 216930, October 9, 2018: Read discussion
on the compliance of the K to 12 Law with the two tests of valid delegation of powers.

Read: Bayanihan to Heal as One Act (R.A. No. 11469 [2020]) and its extension, consider the
extent of delegation of powers to the IATF, focus on the exercise of police power of the
government when IATF imposes restrictions

B.4 STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES

29. Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections, 618 SCRA 32 (2010): Read
discussion on the separation of the church and the state; try to appreciate the decision in the
light of Section 26 of Article II of the Constitution.
30. Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., 721 SCRA146 (2014): Read portions of the decision related to Section
12 of Article II of the Constitution
31. Republic v. Albios, 707 SCRA 584 (2013): Read portion of the decision on the importance
of the family and relate the decision not only to the provisions of the Family Code but also
to Article XV of the Constitution.
32. Zabal v. Duterte, – SCRA – (G.R. No. 238467, 12 February 2019): Relate the decision to
Sections 15 and 16 of Article II of the Constitution; try to appreciate the valid exercise
33. Monterona et al. v. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Inc., G.R. No. 209116, January 14, 2019: Relate the
decision to Section 18 of Article II and Section 3 of Article XIII of the Constitution. It
appears that while a constitutional provision is self-executing provision, it would still
require a legislative measure to amplify the constitutional protection.
C. LEGISLATURE
1. City of Davao v. Regional Trial Court, Br. XII, Davao City, 467 SCRA 280 (2005): Read
portion on power to amend laws and the prohibition to enact laws which cannot be repealed.
2. Government Service Insurance System v. City Treasurer of the City of Manila, 609 SCRA
330 (2009): Read the portion of the decision on the distinction between governmental and
proprietary powers of government; appreciate the shifting of burden of payment of taxes
under the beneficial use doctrine
3. Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, 570 SCRA 410 (2008): Read portions of
the decision where the Court struck provisions of the law which violate constitutionally
protected rights e.g. the rights of the accused, the right of an individual filing a Certificate of
Candidacy, the right of students and employees subjected to drug test.
4. Aquino III v. Commission on Elections, 617 SCRA 623 (2010): Read the requirements under
Section 5 of Article VI in the creation of congressional districts; be able to distinguish
between creation of congressional districts in cities and in provinces; and be able to

6|Page
 understand the concept of gerrymandering
5. Aldaba v. Commission on Elections, 611 SCRA 137 (2010): Read the rigid requirements in
amending a city charter and the consequential creation of additional congressional district.
6. Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v.
Commission on Elections, 586 SCRA 210 (2009)   592 SCRA 294 (2009):
Read Section 5(1) and 5(2) of Article VI to appreciate the parameters in allocation
of seats to party list members in the House of Representatives.
7. Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 694 SCRA 477 (2013): Read Section 5(2)
of Article VI to appreciate its application in the decision
8. Reyes v. Commission on Elections, 699 SCRA 522 (2013) and 708SCRA 197
(2013): Read the requirements for one to a have a valid Certificate of Candidacy if
one intends to run as a congressional representative and the requirement for oath
taking for a member of the House of Representatives; jurisdiction of the HRET and
issues for its resolution.
9. Velasco v. Belmonte, Jr., 780 SCRA 81 (2016) – writ of mandamus as a remedy to delist a member
of the House of Representatives
10. Baguilat, Jr. v. SpeakerAlvarez, 832 SCRA 111 (2017) – election of officers of the House of
Representatives; rules of proceedings; extent of power of judicial review
11. Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago, 597 SCRA 1 (2009): Read portion of the decision on the nature
of the privilege of speech as guaranteed parliamentary immunity (speech, debate,
congressional hearings); Read Section 11 of Article VI.
12. Trillanes IV v. Castillo-Marigomen, 859 SCRA 271 (G.R. No. 223451, 14 March 2018):
Read the discussion on the extent of protection of the protection under Section 11 of Article
VI.
13. Liban v. Gordon, 593 SCRA 68 (2009): Read the discussion on the remedy employed by the
petitioner; read the distinction between incompatible office and prohibited officer under
Sections 13 and 14 of Article VI.
14. Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 591 U.S. _ (No. 19–715, 9 July 2020), proof or evidence of
legislative purpose when a subpoena is issued; burden on the part of Congress in issuing
subpoena
15. Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, 549
SCRA 77 (2008) and 564 SCRA 152 (2008) {Read also Separate Opinion of Justice
Carpio}: Read Sections 21 and 22 of Article VI.
16. Garcillano v. House of Representatives Committees on Public Information, Public Order
and Safety, National Defense and Security, Information and Communications Technology,
and Suffrage and Electoral Reforms, 575 SCRA170 (2008): Read the extent of protection
guaranteed to the resource person or witness in a congressional inquiry.
17. Balag v. Senate of the Philippines, 870 SCRA 343 (G.R. No. 234608, 3 July 2018): Read
the portion of the decision when the Court provides for circumstances a witness/resource
person cited in contempt by the Senate may be released.
18. Romero II v. Estrada, 583 SCRA 396 (2009): Read the portion of the decision that the
conduct of congressional inquiry is independent of any pending court cases, whether
criminal or civil in nature.
19. Agcaoili, Jr. v. Fariñas, 870 SCRA 285 (G.R. No. 232395, 3 July 2018): Read the
discussion on the power of Congress to cite resource persons/witnesses and to order their
detention; pay attention to the remedies of parties under detention; take note of the

7|Page
 distinction between a Petition for Habeas Corpus and Petition for Issuance of Writ of
Amparo; read the portion of the decision where the Court amplifies judicial privilege to
reject a call for members of the Court of Appeals to testify in a congressional inquiry.
20. Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., 710 SCRA 1 (2013): Read the portion of the decision where the Court
emphasize the role of Congress in enactment of laws; its exercise of its power under the
doctrine of checks and balances; how Congress and the Office of the President violated the
doctrine of separation of powers particularly on the post-enactment participation of
members of Congress under PDAF.
21. Araullo v. Aquino III, 728 SCRA 1 (2014); 749 SCRA 284 (2015): Read Section
25(5) under Section 25(5) to be able to appreciate the conclusion of the Court;
appreciate how the Court avoided finding any liability of particular public officers
in the implementation of the DAP; also read the discussion on operative fact
doctrine.
22. Technical Education Skills Development Authority (TESDA) v. Commission on Audit, 750
SCRA 247(2015): Read the portion of the decision dealing with compliance with provisions
of a statute and consistency with the Implementing Rules and Regulations to be able to
ensure compliance with both the intent and the letter of the law; keep in mind the test for
valid delegation of powers.
22. Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima, 562 SCRA 251 (2008): Read the portion of the decision
where the Court struck down the provision which called for the participation of members of
Congress in reviewing the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Accretion Law.

D. PRESIDENCY
READ THE FOLLOWING CASES ON CANVASS OF VOTES, PROCLAMATION OF
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SETTLEMENT OF ELECTION CONTEST
BY THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL:
1. Pimentel, Jr. v. Joint Committee of Congress to Canvass the Votes Cast for President and Vice-
President in the May 10, 2004 Elections, G.R.No.163783 , 22 June 2004
Read Section 4 of Article VII to appreciate the role of Congress in the canvass of votes and
proclamation of the country’s President and Vice-President and the commencement of term of
the President and the Vice President. Also read Section 4 and Section 7 of Article VI to fully
understand why Congress must assume its constitutional duty under Section 4 of Article VII.
2. Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, 635 SCRA 783 (2010) ; 651 SCRA
239
(2011): Read Section 4 of Article VII to appreciate why the Court upheld the
constitutionality of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal.
READ THE FOLLOWING CASES ON IMMUNITY FROM SUIT OF THE
PRESIDENT:
3. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997): Read the decision on the extent of
immunity which the President enjoys during his term.
4. Trump p v .Vance, 5 9 1U. S. (N o. 1 9 – 6 3 5 ,9 J u l y 2 0 2 0 ): Read the portion of the
decision why the President cannot be compelled to produce specific documents during his term
of office.
5. Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 613 SCRA 233 (2010): Read the portion of the decision where
the Court removed the President as respondent and reason behind this action.
6. Zabal v. Duterte, G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019: Read the part of the decision on
presidential immunity and the discussion on upholding the action of the president in closing
Boracay Island for six months.

8|Page
7. De Lima v. Duterte, – SCRA – (G.R. No. 227635, 15 October 2019) – concentrate on the portion
of the decision where the Court said that even if acts performed by the President in nature, he
will not be subject to a suit during his term
8. De Leon v. Duterte, – SCRA – (G.R. No. 252118, 8 May 2020) {: This must be read in
conjunction with Section 12, Article VII. The decision must also be appreciated in the light
“presidential status” under Section 11, Article VII.
READ THE FOLLOWING CASES IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPOINTING POWERS
OF THE PRESIDENT, COMPLIANCE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS:
9. Funa v. Ermita, 612 SCURAn3i0v8e(2r0s1i0t): Read the decision in conjunction with Section 1 and
Section 16 of Article VII.
10. Funa v. Agra, 691 SCRA 19(F6 i(r2s0t13S)
11. Aguinaldo v. Aquino III, 811 SCRA 304 (2016)   818
SCRA 2017 (2017); 835 SCRA 343 (2017): Read the decision as it relates to the
powers of the JBC and the appointing powers of the President.
12. Rufino v. Endriga, 496 SCRA 13 (2006): This case may be appreciated not only as to the
discretion of the President to appoint individuals but also in the light of qualifications of
the appointees and their term of office. Relate this to Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.
137(1803)
13. Almario v. Executive Secretary, 701 SCRA 269 (2013)
14. De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, 615 SCRA 666 (2010) {Read also Separate
Opinion of Justice Brion}: Read the decision in relation to Section 15 of Article VII
15. Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President, 758 SCRA 414 (2015): Read in relation to
Section15, Article VII.
16. Domingo et al. v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 226648-49, March 17, 2019

READ THE FOLLOWING CASES TO APPRECIATE THE POWER OF CONTROL

OF THE PRESIDENT OVER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH:
17. Pimentel, Jr. v. Ermita, 472 SCRA 587 (2005): Appreciate the decision in the light of
Section 17 of Article VII and Section 2 of Article X.
18. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, 835 SCRA 235 (2017): Read this decision in the light of the
application of the alter ego doctrine.
19. Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, 637 SCRA 78 (2010)

READ THIS CASE ALSO IN RELATION TO SECTION 23 (1) AND (2) OF ARTICLE
VI:
20. Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, 469 SCRA 1 (2005): This must read in the light of
the exercise of delegated power to the President under Section 28(2) of Article VI.
The general rule barring delegation of legislative powers is subject to the following
recognized limitations or exceptions:
(1) Delegation of tariff powers to the President under Section 28 (2) of Article VI of the
Constitution;
(2) Delegation of emergency powers to the President under Section 23 (2) of Article VI
of the Constitution;
(3) Delegation to the people at large;

9|Page
 (4) Delegation to local governments; and
(5) Delegation to administrative bodies.

