Arellano University School of Law

Taft Avenue, Pasay City

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
JUANITO G. ARCILLA

COURSE OUTLINE (2022)

I. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. Scope of Study of Constitutional Law

2. Basis and Sources of Study of Constitutional Law

3. History of Philippine Constitutional Law

 Pre-1935 Constitution; Organic Laws Passed by US Congress
o Schurman Commission; Taft Commission; Spooner Amendment;
o Philippine Organic Law or the Philippine Bill of 1902
o Jones Law of 1916 or the Philippine Autonomy Act;
o Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934 or the Commonwealth and
Independence Act
 1935 Constitution
 Declaration of Martial Law
 1973 Constitution
 1986 Snap Presidential Election
o Philippine Bar Association. v. Comelec, 140 SCRA 455
 People Power Revolt
 Proclamation No. 1, Feb. 25, 1986
 Proclamation No. 3, Mar. 25, 1986
o Lawyers League v. Aquino, GR 73748, May 22, 1986
o In re: Bermudez, 145 SCRA 160
 Freedom Constitution
 1987 Constitution
o Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution
 De Leon v. Esguerra, 153 SCRA 602
 When did the 1987 Constitution take effect?

II. NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION

1. Definition of Constitution

1
 2. Supremacy of the Constitution

3. Essential Parts of a Good Written Constitution

4. Interpretation of the Constitution

 Rules on Interpretation

5. The 1987 Constitution

 Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution
 De Leon v. Esguerra, 153 SCRA 607
o WHETHER OR NOT the 1987 Constitution took effect on Feb. 2,
1987, the date that the plebiscite was held for its ratification or on
February 11, 1987, the date its ratification was proclaimed per
Proclamation No. 58 issued by Pres. Aquino

III. AMENDMENTS OR REVISION

1. Article XVII, Constitution

2. Amendment and Revision

 Definitions: Amendment and Revision
 Distinction between Amendment and Revision
o Lambino v. Comelec, 505 SCRA 160, 25 October 2006  
 Qualitative Test v. Quantitative Test

3. Procedure
 Proposal (Sections 1 and 2, Art. XVII)
o Who may Propose Amendment or Revision
 Congress
 Imbong v. Comelec, 35 SCRA 28 [1970]
o Congress acting as a constituent body vs
acting as a legislative body)
 Voting requirement
 Constitutional Convention (Section 3, Art. XVII)
 Position of the Constitutional Convention
 How called?
 People through Initiative (Section 2, Article XVII)
 R. A. No. 6735
o 3 Systems of Initiative
o Initiative v. Referendum
 Lambino v. Comelec, 505 SCRA 160, 25 October
2006  
o The 2 essential elements for conducting a
people’s initiative on the Constitution
o Reasons by SC in denying the Initiative
Petition in Lambino case

2
 o Can people’s initiative propose a revision of
the Constitution?
 Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec, GR 127325, Mar. 19,
1997
 Ratification (Section 4, Article XVII)
o Plebiscite; Schedule
o Gonzales v. Comelec, 31 SCRA 774 (1967)
o Tolentino v. Comelec, 41 SCRA 702 (1971)

4. Judicial Review of Amendments

 Sanidad v. Comelec, 73 SCRA 333

IV. CONCEPT OF STATE

1. State: Definition

2. Elements
o Montevideo Convention
 Qualifications of a State as person of international law
o The Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic
of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, GR No.
183591, October 14, 2008, 568 SCRA 402
 What is the international legal concept of association used to
describe the relationship between the Central Government
and the BJE?
 Are there provisions in the MOA-AD said to be consistent
with the concept of association?
 Is the concept of association recognized under the present
Constitution?
 Under the Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral
Domain the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity would have
possessed the elements of a state; Reasons.
 People
 Territory
o Components of a Territory
o National Territory of the Philippines (Article I)
o Archipelago Doctrine
o United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III)
 Territorial Sea
 Contiguous Zone
 Exclusive Economic Zone
o Republic Act No. 9522
 Magallona v. Ermita, G. R. No. 187167, 16 August 2011,
655 SCRA 476
 Government
o Functions
 Constituent and Ministrant Functions: Definitions
 Bacani v. Nacoco, 100 PHIL. 471 (1955)