READ THE FOLLOWING TO APPRECIATE Section 19 of Article VII AND

SECTION 5, ARTICLE IX-D – COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS:
21. Risos-Vidal v. Commission on Elections, 747 SCRA 210 (2015)

READ THE FOLLOWING CASES IN RELATION TO SECTION 3 AND 4 OF

ARTICLE II AND SECTION 18 OF ARTICLE VII:
22. Gudani v. Senga, 498 SCRA 671 (2006)
23. Kulayan v. Tan, 675 SCRA 482 (2012)
24. Fortun v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 668 SCRA 504 (2012)
25. Lagman v. Medialdea, 829 SCRA 1 (G.R. Nos. 231658, etc., 4 July 2017)
26. Padilla v. Congress of the Philippines, 832 SCRA 282 (2017)
27. Lagman v. Pimentel III, 854 SCRA 184 (G.R. Nos. 235935, et al., 6 February 2018)
28. Lagman v. Medialdea, – SCRA – (G.R. Nos. 243522, et al., 19 February 2019)
29. Ocampo v. Rear Admiral Enriquez, 798 Phil. 227 (November 8, 2016)

READ SECTION 21 OF ARTICLE VII AND SECTION 2, ARTICLE II TO

APPRECIATE THE FOLLOWING CASES:
30. Akbayan Citizens Action Party (Akbayan) v. Aquino, 558 SCRA 468 (2008)
31. Vinuya v. Romulo, 619 SCRA 533 (2010), 732 SCRA 595(2014)
32. Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 158088 July 6, 2005
33. Pangilinan v. Sec. Cayetano,

E. JUDICIARY

READ THE FOLLOWING CASES ON THE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE

JUDICIARY:
34. Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, 676 SCRA 579 (2012), 696 SCRA 496 (2013)
35. Jardeleza v. Sereno, 733 SCRA 279 (2014)
36. Umali v. Judicial and Bar Council, 832 SCRA 194 (2017)
37. Villanueva v. Judicial and Bar Council, 755 SCRA 182 (2015)

READ THE FOLLOWING CASE ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO DEFINE THE

JURISDCTION OF COURTS
38. First Lepanto Ceramics v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110571, March 10, 1994

READ THE FOLLOWING CASES ON THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW:

39. Alliance of Quezon City Homeowners’ Association v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 231896, August
20, 2019: REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
40. Peralta v. PHILPOST, G.R. No. 223395, December 4. 2018: LIMITATIONS ON THE
EXERCISE OF POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

10 | P a g e
41. Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015: EXCEPTIONS
WHEN PARTIES MAY RESORT TO THE SUPREMEE COURT DIRECTLY;
TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE DOCTRINE
42. Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, 732 SCRA 22 (2014): EFFECT WHEN
CONGRESS REINSTATES A PROVISION ALREADY RULED AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
43. Metro Rail Transit Development Corp. v. Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising, Vending and
Promotions, Inc., G.R. No. 204452, [June 28, 2021], HERNANDO, J.: RES JUDICATA
WILL PRECLUDE THE COURT FROM TAKING COGNIZE OF A CASE.
44. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Quilit, G.R. No. 194167, February 10,202, HERNANDO, J:
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES CANNOT ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
45. TESDA v. Abragar, G.R. No. 201022, March 17. 2021, HERNANDO, J.:
INDISPENSABLE PARTIES TO A CASE MUST BE IMPLEADED.
46. Palafox, Jr. v. Mendiola, G.R. No. 209551, February 15, 2021, HERNANDO, J: PARTIES
MUST COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVE OF THE HIERARCHY
OF COURTS DOCTRINE.
47. Cervantes v. Pres. Aquino III, G.R. No. 210805, May 11. 2021, HERNANDO, J.: THE
TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE MAY BE INVOKED ON MATTERS OF GREAT
PUBLIC INTEREST OR WHEN SIGNIFICANT CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARE
RAISED. THE COURT MAY LIKEWISE DISMISS A CASE WHEN ISSUES HAVE
BECOME MOOT AND ACADEMIC.
48. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Del Moral, G.R. 187207,

READ THE FOLLOWING CASES ONRULE-MAKING POWERS OF THE SUPREME

COURT
49. Pimentel v. Legal Education Board, G.R. No. 230042, September 10, 2019: RULE
MAKING POWERS OF THE COURT IN ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE OF
LAW
50. Re: Letter of Resignation of Atty. Brenda Jay Angeles, A.M. 18002-13SC, July 3, 2018:
APPOINTMENTS IN KEY POSITIONS IN THE S.C. MUST BE APROVED EN
BANC.
51. Estipona, Jr. v. Lobrigo, 837 SCRA 193 (2017)
52. Re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the GSIS from Payment of Legal Fees, 612
SCRA 191 160(2010)

READ THE FOLLOWING CASES ON THE POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO

DISCIPLINE THE MEMBERS OF THE BENCH, BAR AND EMPLOYEES OF THE
JUDICIARY:
53. Re: Memorandum dated July 19, 2017 from Associate Justice Teresita De Castro, A.M. 17-
07-05 S.C., July 3, 2018
54. Litonjua v. Jerry Marcelino, A.M. P-18-3865, October 9, 2018
55. Anonymous v. Ibaretta, A.M. P-19-3916, June 26, 2019
56. San Jose Homeowners Association v. Atty. Roberto Romanillos. A.C. No. 5580, July 31,
2018: Though the doors to the practice of law are never permanently closed on a disbarred
attorney, the Court owes a duty to the legal profession as well as to the general public to
ensure that if the doors are opened, it is done so only as a matter of justice2018:  though the

11 | P a g e
 doors to the practice of law are never permanently closed on a disbarred attorney, the Court
owes a duty to the legal profession as well as to the general public to ensure that if the doors
are opened, it is done so only as a matter of justice.
57. Gubatan v. Atty. Augustus Serafin D. Amador, A.C. No. 8962, July 09, 2018: The Court has
the power to sanction erring lawyers.
58. Anonymous Complaint v. Judge Buyucan, MCTC Bagabag-Diadi, Nueva Vizcaya, A.M. No.
MTJ-16-1879 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-2719-MTJ), July 24, 2018): The Court may act
upon anonymous complaints against the members of the judiciary.
59. Sps. Pacho v. Judge Agapito Lu, RTC-Cavite City, A.M. No. RTJ-13-2350 (Formerly OCA
IPI No. 10-3507-RTJ), July 23, 2018: A judge may be sanctioned for not observing the
mandatory period within which to decide cases. The penalty may mitigated by circumstances
personal to the judge.

READ THE FOLLOWING CASES ON THE SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE THE

INDEPENDENCE OF THE COURT:
60. City of Manila v. Grecia-Cuerdo, 715 SCRA 182 (2014)
61. Re: COA Opinion on the Computation of the Appraised Value of the Properties Purchased
by the Retired Chief/Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, 678 SCRA 1 (2012)
62. Re: Request for Guidance/Clarification on Section 7, Rule 111 of Republic Act. No. 10154
Requiring Retiring Government Employees to Secure a Clearance of Pendencyon-Pendency
of Cases from the Civil Service Commission, 706 SCRA 502 (2013)
63. Galicto v. Aquino III, 667 SCRA 150 (2012)

F. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
Composition CSC - Chairperson COMELEC - Chairperson COA – Chairperson
Two Commissioners Two Commissioners Two Commissioners

Constitutional CSC shall serve as the COMELEC shall COA is the watchdog of
Mandate central personnel agency administer and conduct public funds and shall
of the government. national and local ensure the legitimate use
elections, including recall, of public funds.
initiative (to amend the
constitution as well to
propose national laws and
ordinances) and
referendum.