3
  PVTA v CIR, 65 SCRA 416
o Doctrine of Parens Patriae
 Philippine Islands vs. Monte de Piedad, 35 Phil. 728
 Cabañas vs. Pilapil, 58 SCRA 94
o De Jure and De Facto Governments
 Kinds of De Facto Government
 Go Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh, 75 PHIL. 122 [1945]
o Government of the Philippines
 Definition
 Government vs. Administration
 Sovereignty
o Kinds
o Effects of a Belligerent Occupation on Laws of Occupied Territory
 Ruffy vs Chief of Staff, 75 Phil. 975
 Laurel vs. Misa, 76 Phil. 372
o Effects of Change of Sovereignty
o Act of State

V. DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

1. Basis
 Article XVI, Section 3, Constitution
 Justification for the Doctrine
 
2. Immunity of Foreign States
 Constitutional basis (Article II, Sec. 2)
 Principle of par in parem non habet imperium
 Process of Suggestion
o The Holy See v. Judge Rosario, Jr. (238 SCRA 524 [Dec. 1, 1994])
 Determination of Immunity by the Department of Foreign Affairs
o Liang v. People (323 SCRA 692 [Jan. 28, 2000])

3. Immunity of State’s Diplomatic Agents

 Viena Convention on Diplomatic Relations (April 18, 1961)

4. Immunity of the United Nations (UN), its Specialized Agencies and other
International Organizations
 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies
of the UN
 Rationale for the grant of immunity
 SEAFDEC v. NLRC (241 SCRA 580 [Feb. 14, 1992])
 German Agency for Technical Cooperation v. CA, G.R. # 152318, 16 April
2009

5. Waiver of Immunity
 Forms of Consent
o Express Consent

4
  General Law
 Act No. 3083
 CA 327, as amnded by PD 1445
o DA v. NLRC, 277 SCRA 693
o Exception:
 Amigable v. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360
[1972]
 Article 2180, Civil Code of the Phil.
 Special Law
 Meritt v. Gov’t. of the Phil. Islands, 34 PHIL. 311
o Implied Consent
 When the State Enters into a Contract
 USA v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487
o Restrictive theory of state immunity
o Jure Imprerii v. Jure Gestionis
 USA v. Judge Guinto, G.R. No. 76607, Februry 26,
1990.
 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212
o Expropriation without payment of just
compensation; immunity not valid defense
 When the State Commences Litigation
 Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping, G.R. # L-6060, 30
Sept. 1950
 Lim v. Brownell, 107 SCRA 345

6. Suits against Public Officers

 Sanders v. Veridiano , 162 SCRA 88
 Republic v. Sandoval, 220 SCRA 124
 Festejo v. Fernando, 94 Phil. 504

7. Suits Against Government Agencies

 Incorporated Agency
o Consult charter
o Rayo v. CFI of Bulacan, 110 SCRA 460 [1981]
 Unincoporated Agency
o If Principal Function is Governmental
 Veterans Manpower & Protective Services, Inc. v CA, 214
SCRA 286
 Mobil Phils. Exploration vs Customs Arrastre Service, 18
SCRA 1120
 Bureau of Printing v. Bureau of Printing Employees Asso., 1
SCRA 340
o If Principal Function is Proprietary
 ATO v. Spouses Ramos, G.R. # 159402, 23 February 2011
 Municipal Corporations
o Charters of municipal corporations grant them the competence to
sue and be sued.
 Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Judge Firme, 195
SCRA 692

5
  Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez, 130
SCRA 56 [1984])
 The City of Bacolod vs. Mayor Leonardia, et al. G.R. No.
190289, January 17, 2018.

8. Liability
 When is the State liable?
o Meritt v. Gov’t. of the Phil. Islands, 34 PHIL. 311
 When can a public officer be held liable?
o Festejo v. Fernando, 94 Phil. 504
 When is a municipal corporation liable?
o Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Judge Firme, 195 SCRA
692 (1991)
o Palafox v. Province of Ilocos Norte, G. R. No. L-10659, January 31,
1958

9. Consent to be Sued does not Include Consent to Execution

 Republic v. Villasor, 54 SCRA 84
 Department of Agriculture v. NLRC, 277 SCRA 693 [1993]
 PNB v. Pabalan, 130 SCRA 206
 Municipality of Makati v. CA, 190 SCRA 206 [1990]
 UP v. Dizon, G.R. No. 171182, August 23, 2012, 679 SCRA 54.
 GSIS V. Group Management Corporation, G.R. No. 167000, June 8, 2011,
651 SCRA 279