Qualifications Natural-born Filipino; Natural-born Filipino; Natural-born Filipino

citizen; 35 years old; citizen, 35 years old; citizen; 35 years old;
must not have been must not have been must not have been
candidates for any candidates for any candidates for any elective
elective position in the elective position in the position in the elections
elections immediately elections immediately immediately preceding
preceding their preceding their their appointment;
appointment; and appointment; certified public
with proven capacity for holders of a college accountants with not less
public administration degree; and a majority of than ten years of auditing

12 | P a g e
 the members, including
the Chairman, shall be
Members of the
Philippine Bar who have
been engaged in the
practice of law for at least
ten years.
experience, or members of
the Philippine Bar who
have been engaged in the
practice of law for at least
ten years; and
At no time shall all
Members of the
Commission belong to the
same profession

Safeguards to ensure the independence of the CSC, COMELEC and COA

1. The salary of the Chairman and the Commissioners shall be fixed by law and shall not be
decreased during their tenure.
2. The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint their officials and employees in accordance with
law.
3. The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Their approved annual appropriations shall be
automatically and regularly released.
4. Each Commission en banc may promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice
before it or before any of its offices. Such rules however shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights.
5. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
6. The chairpersons and members of the CSC. COMELEC and COA are impeachable officers.
7. Appointments to CSC, COMELEC and COA are on a rotational basis that ensure that there will
always be a quorum for these commissions

Prohibitions on the part of the members of the CSC, COMELEC and COA
1. No member of a constitutional commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or
employment.
2. No Member of a Constitutional Commission shall he engage in the practice of any profession or
in the active management or control of any business which in any way be affected by the
functions of his office, nor shall he be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract
with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions,
agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries.1

Read the following cases

1. Funa v. Duque III, 742 SCRA 166 (2014)
2. Civil Service Commission v. Department of Budget and Management, 464 SCRA 115
(2005)
3. Torres v. De Leon, 781 SCRA 110 (2016)
4. Career Executive Service Board v. Civil Service Commission, 819 SCRA 482 (2017)
5. Civil Service Commission v. Catacutan, G.R. No. 224651, July 3, 2019
6. Aguirre v. Civil Service Commission, G.R.No. 215932, June 3, 2019
7. Civil Service Commission v. Richard Rebong, G.R. No. 215932, June 3, 2019
8. Suriaga v. Commission on Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 238191, August 28,

1
Section 2, Article IX-A, 1987 Constitution.

13 | P a g e
 2019
9. Funa v. Villar, 670 SCRA 579 (2012)
10. Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Commission on Audit,
534 SCRA 112 (2007)
11. Lazaro v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 213323, January 22, 2019
12. Rotaras v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 211999, August 20, 2019
13. Bayani F. Fernando v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 237938, December 4, 2018
14. Funa v. MECO, G.R. No. 193462, February 4, 2014
15. Oriondo et al. v. Commission on Audit, G.R. 211293, June 4, 2019
16. Binga Hydroelectric Plant, Inc. v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 218721, July 10,
2018
17. Bagumbayan-VNP Movement Inc. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. 206719. April 10,
2019
18. Zapanta v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 233016, March 5, 2019

II. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [Week 5]

GENERAL FRAMEWORK
1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Nature of Administrative Law
Reasons for Creating Specialized
Administrative Agencies
It is a branch of modern law under which the executive
department of the government, acting in a quasi-legislative or
quasi-judicial capacity, interferes with the conduct of the
individual for the purpose of promoting the well-being of the
community [Roscoe Pound]
(1) Growing complexities of modern life demand specialized
agencies.
(2) Rise of different fields which need specific government
regulation; and
(3) Increased difficulty of administering laws.

Advantages of Creating (1) Recognition of expertise and competence of an administrative

Administrative Agencies agency;
(2) Expediency in resolving otherwise complex and technical
issues; and
(3) Flexibility of the government to respond to changes.
2. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES - Definition
Under the Revised Administrative Code Book VII, Sec. 2.
Definitions. - As used in this Book:
(1) "Agency" includes any department, bureau,
office, commission, authority, or officer of the
National Government authorized by law or executive
order to make rules, issue licenses, grant rights or
privileges, and adjudicate cases; research institutions
with respect to licensing functions; government
corporations with respect to functions regulating
private right, privileges, occupation, or business; and
officials in the exercise of disciplinary power as
provided by law.

14 | P a g e
 According to Black’s Law Dictionary An administrative agency is defined as "[a]
government body charged with administering and
implementing particular legislation. Examples are
workers' compensation commissions ... and the like x
x x. The term 'agency' includes any department,
independent establishment, commission,
administration, authority board or bureau x x x.
According to Justice Nachura Administrative agencies are the organs of
government, other than a court and other than the
legislature, which affect the rights of private parties
either through adjudication or through rule-making
According to Justice Isagani Cruz Administrative agency may be described as a body
endowed with quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial
powers for the purpose of enabling it to carry out the
laws entrusted for enforcement or execution
Definition of Terms Executive Order No. 292 – Section 2, Introductory
Provisions Revised Administrative Code [July 25, 1987]
Government of the Republic of the refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the
Philippines functions of government are exercised throughout the
Philippines, including, save as the contrary appears from the
context, the various arms through which political authority is
made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the
autonomous regions, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay
subdivisions or other forms of local government.
National Government refers to the entire machinery of the central government, as
distinguished from the different forms of local governments
 Local Government  refers to the political subdivisions established by or in
accordance with the Constitution.
Agency of the Government refers to any of the various units of the Government, including a
department, bureau, office, instrumentality, or government-
owned or controlled corporation, or a local government or a
distinct unit therein.
National Agency refers to a unit of the National Government.
Local Agency  refers to a local government or a distinct unit therein.
Department refers to an executive department created by law. For purposes
of Book IV, this shall include any instrumentality, as herein
defined, having or assigned the rank of a department, regardless
of its name or designation.
Bureau refers to any principal subdivision or unit of any department. For
purposes of Book IV, this shall include any principal subdivision
or unit of any instrumentality given or assigned the rank of a
bureau, regardless of actual name or designation, as in the case
of department-wide regional offices.
Office refers, within the framework of governmental organization, to
any major functional unit of a department or bureau including
regional offices. It may also refer to any position held or
occupied by individual persons, whose functions are defined by
law or regulation.
Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government, not integrated
within the department framework vested with special functions

15 | P a g e
 or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate
powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational
autonomy, usually through a charter. This term includes
regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and government-
owned or controlled corporations.
Regulatory agency refers to any agency expressly vested with jurisdiction to
regulate, administer, or adjudicate matters affecting substantial
rights and interest of private persons, the principal powers of
which are exercised by a collective body, such as a commission,
board, or council.
Chartered institution refers to any agency organized or operating under a special
charter and vested by law with functions relating to specific
constitutional policies or objectives. This term includes the state
universities and colleges and the monetary authority of the State.
Government-owned or controlled refers to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock
corporation corporation, vested with functions relating to public needs
whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by
the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either
wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock corporations,
to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) per cent of its capital
stock: Provided, That government-owned or controlled
corporations may be further categorized by the Department of
the Budget, the Civil Service Commission, and the Commission
on Audit for purposes of the exercise and discharge of their
respective powers, functions and responsibilities with respect to
such corporations.
“Officer”  as distinguished from “clerk” or “employee”, refers to a person
whose duties, not being of a clerical or manual nature, involves
the exercise of discretion in the performance of the functions of
the government. When used with reference to a person having
authority to do a particular act or perform a particular function
in the exercise of governmental power, “officer” includes any
government employee, agent or body having authority to do the
act or exercise that function.
“Employee” when used with reference to a person in the public service,
includes any person in the service of the government or any of
its agencies, divisions, subdivisions, or instrumentalities

3. MANNER OF CREATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

(1) Those created by the Constitution
(Examples: CSC, COMELEC, COA, CHR, Judicial and Bar Council, Read Articles IX, VIII and XIII,
1987 Constitution)
(2) Those created by Statutes(Examples: DPWH, DOST, DOTr, DICT, DOLE, DEpED, DFA, DSWD,
DND, DILG, DOJ, DOF, DA, DAR, DENR, NLRC, OWWA, SEC, PRC, Social Security Commission,
Bureau of on Immigration and Deportation, Intellectual Property Office, Insurance Commission, National
Housing Authority, GSIS, SSS, DBP, LBP)
(3) Those through Executive Orders/ Authorities of law
(Examples:
- Inter-agency Task Force on COVID-19, The Fact-Finding Commission pursuant to Republic Act No.
6832: Coup Attempts of RAM against the administration of President Corazon Aquino- E.O. 115 of May

16 | P a g e
11, 2020 Extending the Extending the Term of the Boracay Inter-Agency Task Force
- E.O. 114 of May 6, 2020 Institutionalizing the Balik Probinsya, Bagong Pag-Asa Program as a Pillar of
Balanced Regional Development, Creating a Council therefor, and for other purposes.
4. KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES BASED ON PRIMARY PURPOSE
(1) Government grant or gratuity, special privilege
Examples: Bureau of Forest Development for Timber Licensing Agreements
Land Management Bureau for Homestead, Land Patents
GSIS for pension benefits of government employees
SSS for pension benefits of private sector employees
PAO for legal representation of indigent litigants
(2) Carrying out the actual business of government
Examples: BIR for collection of income taxes
Bureau of Customs for collection of tariffs and other duties
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation for exclusion and inclusion of aliens
Land Registration Authority for registration of land and condominium titles
(3) Service for public benefit
Examples: LRTA for provision of rapid mass transportation
Philippine National Railways for provision of alternative mass transportation in the metropolis
Philippine Postal Corporation for provision of mailing services to the public in general
Manila Water and Sewerage System for ensuring adequate water supply provided by selected
government concessionaires
National Housing Authority for the provision of housing for displaced families
(4) Regulation of businesses affected with public interest
Examples:
LTFRB for grant of Certificate for Public Convenience for public utility vehicles
NTC for grant of permits for telecommunications companies to operate
HLURB for grant of permits to sell subdivision lots (which may include housing units) and
condominium units and to regulate the relation of buyers and sellers
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas for permits for operation of all banks in the Philippines
Food and Drug Authority for certification for food and drugs fit for human consumption and claims
to cure specific ailments
LGUs for business permits, building permits and other regulatory permits.
(5) Regulation of private businesses and individuals
Examples:
Securities and Exchange Commission issues Certificates of Incorporation of stock and non-stock
entities.
Insurance Commission issues permits to life and non-life insurance companies including surety
Companies.
Business and Permits Licensing Office of LGUs for regulation of particular businesses operating
within their territorial jurisdiction
(6) Adjustment of individual controversies because of a strong social policy involved
ECC for claims of benefits caused work-related illness or accidents
NLRC for settlement of labor disputes
POEA for claims of illegal recruitment
OWWA for protection of overseas Filipino workers from abusive employers.
SEC for protection of the public from pyramiding scams
Insurance Commission for protection of the public from pre-need misrepresentations

5. POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

17 | P a g e
 1. Rule-making Powers
(Quasi-Legislative Functions)
18 | P a g e
Source of Power
The authority delegated by the law-making body to the administrative
agency to adopt rules and regulations intended to carry out the
provisions of a law and implement a legislative policy. [CRUZ]
Requisites for a Valid Delegation
(1) Completeness Test –The law must be complete in itself and must
set forth the policy to be executed; and
(2) Sufficient Standard Test – The law must fix a standard, the
limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable, to
which the delegate must conform.
Doctrine of Subordinate Legislation - Power to promulgate rules and
regulations is only limited to carrying into effect what is provided in
the legislative enactment.
The general rule barring delegation of legislative powers is subject to
the following recognized limitations or exceptions:
(1) Delegation of tariff powers to the President [Section 28 (2),
Article VI, Constitution];
(2) Delegation of emergency powers to the President [Section 23 (2),
Article VI, Constitution];
(3) Delegation to the people at large;
(4) Delegation to local governments; and
(5) Delegation to administrative bodies
Non-Delegation Doctrine – Potestas delegata non delegare potest.
What has been delegated cannot be delegated.
Kinds of Administrative Rules and Regulations
(1) Supplementary legislation – pertains to rules and regulations to
fix details in the execution of a policy in the law. e.g. IRRs of the
Labor Code.
(2) Interpretative legislation – pertains to rules and regulations
construing or interpreting the provisions of a statute to be
enforced and they are binding on all concerned until they are
changed, e.g. BIR Circulars.
Requisites of a valid administrative rule
(1) It must have been issued within the scope or authority of law;
(2) It must be authorized by law;
(3) It must be reasonable; and
(4) It must be promulgated in accordance with prescribed procedure
Publication Rules
(1) Administrative rules and regulations are subject to the publication
and effectivity rules of the Administrative Code.
(2) Publication Requirement: Article 2 of the Civil Code requires
publication of laws in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of
general circulation. Publication is indispensable, especially if the
rule is general.
Effectivity-
General Rule: A law take effect 15 days after filing and publication
Reminder: The Administrative Code requires filing while the Civil
 Code requires publication. Therefore, both publication and filing
must be satisfied before the 15 day-count begins.
Exceptions:
(1) When a different date is fixed by law or specified in the rule; and
(2) In case of imminent danger to public health, safety, and welfare.
Publication is mandatory for the following to be effective:
(1) Laws not only of general application, but also laws of local
application, private laws;
(2) Presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the
President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are
validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred
by the Constitution, including even those naming a public place after
a favored individual or exempting him from certain prohibitions or
requirements
(3) Administrative rules and regulations enforcing or implementing
existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation;
(5) City charters; and
(6) Circulars issued by the Monetary Board not merely interpreting
but "filling in the details" of the Central Bank Act
and those which the agency needs to enforce.
Publication is not necessary for the following to be effective:
(1) Interpretative regulations;
(2) Regulations which are merely internal in nature (regulations
applicable only to the personnel of the administrative agency
need not be published);
(3) Letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors
concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their
subordinates in the performance of their duties; and
(4) Internal instructions issued by an administrative agency;
(5) Municipal ordinances which are governed by the Local
Government Code
Administrative Rules and Penal Rules
General Rule: Rules must not provide penal sanctions
Exception: “A violation or infringement of a rule or regulation
validly issued can constitute a crime punishable as provided in the
authorizing statute and by virtue of the latter.”

2. Adjudicatory Powers Source of Power

(Quasi-Judicial Functions) This is incidental to the power of regulation but is often expressly
conferred by the legislature through specific provisions in the charter of
the agency.
Requisites for Valid Exercise
(1) Jurisdiction: Power and limitations are vested by law.
(2) Due process: Right to Notice and Right to be Heard
Powers subsumed in the Exercise of Quasi-judicial Functions
(1)Subpoena Power – In any contested case, the agency shall have the
power to require the attendance of witnesses or the production of
books, papers, documents, and other pertinent data. [Sec. 13, Bk.
VII, 1987 Admin Code]
(2)Contempt Power
General Rule: As a general rule, administrative agencies will have to

19 | P a g e
 apply for the aid of Regional Trial Court to cite a party in contempt.
Exception: If the law gives agency contempt power. [Sec. 13, Bk.
VII, 1987 Admin Code]
(3)Power to issue Search Warrant or Warrant of Arrest
General Rule: Only Judges may issue a search warrant or a
warrant of arrest. [Section 2, Article III, Constitution]

Jurisdiction
General Rule: A tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions
acts without jurisdiction if no authority has been conferred to it by law to
hear and decide cases.
Exception: In cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens,
whom the President or the Commissioner of Immigration may order
arrested, following a final order of deportation, for the purpose of
deportation.
Reminder: Once deportation proceedings have been initiated, the
alien’s liberty may be restrained.
Notice and Hearing
When required:
(1) When the law specifically requires it.
(2) When it affects a person’s status and liberty
Required in the following instances:
(1) Contested cases [Admin. Code, Bk. VII, Sec. 3]
(2) Insofar as practicable, to certain licensing procedures, involving
grant, renewal, denial, or cancellation of a license; i.e. when the
grant, renewal, denial, or cancellation of a license is required to be
preceded by notice and hearing [Sec. 17(1)]
(3) All licensing procedures, when a license is withdrawn, suspended,
revoked, or annulled [Sec. 17(2)] Exception: Notice and hearing are
not required in cases of (a) willful violation of pertinent laws, rules,
and regulations or (b) when public security, health, or safety require
otherwise. [Sec. 17(2)]
Notice and hearing are not required under the following circumstances:
(1) There is an urgent need for an immediate action on the part of the
administrative agency;
(2) Discretion is exercised by an officer vested with it upon an
undisputed fact;
(3) If it involves the exercise of discretion and there is no grave abuse;
(4) When it involves rules to govern future conduct of persons or
enterprises, unless law provides otherwise; and
(5) When the administrative agency is in the valid exercise of police
power.
Due Process in Administrative Proceedings
Cardinal Primary Rights
Administrative res judicata
General rule: The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or
quasi-judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of purely
administrative functions. Administrative proceedings are non-litigious
and summary in nature; hence, res judicata does not apply.
Requisites:
(1) The former judgment must be final;

20 | P a g e
 (2) It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties;
(3) It must be a judgment on the merits; and
(4) There must be identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action.
Decisions and orders of administrative bodies rendered pursuant to their
quasi-judicial authority have, upon their finality, the force and effect of a
final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata, which
forbids the reopening of matters once judicially determined by
competent authorities.
Reminder: Res judicata does not apply in administrative adjudication
relative to citizenship.
The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to decide questions relative to
claims of citizenship.
Exception: For res judicata to be applied in cases of citizenship, the
following must be present:
(1) A person's citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a
controversy where said person is a party;
(2) The Solicitor General or his authorized representative took
active part in the resolution thereof; and
(3) The finding or citizenship is affirmed by SC.

Administrative Appeal and Review

Different kinds of administrative appeal and review: [De Leon]
(1) That which inheres in the relation of administrative superior to administrative subordinate where
determinations are made at lower levels of the same administrative system;
(2) That embraced in statutes which provide for a determination to be made by a particular officer of
body subject to appeal, review, or redetermination by another officer or body in the same agency
or in the same administrative system;
(3) That in which the statute attempts to make a court a part of the administrative scheme by providing
in terms or effect that the court, on review of the action of an administrative agency, shall exercise
powers of such extent that they differ from ordinary judicial functions and involve a trial de novo
of matters of fact or discretion and application of the independent judgment of the court;
(4) That in which the statute provides that an order made by a division of a Commission or Board has
the same force and effect as if made by the Commission subject to a rehearing by the full
Commission, for the ‘rehearing’ is practically an appeal to another administrative tribunal;
(5) That in which the statute provides for an appeal to an officer on an intermediate level with
subsequent appeal to the head of the department or agency; and
(6) That embraced in statutes which provide for appeal at the highest level, namely, the President

3. Fact-finding, Investigative, Licensing and Rate-Fixing Powers

Ascertainment of Facts
A statute may give to non-judicial officers:
(1) The power to declare the existence of facts which call into
operation the statute’s provisions, and
(2) May grant to commissioners and other subordinate officers the
power to ascertain and determine appropriate facts as a basis for
procedure in the enforcement of particular laws.
Such functions are merely incidental to the exercise of power granted
by law to clear navigable streams of unauthorized obstructions. They
can be conferred upon executive officials provided the party affected is

21 | P a g e

Investigative Powers
Licensing Function
Rate-fixing Powers
given the opportunity to be heard.
Administrative agencies’ power to conduct investigations and
hearings, and make findings and recommendations thereon is inherent
in them.
“License” includes the whole or any part of any agency permit,
certificate, passport, clearance, approval, registration, charter,
membership, statutory exemption or other form of permission, or
regulation of the exercise of a right or privilege.” [ Sec. 2(10), Book
VII, Administrative Code]
“Licensing” includes agency process involving the grant, renewal,
denial, revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal, limitation,
amendment, modification, or conditioning of a license.” [ Sec. 2(11),
Book VII, Administrative Code]
General Rule: Where the licensee has made timely and sufficient
application for the renewal of a license with reference to any activity
of a continuing nature, the existing license shall not expire until the
application shall have been finally determined by the agency. .” [ Sec.
18, Book VII, Administrative Code]
“Rate” means any charge to the public for a service open to all and
upon the same terms, including individual or joint rates, tolls,
classification, or schedules thereof, as well as communication,
mileage, kilometrage and other special rates which shall be imposed by
law or regulation to be observed and followed by any person.” [ Sec.
2(3), Book VII, Administrative Code]
General Rule: In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be
valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a
newspaper of general circulation at least two weeks before the first
hearing thereon. [Sec. 9, Book VII, Administrative Code]

6. JUDICIAL REVIEW
General Rule: Judicial review may be granted or withheld as Congress chooses, except when the
Constitution requires or allows it. Thus, a law may provide that the decision of an administrative agency
shall be final and not reviewable and it would still not offend due process.
Reasons why agency actions/decisions/resolutions are subject to judicial review:
(1) There is an underlying power of the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law
and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute;
(2) The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect
the substantial rights of the parties;
(3) It is that part of the checks and balances which restricts the separation of powers and forestalls
arbitrary and unjust adjudications.

1. Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction

General Rule: Courts will not intervene if the question to be resolved is one which requires the expertise
of administrative agencies and the legislative intent on the matter is to have uniformity in the rulings.
Requisites:
(1) An administrative body and a regular court have concurrent and original jurisdiction
(2) Question to be resolved requires expertise of administrative agency
(3) Legislative intent on the matter is to have uniformity in rulings
(4) Administrative agency is performing a quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function

22 | P a g e
2. Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
General Rule: Where the law has delineated the procedure by which administrative appeal or remedy
could be effected, the same should be followed before recourse to judicial action can be initiated.

Requisites:
(1) The administrative agency is performing a quasi-judicial function;
(2) Judicial review is available; and
(3) The court acts in its appellate jurisdiction.
Exceptions to the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Remedies:
(1) Grave abuse of discretion;
(2) Pure question of law; or
(3) No other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
Effect of failure to exhaust administrative remedies:
A direct action in court without prior exhaustion of administrative remedies, when required, is premature,
warranting its dismissal on a motion to dismiss grounded on lack of cause of action. Failure to observe the
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the Court’s jurisdiction. If not invoked at
the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court can take cognizance of the case and try it.

3. Doctrine of finality of administrative action

General Rule: Courts will not interfere with the act of an administrative agency before it has reached
finality or it has been completed.
The rule on finality of decisions, orders, or resolutions of a judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative body
is "not a question of technicality but of substance and merit," the underlying consideration therefore,
being the protection of the substantive rights of the winning party.
Exceptions to the doctrine of finality of administrative action:
(1) the correction of clerical errors;
(2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party;
(3) void judgments; and
(4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and
inequitable.

CASES
A. ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION
1. GSIS Savings /Family Bank Employees Union v. Secretary Villanueva, G.R. No.
210773, January 23, 2019
2. Bayani F. Fernando v. Commission on Audit, supra
3. Funa v. MECO, supra
4. Orlondo et al. v. Commission on Audit, supra
5. Biraogo v The Philippine Truth Commission, G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010

B. ADMINISTRATIVE RULE-MAKING
1. Securities and Exchange Commission v. GMA Network, Inc., 575 SCRA 113 (2008)
2. The Chairman and Executive Director, Palawan Council for Sustainable Development
v. Lim, 801 SCRA 304 (2016)

23 | P a g e
C. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
3. Dormido v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 198241, February 24, 2020,
HERNANDO, J.
4. Professional Regulation Commission v. Alo, G.R. No. 214435. 14, 2022, HERNANDO,
J.
5. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No.
200643, April 26, 2021. HERNANDO. J.
6. Ombudsman v. Fetalvero, G.R. No. 211450, July 25, 2018
7. Secretary of DAR v. Heirs of Abucay, G.R. No. 186432, March 12, 2019
8. Jaka Investments Corporation v. Urdaneta Village Association, Inc., G.R. Nos. 204187
and 206606, April 1, 2019

III. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS [Weeks 6-7]

A. ELIGIBILITY AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC OFFICE

Read Sections 3 to 8 of Article IX – B: The Civil Service Commission

1. Limkaichong v. Commission on Elections, 583 SCRA 1 (2009) – citizenships as a
qualification in an elective post
2. Civil Service Commission v. Cortes, 723 SCRA 609 (2014) - nepotism as a ground to
disqualify an appointive public officer

B. LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS UNDER BIDDING RULES AND

CONTRACTS
Read Sections 17 and 18, Article XI
1. Gwendolyn Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 205904, October 17, 2017
2. Castilo-Co v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.184766, August 15, 2018: Review the Arias
doctrine
3. Ombudsman v. P/Supt. Espina, G.R. No. 213500, March 15, 2017: Arias Doctrine
4. Province of Bataan v. Casimiro, G.R. Nos. 197510-11and 201347, April 18, 2022.
HERNANDO, J.
5. Henson v. COA, G.R. No. 218304, December 9, 2020, HERNANDO, J.
6. Radaza v. People, G.R. No. 201380. August 4, 2021 HERNANDO, J.
Bol

7. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Bool, G.R. No. 207522. April 28, 2021, HERNANDO,
J.

C. PAYMENT OF SALARIES AND RATA

1. People v. Palma Gil-Rolfo et al., G. R. Nos. 249564band 249568-76, March 21, 2022,
HERNANDO, J.
2. Leones v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 204106, November 17, 2021, HERNANDO, J

D. GRANT FOR FINANCIAL REWARDS BASE ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH

EMPLOYEES

24 | P a g e
 1. DBP v. COA, G.R. No. 210838, July 3, 2018

GRANT OF BENEFITS EMANATING FROM SPECIAL FUND

2. Rotaras v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 21199, August 30, 2019

GRANT OF FINANCIAL BENEFITS AND COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCE

3. Madera v. COA, G.R. No. 244128, Sep 08, 2020

4. Minao v. Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao), G.R. No. 231042, February 23, 2022,
HERNANDO, J.

E. PERSONNEL MOVEMENTS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

1. Zaldivar-Perez v. First Division of the Sandiganbayan G.R. no. 204739, November 13, 2019,
HERNANDO, J.
2. Bagaoisan v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 242005, June 6, 2019
3. Dator v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 237742, October 8, 2019
4. Atty. Purina Jabinal v. Ombudsman, G.R. no. 232094, July 24, 2019
5. Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 237738, June 10, 2019

6. Marzan v. People, GR No. 226167, Oct 11, 2021, HERNANDO, J.

F. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE

1. Gatchalian v. Urrutia, G.R. No. 2233595, March 16, 2022, HERNANDO, J.
2. AAA v. Atty. Antonio N. De Los Reyes, AC. No. 10021, September 18, 2018, Per
Curiam

G. SUSPENSION, REINSTATEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

1. San Felix v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 198404, October 14, 2019,
HERNANDO, J.
2. Moreno v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 238566, February 20, 2019
3. Lee v. Sales, G.R. No. 205294, July 4, 2019
4. Police Director General v. PO2 Mayo, G.R. No. 218534, September 15, 2018
5. Civil Service v. Beray, G.R. Nos. 19146 and 191974, December 10, 2019,
HERNANDO. J

H. IMPEACHMENT
Read Sections 2 and 3 of Article XI
1. Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, 452 SCRA 714 (2005)
2. Gutierrez v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice, 643 SCRA 198 (2011)
3. Republic v. Sereno, 863 SCRA 1 (G.R. No. 237428, 11 May 2018)
4. Re: Letter of Mrs. Ma. Cristina Roco Corona requesting the Grant of Retirement and
other Benefits to the late former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and her claim for
Survivorship Pension as his Wife under R Republic Act No. 9946: Former Chief Justice

25 | P a g e
 Corona is entitled to all his retirement benefits and that his surviving spouse is entitled to
receive full survivor benefits because his separation from service was involuntary.
5. In a notice dated February 18, 2020 and signed by Clerk of Court Edgar Aricheta,
the high court dismissed the petition filed against Associate Justice Edgardo delos
Santos by a certain Karlo Eugenio on the following grounds:
i. Being the wrong remedy;
ii. Failure to pay docket and other legal fees;
iii. Lack of verification and certification on non-forum shopping as required by Section 1
Rule 66, and Section 4, Rule 7, respectively, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as,
Amended;
iv. Lack of proof of service (e. g. a written admission of the party served, or an affidavit
of the party serving and registry receipts) of the petition on the adverse party, as
required by Section 13, Rule 13 of the same rules;
v. Failure to indicate petitioner’s contact details, e. g. telephone number, fax number,
cellular phone number or email address, pursuant to the En Banc Resolution dated
July 10, 2007 in A. M. No. 07-6-5-SC (Statement of Contact Details or Parties
or Their Counsels in All Papers Filed in the Supreme Court, and;
vi. Requirement to submit a verified declaration that the petition and annexes
submitted electronically are complete and true copies of the completed document
and annexes filed with this Court, as required in the Guidelines on Submission and
Processing of Soft Copies of Supreme Court-bound Papers Pursuant to the Efficient
Use of Paper Rule.

I. SANDIGANBAYAN AND OMBUDSMAN

Read Sections 4 to 14 of Article XI
1. Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 218652, February 23, 2022, HERNANDO, J.
2. Sherwin Gatchalian v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 229288, August 1, 2018
3. Monterde v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 214102, February 14, 2022, HERNANDO, J.
4. Minao v. Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao), supra, HERNANDO, J.
5. People v. Partisala, G. R. Nos. 245931-32, April 25, 2022, HERNANDO, J.