VI. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

1. Preamble

2. Republicanism (Section 1)
 Essential Features of Republicanism
 Manifestations of a Republican State
o Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778

3. Incorporation Clause (Section 2)

 By Incorporation and By Transformation
o Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v.
Health Secretary (G. R. No. 173034, October 9, 2007)
o Kuroda vs. Jalandoni (83 Phil. 171 [1949])
 Conflict between municipal law and international law
o Ichong v. Hernandez (101 Phil. 115)
o Gonzales v. Hechanova (9 SCRA 230 [1963])
o In Re: Garcia (2 SCRA 984 [1961])

6
4. Supremacy of Civilian Authority (Section 3)
 Gudani v. Senga - G.R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006
 IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000

5. The Defense of the State (Section 4)

 People vs Lagman (66 PHIL. 13 [1938])
 People vs. Zosa (38 O.G. 1676)

6. Separation of Church and State (Section 6)

 Related Constitutional Provisions
o Article III, Section 5
o Article VI, Section 5(2)
o Article IX-C, Section 2(5)
o Article VI, Section 28(3)
o Article VI, Section 29(2)
o Article XIV, Section 3(3)
 Aglipay vs. Ruiz (64 Phil. 201)

7. Social Justice (Sections 10, 11, 18 and 21)

 Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726
 Maglakas v. National Housing Authority - G.R. No. 138823, September 17,
2008
 Oxales v. United Laboratories, Inc. - G.R. No. 152991, July 21, 2008

8. Rearing of Youth (Sections 12 and 13)

 Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation v. Montano ( G.R. No.
182836,
October 13, 2009)
 Meyer vs. Nebrasca (262 U.S. 390 [1922])
 Pierce vs. Society of Sisters (262 U.S. 510 [1925])

9. Women (Section 14)

 Ang vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010)
 Republic Act No. 9262 (Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004)
 Article XIII, Section 14 

10. Economy (Sections 19, 20, 21)

 Espina v. Zamora (G.R. No. 143855, September 21, 2010, 631 SCRA 17)

11. Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology (Section 16)

 Oposa, Jr. v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792, July 30, 1993

12. Local Autonomy (Section 25)

7
  Decentralization of Administration vs. Decentralization of Power
 Basco v. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 52

13. Full Public Disclosure (Section 28)

 Bantay Republic Act v. COMELEC G.R. No. 177314 May 4, 2007

VII. SEPARATION OF POWERS

1. Constitutional Basis

2. Purposes

3. Blending of Powers
 Meaning
 Examples:
o Article VII, Section 22
o Article VI, Section 29(1)
o Article VII, Section 19
o Article IX-C, Section 2(4)

4. Checks and Balances

 Meaning
 Examples:
o Article VI, Section 27
o Article VII, Section 19
o Article VII, Section 21
o Article VIII, Section1
o Article VIII, Section 2
o Article VIII, Section 4

5. The Role of the Judiciary

 Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil 139 [July 15, 1936]

6. Justiciable and Political Questions

 Meaning of justiciable question
o Casibang v. Aquino 92 SCRA 642 (1979)
 Meaning of political question
o Tañada vs. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (February 28, 1957)
o Sanidad vs. Comelec, 73 SCRA 333 (1976)
o Sps. De La Paz vs. Senate Committee, G.R. No. 184849, 13 Feb.
2009

7. Application of the Doctrine

 Belgica vs Ochoa, G. R. No. 208566, 11 November 2013
o What post-enactment measures allowed legislators to intervene
and/or assume duties that properly belong to the sphere of budget
execution in violation of separation of powers?
 Agcaoili v. Fariñas, G.R. No. 232395, July 3, 2018.

8
 o Exemption of Justices from any compulsory processes which very
well include the Congress' power of inquiry in aid of legislation

8. Political Questions Under the New Constitution

 Article VIII, Section 1, Expanded Meaning of Judicial Power
 Daza vs. Singson, 180 SCRA 496

VIII. DELEGATION OF POWERS

1. Basis of the Principle

2. Application
 Belgica vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, Nov. 11, 2013
o Whether or not the post-enactment identification authority granted
to individual legislators violate the principle of non-delegability.
3. Permissible Delegation
 Delegation of Tariff Powers
o Article VI, Section 28(2)
 Delegation of Emergency Powers
o Article VI, Section 23(2)
 Conditions for the delegation of Emergency Powers
 David vs. Arroyo, G. R. No. 171396, 3 May 2006
 Presidential Proclamation 1017
 Is it within the power of President GMA to promulgate
decrees?
 State of Rebellion v. State of Emergency
o Article XII, Section 12
 David vs. Arroyo, G. R. No. 171396, 3 May 2006
 May the President, without any authority or
delegation from Congress, take over or direct the
operation of any privately-owned public utility or
business affected with public interest?
 Delegation to Local Governments
o Police Power (Section 16, Local Gov’t Code of 1991)
o Power of Eminent Domain (Section 19, Local Gov’t Code of 1991)
o But, Power of Taxation – direct grant from the Constitution (Section
5, Article X)
 Delegation to Administrative Bodies
o Supplementary Regulations
o Contingent Regulations
 Cruz vs. Youngberg, 56 Phil. 234
 Delegation to the People
o Article VI, Section 1
o Article VI, Section 32
o Initiative vs. Referendum

4. Tests of Valid Delegation

9
  Completeness Test
 Sufficient Standard Test
o Cases:
 Ynot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659 [1987]
 Department of Transportation v. Philippine Petroleum Sea
Transport Association, G.R. No. 230107, July 24, 2018)

IX. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT (ARTICLE VI)

1. The Senate
 Composition (Section 2)
 Qualifications (Section 3)
o Pimentel v. Comelec, G.R. # 157870, 3 November 2008
 Is the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office
an unconstitutional imposition of additional qualification on
candidates for Senator?
 Term (Section 4)
 Is the Senate a Continuing Body?
o Ranada et al. v. the Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179275,
December 23, 2008.
o League of Cities of the Phils. v. Comelec, G. R. # 176951, 18
November 2008
o Arnault v. Nazareno, 87 PHIL. 29

2. The House of Representatives

 Composition (Section 5 (1))
o District Representatives (Section 5(1)
 Rules on Legislative Districting (Section 5 (3))
 Mariano, Jr. v. Comelec (242 SCRA 211 [1995])
o Whether or not the reapportionment of
legislative districts may be made by a special
law, RA 7854, other than by a general
reapportionment of the law.
o Whether or not the addition of another
legislative district in Makati is unconstitutional
because Makati’s population, as per 1990
census, stands at only 450,000.
 Aquino III v. Comelec, G.R. # 189793, 7 April 2010
o Must each legislative district created by
Congress be supported by a minimum
population of at least 250,000 in order to be
valid?
 Sema v. Comelec, G.R. No. 177597, July 16, 2008.
o Whether Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054,
delegating to the ARMM Regional Assembly
the power to create provinces, cities,
municipalities and barangays, is
constitutional;

10
 o If in the affirmative, whether a province
created by the ARMM Regional Assembly is
entitled to one representative in the House of
Representative without a need of a national
law creating a legislative district for such
province.
 Re-Apportionment of Legislative Districts (Section 5 (4))
 Tobias v. Abalos, G.R. No. L-114783, Dec. 8, 1994.
o Whether the division of Mandaluyong and
San Juan was made pursuant to a census
showing that each attained the minimum
requirement of 250,000 inhabitants to justify
their separation into 2 legislative districts.
o Whether the assailed RA 7675 violates the
present limit on the number of
representatives as set forth in Article VI,
Section 5 (1).
o Party-List Representatives (Section 5 (2)
 Republic Act No. 7941
 Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Comelec, G.R. #
147598, 26 June 2001
 Formula in the computation of the number of seats
available to party-list representatives
 Atong Paglaum v. Comelec, G.R. # 203766, 02 April 2013
 6 Parameters in determining who are qualified to
participate in Party-List election
 May a political party participate in the party-list
system of elections?
 Qualifications (Section 6)
o Meaning of Residence
 Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec, G.R. No. 119976,
September 18, 1995. (248 SCRA 300)
 Whether or not petitioner was a resident, for election
purposes, of the First District of Leyte for a period of
one year at the time of May 9, 1995 elections.
 Concepts of “domicile”and “residence”; elements of
domicile
 Domicile of origin v. domicile of choice
 Pundaodaya v. Comelec, G.R. # 179313, 17 September
2009
o R. A. No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of
2003)
 Maquiling v. Comelec, G.R. # 195649, 16 April 2013
 Sobejana-Condon v. Comelec, G.R. # 198742, 10 August
2012
 Term (Section 7)
o Abundo v. Comelec, G. R. # 201716, 08 January 2013
 2 conditions for the application of the three-term limit rule
 Whether or not Abundo is deemed to have served three
consecutive terms