J. PUBLIC OFFICE AND RESPONSIBILITY

Read Section 1, Article XI
1. Carpio Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division), supra
2. Patdu v. Carpio-Morales, G.R. No. 230171, September 27, 2021, HERNANDO, J.
3. Senator Jinggoy Estrada v. Ombudsman et al., G.R. No. 212761, July 31, 2018
4. Domingo et al. v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 226648-49, March 27, 2019

K. ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH AND STATE RECOVERY

Read Section 15, Article XI and Section 26, Article XVIII
1. Republic v. Ombudsman et al., G.R. No. 198366, June 26, 2019
2. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 222364, June 26, 2019
3. PCGG v. Ombudsman et al., G.R. No. 194619. March 20, 2019
4. Sabio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 219824-25, February 12, 2019

26 | P a g e
 L. TERMINATION OF OFFICIAL RELATIONS
Read Section 2, Article XI
1. Gonzales III v. Office of the President, 679 SCRA 614 (2012)   714 SCRA
611 (2014)
2. Re: Application for Retirement of Judge Moslemen T. Macarambon under Republic Act
No. 910, as Amended by Republic Act No. 946, 673 SCRA 602 (2012)
3. Fetalino v. Commission on Elections, 686 SCRA 813 (2012)
4. Ombudsman v. Pacuribot, G.R. No. 193336, September 26. 2018: The death of a public
officer terminates his service with the government and extinguishes any liability he
may have incurred.

IV. ELECTION LAW [Week 8]

A. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. Bagumbayan –VNP v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206719, April 10, 2019

2. Cagas v. Commission on Elections, 663 SCRA 645(2012)
3. Kabataan Party-List v. Commission on Elections, 777 SCRA 574 (2015)

B. DISQUALIFICATION AND CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE OF

CANDIDACY
1. Jalosjos v. COMELEC, 698 SCRA 742 (2013)
2. Dimapilis v. COMELEC, 823 SCRA 451 (2017)
3. Reynaldo S. Zapanta v. COMELEC, supra
4. Aguilar v. Benlot, G.R. No. 232806, January 21, 2019
5. Halili v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 231643, January 15, 2019

C. SUBSTITUTIONS
1. Miranda v. Abaya, 311 SCRA 617 (1999)
2. Tagolino v. Commission on Elections, 693 SCRA 574 (2013)
3. Federico v. Commission on Elections, 689 SCRA 134 (2013)

D. CITIZENSHIP, DOMICILE AND REPATRIATION

1. Arnado v. Commission on Elections, 767 SCRA 168 (2015)
2. Agustin v. Commission on Elections, 774 SCRA 353 (2015)
3. Caballero v. Commission on Elections, 771 SCRA 213 (2015)

E. CAMPAIGNS
1. Penera v. Commission on Elections, 599 SCRA 609 (2009), 605 SCRA 574
(2009)
F. ELECTIONS, WINNERS, ELECTION CONTESTS AND SECOND PLACERS

27 | P a g e
 1. Ongsiako- Reyes v. HRET, G.R, No. 221103, October 18, 2018
2. Velasco v. Speaker Belmonte, G.R. No. 211140, January 12, 2016
3. Martinez III v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 610 SCRA 53 (2010)
4. Tañada, Jr. v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 785 SCRA 314 (2016)
5. Maquiling v. Commission on Elections, 696 SCRA 420 (2013)   700
SCRA 367 (2013)
6. Dela Cruz v. Commission on Elections, 685 SCRA 347 (2012)

G. ELECTION OFFENSES
1. Lluz v. Commission on Elections, 523 SCRA 456 (2007)
2. People v. Randolph S. Ting, G.R. No. 221505, December 5, 2018
3. Velez v. People, G.R. No. 215136, August 28, 2019

V. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS [Local Governments] – [Weeks 9-10]

A. CAPACITY OF LGUs TO OWN REAL PROPERTY

1. City of Tanauan v. Millonte, G.R. N., 219292, June 28, 2021, HERNANDO, J.

B. FISCAL AUTONOMY AND SELF-RELIANCE

1. MERALCO v. City of Muntinlupa, G.R. No.198529, February 9, 2021, HERNANDO. J.
2. Pimentel, Jr. v. Ochoa, 676 SCRA 551 (2012)
3. Congressman Mandanas v. Ochoa, Jr., 869 SCRA 440 (G.R. No. 199802, 3 July 2018)
4. Republic v. Provincial Government of Palawan, – SCRA – (G.R. Nos. 170867 and 185941,
4 December 2018)

C. LOCAL AUTONOMY AND NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

1. Batangas CATV, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 439 SCRA 326 (2004)
2. League of Provinces of the Philippines v. Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
696 SCRA 190 (2013)

D. LOCAL AUTONOMY AND DECISION-MAKING

1. Province of Rizal v. Executive Secretary, 477 SCRA 436 (2005)
2. MWSS v. Quezon City, G. R. No. 194388, November 7, 2018: As a general rule, that is, that
local government units cannot levy any taxes, fees, or charges of any kind on the national
government or its agencies and instrumentalities. However, any real property owned by the
Republic or its political subdivisions is exempt from the payment of real property tax "except
when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable
person." [Note: This was the tenor of the ruling of the Court in GSIS v. City Treasurer of
Manila, G.R. No. 186242, December 23, 2009.] Being an instrumentality of the national
government, petitioner is not liable to respondent Local Government of Quezon City for real
property taxes, except if the beneficial use of its properties has been extended to a taxable
person.

28 | P a g e
3. MMDA v. D.M. Consunji, Inc. and R-II Builders, G.R. No. 222432, February 20,2019
4. New Sun Valley Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Sangguniang Barangay Sun Valley, G.R.
No. 156686, July 27, 2011
5. Knights of Rizal v. D.M. Consunji, Inc., G.R. No. 213948, April 18, 2017

E. CREATION AND ALTERATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS

3. League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) v. Commission on Elections, 571 SCRA
263 (2008), 608 SCRA 636 (2009), 628 SCRA 819 (2010), 643 SCRA 149 (2011),
648 SCRA 344 (2011) 652 SCRA 798 (2011)
4. Navarro v. Ermita, 612 SCRA 131 (2010), 648 SCRA 400 (2011)
5. Umali v. Commission on Elections, 723 SCRA 170 (2014)
6. Del Rosario v. Commission on Elections, – SCRA – (G.R. No. 247610, 10 March 2020)

G. SUPERVISION OVER AND DISCIPLINE OF LOCAL OFFICIALS

1. Office of the City Mayor of Angeles City v. Dr. Josefino E. Villaroman, G.R. No. 234830, June
10, 2019
2. Ombudsman Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals, Mayor Binay et al., G.R. Nos. 217126-27,
November 10, 2015
3. Monterde v. Jacinto, supra, HERNANDO, J.
4. People v. Randolph Ting, G.R. No. 221505, December 5, 2018

H. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES
1. Alfredo Germar v. Feliciano P. Legaspi, G.R. No. 232532, October 1, 2018
2. People v. Partisala, G.R. No. 245931-32, April 25, 2022, HERNANDO, J.
3. Municipality of Corella v. Philkonstrak Corp., G.R. No. 218863, February 28, 2022,
HERNANDO, J.

I. TERM LIMITS AND RECALL

1. Edgardo Aguilar v. Elvira Benlot, supra
2. Christian Halili v. COMELEC, supra
3. Abundo v. Commission on Elections, 688 SCRA 149 (2013)
4. Goh v. Bayron, 742 SCRA 303 (2014)

J. AUTONOMOUS REGIONS
1. Sema v. Commission on Elections, 558 SCRA 700 (2008)

VI.GOVERNMENTAL POWERS AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND

FREEDOMS
THE BILL OF RIGHTS [Weeks 11-14]
A. FUNDAMENTAL POWERS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS
1. Drugstores Association of the Philippines v. National Council of Disability Affairs,
803SCRA 25(2016): Due process clause and the equal protection clause when as

29 | P a g e
 yardsticks in the exercise of police power may restrict property rights.
2. CoTESCUP v. Secretary of Education, G.R. No. 216930, October 2018: The adoption of
the K to 12 program is an inherent exercise of police power.
3. Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) v. Abecina, 795 SCRA 214
(2016): The government may not be allowed to use one’s private property without just
compensation.
4. La Flor Dela Isabela, Inc. v, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 202105,
Aprile 18. 2021; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Unioil, Inc., G.R. No. 204405.
August 4, 2021; and BIR v. Cagang. G.R. No. 230104, March 16, 2022, HERNANDO,
J.: Factual basis of a tax assessment
5. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Miguel Corp., G.R. Nos. 180740 and 180910,
November 11, 2019, HERNANDO, J.: The taxpayer has the burden of proof in a claim
for tax exemption
6. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Bank of Communications, G.R. No.
311348, February 23, 2022, HERNANDO, J.: Legal requirements for tax credit
certificate
7. City Government of Manila v. Alejandro Roces-Prieto et al. G.R. No. 231366, July 8,
2019: The local government unit must embody in an ordinance all the requisites for the
valid exercise of eminent domain.
8. City of Cagayan de Oro v. CEPALCO, supra: An ordinance enjoys the presumption of
constitutionality. The purpose of the imposition must be construed as a regulatory
measure rather than a tax measure.