11
  Situations and cases/jurisprudence wherein the consecutive
terms were considered or not considered as having been
involuntarily interrupted or broken.

3. Election / Vacancies (Sections 8 and 9)

4. Salary (Section 10)

o Philconsa v. Mathay, G.R. # L-25554, 04 October 1966
29 Amores v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. #
189600, June 2010

5. Parliamentary Immunities (Section 11)

 Privilege from Arrest
o Purpose
o People v. Jalosjos, G.R. # 132875-76, 03 February 2000
 Privilege of Speech and Debate
o Purpose
o Trillanes v. Castillo-Marigomen, G.R. No. 223451, March 14, 2018
 Coverage of the privilege of speech and debate
 Are statements in media interviews covered by the
parliamentary speech or debate privilege?
o Jimenez v. Cabangbang, 17 SCRA 876 [1966]
o Osmeña v. Pendatun, 109 PHIL. 863, 28 October 1960

6. Conflict of Interest (Section 12)

7. Incompatible and Forbidden Offices (Section 13)

 Incompatible Offices
o Meaning
o Purpose
o Exceptions
o Liban v. Gordon, G.R. # 175352, 15 July 2009
 Forbidden Office
o Meaning
o Purpose

8. Inhibitions and Disqualifications (Section 14)

 Puyat v. De Guzman, 113 SCRA 31 [1982]

9. Sessions (Section 15)

 Kinds of Session
 Special Sessions under the Constitution
o Article VII, Section 4 (4)
o Article VII, Section 10
o Article VII, Section 11
o Article VII, Section 18

10. Officers of the Congress (Section 16 [1])

12
  Santiago v. Guingona, Jr., 298 SCRA 765, 18 November 1998
 Baguilat, Jr. et al. v. Speaker Alvarez et al., G.R. No. 227757, 25 July 2017

11. Quorum (Section 16 (2))

 Avelino v. Cuenco, 83 PHIL. 17 [1949]

12. Rules; Discipline of Members (Section 16 [3])

 Rules of Proceedings
o Spouses De La Paz, et al. v. Senate Committee, G.R. # 184849, 13
February 2009
 Power to Suspend or Expel a Member
o Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. # 128055, 18 April 2001
 Has the Sandiganbayan the authority to decree a 90-day
preventive suspension of Senator Miriam Santiago from any
gov’t. position?

13. Journals and Records (Section 16 [4])

 Journals and Records: Definitions
 Matters mandated by the Constitution to be entered in the Journals
o Article VI, Section 16(4);
o Article VI, Section 26(2);
o Article VI, Section 27(1);
o Article XI, Sec. 3 (3).
 Journal v. Enrolled Bill
o Casco Phil. Chemical Company v. Gimenez, 7 SCRA 347
o Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630

14. Adjournment (Section 16 [5])

15. The Electoral Tribunals (Section 17)

 Composition
o Bondoc v. Pineda, G.R. No. 97710, September 26, 1991 ( 201
SCRA 792).
 Do members of the Electoral Tribunal enjoy security of
tenure?
 Valid grounds for removal of a member of the Electoral
Tribunal
 Jurisdiction
o Reyes v. Comelec, G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013
 When is a candidate considered a member of the House of
Representatives?
 Rule 15, 2015 Revised Rules of the HRET
 Jurisdiction of the Comelec vis-à-vis that of the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) over contests
involving members of the House of Representatives;
o Abayon v. HRET, G. R. # 189466, 11 February 2011
 Does the HRET have jurisdiction to hear and pass upon the
qualifications of party-list nominees?
o Limkaichong v. Comelec, G. R. # 178831-32, 01 April 2009

13
  Does the 10-day prescriptive period under the 1998 HRET
Rules (15 days from June 30 of the election year or the date
of actual assumption into office, whichever is later, under the
2015 Revised Rules of the HRET) apply to disqualification
cases based on citizenship?

16. The Commission on Appointments (Section 18)

 Composition
o Drilon v. De Venecia, G.R. # 180050, 31 July 2009
o Daza v. Singson, 180 SCRA 496
 May the Electoral Tribunal be reorganized?
 Expanded meaning of judicial power.
 Power
 Organization (Section 19)

X. POWERS OF THE CONGRESS (ARTICLE VI)

1. Legislative Power in General (Section 1)

 Nature of the Power
 Who may Exercise Legislative Power?
 Limitations on Legislative Power
o Substantive Limitations
o Procedural Limitations
 Article VI, Section 24
 Article Vi, Section 26
 Article VI, Section 27
 Prohibited Measures
o Article VI, Section 30
 Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. # 129742, 16 September 1998
 Diaz v. Court of Appeals ( 238 SCRA 785 [1994])
o Article VI, Section 31
 Purpose
 Procedure in the Passage of Bills
o Origin of Bills (Section 24)
 Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G. R. No. 115455, August
25, 1994.
 Origin of bills: Does the filing of a substitute bill
before the Senate (revenue, tariff, or tax bills, etc.)
violate Section 24, Art. VI of the Constitution?
o Title of Bills (Section 26 [1])
 Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, 227 SCRA 630
 Title of a bill – requirements
 Title of a bill – when sufficient?
 Lidasan v. Comelec, 21 SCRA 496
 Tobias v. Abalos, G.R. # 114783, 8 December 1994
o Formalities (Section 26 [2])
 Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, August
25, 1994.

14
  Whether S. No. 1630 violated Article VI, Sec. 26(2)
because it did not pass 3 readings on separate days
because the second and third readings were done on
the same day, March 24, 1994.
 Effects of a Presidential Certification of a Bill
 Journal v. Enrolled Bill
o Conference Committee
 Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, 227 SCRA 630
 What is the bi-cameral conference committee?
 Function of the bi-cam conference committee.
o Approval of Bills (Section 27)
 3 Methods by which a Bill may become a Law
 Veto Power (Section 27)
 Distinction between General Veto Power and Item
Veto Power
 Bengzon v. Drilon, 235 SCRA 506
 Gonzales v. Macaraeg 191 SCRA 452 [1990]
o Power of Congressional Oversight
 3 Categories of Oversight Powers of Congress
 Legislative Veto
 Abakada Guro Party-List v. Purisima, G.R. # 166715,
14 August 2008
o Is a legislative veto constitutional?

2. The Power of Legislative Inquiry (Section 21)

 Limitations
o In aid of Legislation
 Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA 767
 Sabio v. Gordon, G.R. # 174340, 17 October 2006
 Whether the power of legislative inquiry violate the
right to privacy.
o In Accordance with Duly Published Rules of Procedure
 Ranada et al. v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. # 179275,
23 December 2008
o Rights of Witnesses Must be Respected
 Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate Committee on Banks,
G.R. # 167173, 27 December 2007
 Whether legislative inquiry would encroach upon
judicial powers vested only in courts?
 Does the power of legislative inquiry violate the right
to privacy?
 Gudani v. Senga, G.R. # 170165, 15 August 2006
 May the President prevent a member of the armed
forces from testifying before a legislative inquiry?
 Lopez v. De Los Reyes, 55 PHIL. 170 (1930)
 Period of imprisonment for contempt during inquiries
in aid of legislation conducted by the House of
Representatives

15
  Balag v. Senate of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 234608,
03 July 2018
 Period of imprisonment for contempt during inquiries
in aid of legislation conducted by the Senate
 Two instances when legislative inquiry of the Senate
is considered terminated.

3. Appearance of Department Heads (Section 22)

 Purpose
 Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, 20 April 2006
o Appearance of Department heads under Section 22, Art. VI; What
are the conditions?
o Distinctions between the power to conduct legislative inquiry under
section 21, Art. VI and the power to conduct a question hour under
Section 22, Art. VI;
o Meaning of executive privilege; What does it include/cover?
o Who may invoke executive privilege?