B. DUE PROCESS
9. University of Cordillera v. Lacanaria, G.R. 223665, September 27, 2021,
HERNANDO, J.: Two-notice rule in labor cases
10. Ante v. U.P. Student Disciplinary Board, G.R. No. 227911. March 14, 2022,
HERNANDO, J.: Due process in disciplinary proceedings in an academic institution
11. Naomi Cruz and Heirs of Cruz v. Treasurer of Makati, G.R. No. 210 894, September 10,
2018: Right to actual notice is required before a property is auctioned for tax delinquency
12. Aguirre v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 220224, August 28, 2019: The denial of
due process in administrative proceedings entitles the party to seek judicial relief.
13. Cudia v. Superintendent of the Philippine Military Academy, 751 SCRA 469 (2015): The
right to counsel in administrative proceedings is not mandatory.
14. Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989): A state can create an irrebuttable
presumption that a husband is the father of a child born into his family.
15. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997): The ban on assisted suicide was
rational in that it furthered such compelling state interests as the preservation of human
life and the protection of the mentally ill and disabled from medical malpractice and
coercion. To rule that physician-assisted suicide as a constitutionally protected right
would start down the path to voluntary and perhaps involuntary euthanasia.
16. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003): A Texas law criminalizing consensual, adult
homosexual intercourse violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
[You may want to read Bowers v. Hardwick 478 U.S. 186 (1986) which found that the

30 | P a g e
 Fourteenth Amendment does not prevent a state from criminalizing private sexual
conduct involving same sex couples.]
17. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (No. 14-556, 26 June 2015): The Fourteenth
Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex
and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was
lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.
18. White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, 576 SCRA 416 (2009): If due process were
confined solely to its procedural aspects, there would arise an absurd situation of arbitrary
government action, provided the proper formalities are followed. Substantive due process
completes the protection envisioned by the due process clause. It inquires whether the
government has sufficient justification for depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.
19. Government Service Insurance System v. Montesclaros, 434 SCRA 441 (2004): The
proviso denying any survivorship benefit fi marriage is contracted within the three-year
prohibited period is unduly oppressive. In outrightly denying a dependent spouse's claim,
there is outright confiscation of benefits due the surviving spouse without giving the
surviving spouse an opportunity to be heard.
20. Republic v. Albios, 707 SCRA 584 (2013): The right to marry is not imposed by statute.
For marriage to be valid consent must be given freely.
21. Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, 632 SCRA
146 (2010): When a particular litigant claims that a statute is unconstitutional as applied
to him or her; if the litigant prevails, the courts carve away the unconstitutional aspects of
the law by invalidating its improper applications on a case to case basis. Moreover,
challengers to a law are not permitted to raise the rights of third parties and can only
assert their own interests.
22. Palacios v. People, G.R. No. 240646, March 18, 2019: The right to preliminary
investigation is substantive, not merely formal or technical. To deny petitioner's motion
for reinvestigation on the basis of the provisions of A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC would be to
deprive him of the full measure of his right to due process on purely procedural grounds.

C. EQUAL PROTECTION
23. Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, 637 SCRA 78 (2010): The creation
of the Philippine Truth Commission violated the equal protection clause when it
singled out the administration of President Arroyo. It is marred with "adventure in
partisan hostility."
24. Garcia v. Hon. Drilon, 699 SCRA 352 (2013): VAWC law is constitutional. It meets
all the elements of the equal protection clause. The guaranty of equal protection of the
laws is not a guaranty of equality in the application of the laws upon all citizens of the
state. It is not, therefore, a requirement, in order to avoid the constitutional prohibition
against inequality, that every man, woman and child should be affected alike by a
statute. Equality of operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate operation on
persons merely as such, but on persons according to the circumstances surrounding
them. It guarantees equality, not identity of rights.
25. Republic v. Manalo, 860 SCRA 580 (G.R. No. 221029, 24 April 2018): If a legislative
classification impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or
operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class strict judicial scrutiny is
required since it is presumed unconstitutional, and the burden is upon the government to

31 | P a g e
 prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it
is the least restrictive means to protect such interest.
26. Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, 732 SCRA 22 (2014): There is no
constitutional doctrine that causes injustice in the face of empty procedural niceties.
Constitutional interpretation is complex, but it is never unreasonable.
27. U.S. v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (No. 12-307, 26 June 2013): The Court held that Section 3 of
the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages,
was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

28. Laud v. People, 741 SCRA 239 (2014): Human remains may be subject of a search
warrant.
29. People v. Castillo, G.R. 242520. November 15, 2021, HERNANDO, J.: Application of
the exclusionary rule
30. People v. Sapla, – SCRA – (G.R. No. 244045, 16 June 2020)
{http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/12724/}: The Bill of Rights is the bedrock of constitutional
government. If people are stripped naked of their rights as human beings, democracy
cannot survive and government becomes meaningless. Even if the search conducted can
be characterized as a search of a moving vehicle, the operation undertaken by the
authorities in the instant case cannot be deemed a valid warrantless search of a moving
vehicle.
31. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___ (No. 13–132, 25 June 2014): Reasonableness
balancing tends to value privacy most in cases where government interests are low but
privacy interests are high and universally shared. Cell phone searches implicate privacy
interests and enjoy constitutional protection.
32. Dela Cruz v. People, 730 SCRA 655 (2014): The RTC and the CA erred when they
held that the extraction of petitioner’s urine for purposes of drug testing was "merely a
mechanical act, hence, falling outside the concept of a custodial investigation."
33. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001): Where the Government uses a device that is
not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously
have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth
Amendment "search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.
34. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division), 872 SCRA 139 (G.R. No. 217682, 17 July
2018): The AMLC's ex parte application for the bank inquiry order based on Section 11
of R.A. No. 9160, as amended by R.A. No. 10167, did not violate substantive due
process because the physical seizure of the targeted corporeal property was not
contemplated by the law.
35. Pollo v. Constantino-David, 659 SCRA 198 (2011): The constitutional guarantee is not
a prohibition of all searches and seizures but only of "unreasonable" searches and
seizures. Petitioner failed to prove that he had an actual (subjective) expectation of
privacy either in his office or government-issued computer which contained his
personal files.
36. Lucas v. Lucas, 650 SCRA 667 (2011): While the tenor [of Section 4, Rule on DNA
Evidence] appears to be absolute, the rule could not really have been intended to
trample on the substantive rights of the parties. It could have not meant to be an
instrument to promote disorder, harassment, or extortion.

32 | P a g e
 37. Diaz v. People, G.R. NO. 213875, July 15, 2020, HERNANDO, J. : Requisites of a
valid search warrant
38. People v. Baluyot, G.R. No. 243390, October 5, 2020, and People v. Arellaga, G.R. No.
231796, HERNANDO, J: Three-witness requirement under the Comprehensive Drugs
Act
39. People v. Addin, G.R. No. 223682, October 19, 20220, HERNANDO, J: Chain of
custody

B. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

40. Spouses Hing v. Choachuy, 712 Phil. 337, 348 (2013)
Writ of Habeas Data(A.M.08-1-16-SC)
41. Gamboa v. Chan, 677 SCRA385 (2012)
42. Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, 737 SCRA 92 (2014)
43. Lee v. Ilagan, 738 SCRA 59 (2014)
Data Privacy Act of 2012 (R.A. No. 10173)
44. Cadajas v. People, G.R. No. 247348, 16 November 2021; uploaded 16 June 2022

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY AND ACADEMIC

FREEDOM
45. Chavez v. Gonzales, 545 SCRA 441 (2008)
46. Disini, Jr. v. Secretary of Justice, 716 SCRA 237 (2014)   723 SCRA 109
(2014)
47. GMA Network, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 734 SCRA 88 (2014)
48. Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, 747 SCRA 1 (2015)
49. Nicolas-Lewis v. Commission on Elections, – SCRA – (G.R. No. 223705, 14 August
2019)
50. Fortun v. Quinsayas, 690 SCRA 623 (2013)
51. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009)
52. Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U.S. ___ (No. 14-144, 18
June 2015)

FREEDOM OF RELIGION
53. Peralta v. Philippine Postal Corporation (Philpost), – SCRA – (G.R. No. 223395, 4
December 2018)
54. Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA 1 (2003), 492 SCRA 1 (2006)
55.Valmores v. Achacoso, 831 SCRA 442 (G.R. No. 217453, 19 July 2017)
56.Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, re: Holding of Religious Rituals at the Halls of Justice
Building in Quezon City, 819 SCRA 313 (A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, 7 March 2017)

LIBERTY OF ABODE AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

57. Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 (1989)
58. Genuino v. De Lima, 861 SCRA 325 (G.R. Nos. 197930, 199034, 199046, 16 April 2018)
Read: Precautionary Hold Departure Order (A.M. No. 18-07-05-SC [7 August 2018])

33 | P a g e
 RIGHT TO INFORMATION
59. Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. v. Military Shrine Services-Philippine
Veterans Affairs Office, Department of National Defense, 697 SCRA 359 (2013)
60. In Re: Production of Court Records and Documents and the Attendance of Court officials
and Employees as Witnesses Under the Subpoenas of February 10, 2012 and the Various
Letters for the Impeachment Prosecution Panel dated January 19 and 25, 2012, 14 February
2012
61. Antolin v. Domondon, G.R. No. 165036, July 5, 2010

RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION
62. Bank of the Philippine Islands v. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of
Unions in BPI Unibank, 627 SCRA 590 (2010)
63. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)

EMINENT DOMAIN
64. Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways v. Tecson, 700 SCRA
243 (2013), 756 SCRA 389 (2015)
65. Republic v. Castillo, G.R. No. 190453, February 26, 2020, HERNANDO, J.: What
constitutes taking
66. Philippine Veterans Bank v. BCDA, G.R. No. 217492, October 4, 2021, HERNANDO, J.:
Definition of just compensation
67. Republic v. Silvestre, G.R. No. 212786, July 30, 2018: Imposition of interest on just
compensation
64. Republic v. Spouses Esquito, GR No. 221995, October 3, 2018: Impact of Section 5 of
RA 8974 in determination of just compensation
65. Republic v. Spouses Bunsay, G.R. No. 205473, December 10, 2019: Expropriation being a
forced sale, the court may require the government to shoulder the capital gains tax.
66. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Lozada, Sr., 613 SCRA 618 (2010):
Remedy of reconvenyance
67. Republic v. Heirs of Saturnino Q. Borbon, 745 SCRA 40 (2015): Absence of public
purpose
68. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Escaro, G.R. No. 204526, February 10, 2021,
HERNANDO, J.: Jurisdiction of RTC as a special agrarian court to determine just
compensation under CARP
69. National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, 656 SCRA 60 (2011):
Nature of inverse condemnation