4. The War Powers (Section 23 [1])

5. The Emergency Powers (Section 23 [2])

 Article VI, Section 23(2) compared to Article XII, Section 17
 David vs. Arroyo, G. R. No. 171396, 3 May 2006
o Distinction between the President’s authority to declare a “state of
rebellion” and the authority to proclaim a “state of national
emergency.”
o Is it within the domain of the President to promulgate “decrees?”
o Can the President enforce obedience to all decrees and laws
through the military?
o Limitations on emergency powers of the President under Section
23, Art. VI and Section 17, Art. XII.

6. The Power of Appropriation (Section 29 [1])

 Appropriation Defined
 Implied Limitations
 Constitutional Limitations
o On general appropriations
 Section 25 [1]
 Section 25 [2]
 Garcia v. Mata, G.R. No. L-33713, July 30, 1975
o Constitutional prohibition against non-
appropriation item inserted in an
appropriation measure (Section 25 (2), Article
VI).
 Section 25 [3]
o On special appropriation
 Section 25 [4]
o Discretionary Funds (Section 25 [6])
 Transfer of Appropriations (Section 25 [5])

16
 o Limitations
o Philconsa v. Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506 [1994]
o Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. # 208566, 11 November 2013
 Whether the 2013 PDAF special provisions that allowed
legislators, after passage of the GAA, to identify projects and
that accorded them post-enactment authority in the areas of
fund release and fund realignment violation of doctrine of
separation of powers.
 Whether the 2013 PDAF Article insofar as it confers post-
enactment identification authority to individual legislators
violates the principle of non-delegability.
 Whether the legislator’s identification of the projects after
passage of the GAA violates the veto power of the
President.
o Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. # 209287, 01 July 2014
 Constitutionality of Disbursement Acceleration Program
(DAP);
 The 4 acts and practices under the DAP that violated the
provisions of Section 29 (1), Art. VI and Section 25 (5), Art.
VI of the Constitution
 Savings defined
 Requirements in transfer of savings;
 Automatic Re-Appropriation (Section 25 [7])
 Appropriations For Sectarian Purposes (Section 29 [2])
o Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 PHIL. 201
o Garces v. Estenzo, 105 SCRA 510
 Special Funds (Section 29 [3])

7. The Power of Taxation (Section 28 [1])

 Meaning: Uniform Taxation; Equitable Taxation; and Progressive System of
Taxation
o Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pil. v. Tan (163
SCRA 371 [1988])
 Delegation of Tariff Powers to the President (Section 28 [2])
 Tax Exemptions
o Section 28 [3]
 Lladoc v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 14 SCRA 292
 Meaning of “exempt from taxation.”
 Lung Center of the Philippines v. Quezon City, G.R. #
144104, 29 June 2004
 Whether the real properties, the hospital building and
those leased to private entities, of the Lung Center, a
charitable institution, are exempt from real property
taxes.
o Section 28 [4]
 City Gov’t of Quezon City v. Bayan Telecommunications,
Inc., G.R. # 162015, 6 March 2006

8. The Power of Concurrence

 Article VII, Section 19

17
  Article VII, Section 21
o Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 158088, July 6, 2005

9. Referendum and Initiative (Section 32)

 Article VI, Section 1
 RA 6735
o Meaning of Initiative and Referendum
o Kinds of Initiative
o Kinds of Referendum

XI. THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT (ARTICLE VII)

1. The President
 Qualifications (Section 2)
 Election (Section 4, 1st and 3rd paragraphs)
 Canvass of Votes and Proclamation (Section 4, 4th to 6th paragraphs)
 Supreme Court as Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) (Section 4, 7 th
paragraph)
o Jurisdiction
o Macalintal v. PET, G.R. # 191618, 23 November 2010
 Constitutionality of the constitution of the PET
 Nature of the power of PET
o Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos, P.E.T. Case No. 001, 13 February
1996, 253 SCRA 559
o Legarda v. De Castro, Presidential Electoral Tribunal Case No. 003,
18 January 2008, 542 SCRA 125
 Term (Section 4, 1st and 2nd paragraphs)

2. The Vice-President
 Qualifications (Section 3)
 Election, Term (Section 4, 1st and 2nd paragraphs)

3. Oath of Office (Section 5)

4. Perquisites (Section 6)

5. Presidential Succession
 Rules on Presidential Succession
o When may the Vice-President act as President (Sections 7)
o When may the Vice-President become the President (Section 8)
o President’s temporary inability (Section 11)
 Estrada v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. # 146738, 2 March 2001