CONTRACT CLAUSE

34 | P a g e
 70. Zomer Development Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 194461, January 07,
2020

71. National Development Bank v. Philippine Veterans Bank, G;.R. Nos. 84132-33, Dec 10,
1990

FREE ACCESS TO COURTS

72. Ayala Land Inc. v. The (Alleged) Heirs of the Late Lucas Lactao, G.R. No. 208213,
August 8, 2018
73. Re: Query of Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi re Exemption from Legal and Filing Fees of the
Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., 596 SCRA 401 (2009)

RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS (Also read The Anti-Torture Act of 2009 [R.A. No. 9745])
74. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000)
75. Palacios v. People, G.R. No. 240676, March 18, 2019
76. People v. Rodel Belmonte, G.R. No. 224588, July 4, 2018
77. Melky Concha and Romeo Managuelod v. People, G.R. No. 208114, October 3, 2018
78. People v. Lauga, 615 SCRA 548 (2010)
79. Miguel v. People, supra

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

80. People v. Enojo, G.R. No. 252258, April 6, 2022, HERNANDO, J.: Proof beyond
reasonable doubt
81. CICL v. People, G.R. No. 230964, March 2, 2022. HERNANDO, J.: Proof beyond
reasonable doubt
82. People v. Lumikid, G.R. No. 248815, March 23, 2022, HERNANDO, J.: Conviction
based on presence of all elements of the crimes
83. Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr., 521 SCRA 470
(2007): No notice to the extraditee in the issuance of a warrant of arrest
84. Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), 767 SCRA 282 (2015) and 796 SCRA 431
(2016): Right to bail in exceptional circumstances
85. People v. Sergio, G.R. No. 240053, October 9, 2019, HERNANDO, J.: Right to confront
accusers/witnesses
86. Disini v. Republic, G.R. No. 205172, June 15, 2021, and Estores v. People, G.R. No.
192332, January 11, 2021, HERNANDO, J: Testimonies of the prosecution to prove
liability of the accused
87. Horca v. People, G.R. No. 224316, November 10, 2021, HERNANDO, J: Accused may
be acquitted but may be found civilly liable
88. Gerardo H. Villa v. Stanley Fernandez, G.R. No. 219548, October 17, 2018: Denial of
right to speedy disposition of criminal case
89. Escobar v. Sandiganbayan and People, G.R. No. 228349, September 18, 2018: Denial of
right to speedy disposition of cases

35 | P a g e
 90. Zaldivar-Perez v. First Division of Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 240053, October 9. 2019,
HERNANDO. J. – Grant of motion to dismiss a criminal case based on denial of the right
to speedy disposition of cases.
91. Jaylo v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), 746 SCRA 452 (2015): Conditions when trial in
absentia is allowed.

PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Read the Rules on Writ of Amparo [A.M. No. 07-9-12- SC]) and Writ of Habeas Data
[A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC])
See also Philippine Act On Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide and
Other Crimes Against Humanity [R.A. No. 9851])
Read R.A. No. 11479. July 3, 2020, Anti-Terrorism Law
92. Miguel v. Director of Prisons. UDK-15368, September 15, 2021, HERNANDO. J.
93. Morada v. Rias, G.R. No. 222226, February 14, 2022, HERNANDO, J.
94. Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, 568 SCRA 1 (2008)
95. De Lima v. Gatdula, 691 SCRA 226 (2013)
96. Navia v. Pardico, 673 SCRA 618 (2012)
97. Caram v. Segui, 732 SCRA 86 (2014)

SELF-INCRIMINATION
98. Disini v. Sandiganbayan, 621 SCRA 415 (2010)
99. United States v. Balsys, 524 U.S. 666 (1998)

CRUEL AND INHUMAN AND PUNISHMENTS

100. Corpuz v. People, 724 SCRA 1 (2014)
Read: Republic Act No. 10951 (2017)

DOUBLE JEOPARDY
101. Lejano v. People, G.R. No. 176864. December 14, 2010; and People v. Webb, G.R.
Nos. 176389 [December 14, 2010], 652 PHIL 512-756
102. Villa v. People, supra
103. Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, 635 SCRA 191 (2010)

EX POST FACTO LAWS AND BILLS OF ATTAINDER

104. People v. Pulido, G.R. 220149. July 27. 2021, HERNANDO, J.

105. Jose “Jinggoy” Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan. G.R. No. 217682, July 17, 201
106. Republic v. Cojuangco, Jr., 674 SCRA 492 (2012)

VII. CITIZENSHIP [Week 15]

36 | P a g e
 Read 1. R.A. Nos. 9139 and 9225
Cases:
1. Gaw v. Chua, G.R. 206404, February 14, 2022, HERNANDO, J.
2. Uy-Belleza v. Civil Registrar of Tacloban City, G.R. No. 218354, September 15,
2021, HERNANDO, J.
3. Poe-Llamanzares v. Commission on Elections, 786 SCRA 1 (2016)
4. David v. Agbay, 753 SCRA 526 (2015)
5. Tan v. Crisologo, 844 SCRA 365 (2017)

VIII. EDUCATION, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE

AND SPORTS [Week 15:]
1. University of the Philippines Board of Regents v. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 404
(1999)
2. Pimentel v. Legal Education Board, – SCRA – (G.R. No. 230642, 10 September
2019)
3. De La Salle University, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 541 SCRA 22 (2007)
4. Leus v. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove, 748 SCRA 378 (2015)

IX. NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY [Week 15]

1. Diamond Drilling Corporation of the Philippines v. Crescent Mining Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 201785, April 10, 2019
2. Republic v. PNP, G.R. No.198277, February 8. 2021, HERNANDO, J
3. Republic v, Caraig, G.R. No. 197389, October 12, 2020, HERNANDO, J.
4. Republic v. Tapay, G.R. No. 157719, March 2, 2022, HERNANDO, J
5. Republic v. Abellanosa, G.R. No. 295817, October 6, 2021, , HERNANDO, J
6. Gamboa v. Teves, 652 SCRA 690 (2011)   682 SCRA 397 (2012)
7. Roy III v. Herbosa, 810 SCRA 1 (2016)
8. Maynilad v. DENR, G.R. No. 202897, August 06, 2019, HERNANDO, J.
9. Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait v. Reyes, 756
SCRA 513 (2015)
10. Talabis v. People, G.R. No. 214647, March 4, 2020, HERNANDO, J
11. Associated Communications & Wireless Services – United Broadcasting Networks
v. National Telecommunications Commission, 397 SCRA 574 (2003)
12. Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD) v. Adala, 526 SCRA 465 (2007)

X. PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW [Week 16]

1. Pimentel, Jr. v. Office of the Executive Secretary, 462 SCRA 622 (2005)
3. Saguisag v. Ochoa, Jr., 779 SCRA 241 (2016)   798 SCRA 292
(2016)
4. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. ___ (No. No. 13–628, 8 June 2015)
5. Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 343 SCRA 377 (2000)
6. Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace
Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP), 568 SCRA 402 (2008)

37 | P a g e
 7. Tañada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (1997)
8. Liang v. People, 323 SCRA 692 (2000) 
Justice Puno’s Concurring Opinion}
9. Minucher v. Court of Appeals, 397 SCRA 244 (2003)
10. Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr., 521 SCRA
470 (2007)
11. Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Muñoz, 800 SCRA 467
(2016)
12. Hamdi v. Rumsfield, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)
13. Medellin v. Texas, 552 US 491 (2008)
RUBRIC FOR GRADING WRITTEN EXERCISES, ANSWERS IN MIDTERM AND
FINAL EXAMINATIONS: 
ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS
Level 1: Answer correctly addresses the
question, giving all the key components
required.
Level 2:  Answer adequately answers the
question, but there are some omissions or
errors in providing the key components of
the answer.
Level 3: Answer sufficiently addresses the
question but has substantial errors and/or
omissions in some of the key components.
Level 4: Answer is incomplete and fails to
address the question. Several key
components are missing.
Level 5: Answer is left in blank or altogether
fails to address the question.
Class Standing
Midterms
Finals
Case Assignments
Case Presentation
Buddy System
Pre-class session
Post-class session
38 | P a g e
 355 SCRA, 125 (2001) {See
FORMULATION OF ANSWER
Level 1: Answer is well-structured, formulated in a clear
language, and is to the point without irrelevant
digressions.
Level 2:  Overall, the answer accurately addresses the
question. Some flaws in the formulation of the answer
and/or unnecessary and irrelevant digressions.
Level 3:  Answer is formulated in an imprecise or
incoherent way and/or there are several unnecessary and
irrelevant digressions.
Level 4: Answer is formulated in a very incoherent way
and is difficult to understand, and/or there are many
unnecessary and irrelevant digressions.
Level 5: Answer is formulated in an unintelligible way.
25%
35%
40%
Pre-assigned until the end of the term
Oral recitation for 3 minutes per case/Slides may be
used but will be limited to 5 slides only
To completely cover all cases, a buddy system will be
instituted so that in the absence of one student, the
buddy will recite.
Questions will be entertained at the start of the class
to clarify coverage of the next day session.
Questions will be entertained to clarify scope of the
lesson for the day.