6. Vice Presidential Succession (Section 9)

7. Vacancy in the Offices of the President and the Vice-President (Section 10)
 Procedure in Filling Vacancy in the offices of the President and the VP

18
 8. Inhibitions (Section 13)
 What are the inhibitions?
 Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, G.R. # 83896, 22 February
1991
o Article VII, Section 13 versus Article IX-B, Section 7
 Funa v. Ermita, G.R. # 184740, 11 February 2010
 Betoy v. Board of Directors, National Power Corp., G.R. # 156556-57, 4
October 2011

9. Presidential Immunity
 Rubrico v. Arroyo, G.R. # 183871, 18 February 2010
 Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. # 82585, 14 November 1998

10. Executive Privilege

 Definition of Executive Privilege
 Kinds of Executive Privilege
o Informer’s Privilege
o Presidential Communications Privilege
o Deliberative Process Privilege
o Diplomatic Negotiations Privilege
 Who may invoke
 Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, G.R. #
180643, 25 March 2008
 AKBAYAN v. Aquino, G.R. # 170516, 16 July 2008

XII. POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT

1. Executive Power in General (Section 1)

 Does the President exercise the totality of executive power?
o Villena v. Executive Secretary, 67 PHIL 451
o Planas v. Gil, 67 PHIL 62
o Lacson v. Roque, 92 PHIL 456
o Mondaño v. Silvosa, 97 PHIL 143
 Residual powers of the President
o Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 (1989)
o
o EO 292, Section 20
 May the President delegate executive powers?
o Judge Angeles v. Hon. Gaite, et al., G.R. # 165276, 25 November
2009
o Doctrine of qualified political agency; exhaustion of administrative
remedies.

2. The Appointing Power (Section 16)

 Limitations on the Appointing Power
o Article VII, Section 13, paragraph 2
o Article VII, Section 14

19
 o Article VII, Section 15
 De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. # 191002, 17
March 2010
 Kinds of Appointment
o Permanent v. Temporary Appointment
 General v. Urro, G.R. # 191560, 29 March 2011
o Appointment v. Designation
o Acting Appointment
 Pimentel v. Ermita, G.R. # 164978, 13 October 2005
 the constitutionality of appointment of certain Cabinet
members as acting secretaries without the consent of
the Commission on Appointments while Congress is
in session.
 Officials subject to the appointing power of the President
o Appointments subject to Confirmation
o Appointments not subject to Confirmation
o Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549
 Regular v. Ad Interim Appointments
o Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549
o Matibag v. Benipayo, et al., G.R. # 149036, 02 April 2002
 Application of the phrase “without reappointment” to
appointment of Commissioners of the Constitutional
Commissions.
 Steps in the appointing process
o In Regular Appointment
o In Ad Interim Appointment

3. The Removal Power

 Constitutional Basis?
 Officials subject to the removal power of the President
o Gonzales III v. Office of the President et al., G.R. No. 196231, 28
January 2014
 Are the Ombudsman and his Deputies subject to the
removal power of the President?
 Limitations on the power of removal
o Article IX-B, Section 2(3)
o Alajar v. Alba, 100 Phil. 683
o Sangguniang Barangay of Don Mariano Marcos v. Martinez, G,R.
No. 170626, 3 March 2008

4. The Control Power (Section 17)

 Control and Supervision – Meaning
 Scope of the power of control; Distinction between the power of control and
supervision
o Drilon v. Lim, 235 SCRA 135
o Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. BOI, G.R. # 175787,
04 February 2009
o Lacson-Magallanes v. Paño, 21 SCRA 895
o Angangco v. Castillo, 9 SCRA 619 [1963]

20
  Can the President use his power of control to discipline his
subordinates?
 Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency
o Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
o Judge Angeles v. Hon. Gaite, et al., G.R. # 165276, 25 November
2009
o Manubay v. Garilao, G.R. # 140717, 16 April 2009
o Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Phils. V.
Manalang-Demigillo, G.R. # 185571, 05 March 2013
 The “Take Care” Clause
o Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. #
192935, 07 December 2010

5. The Military Powers (Section 18)

 To Command the Armed Forces
o To call out the armed forces
 Grounds
 IBP v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81
 Is the determination by the President of the factual
basis of the exercise of the calling out power subject
to judicial review?
 David v. Arroyo, G.R. # 171396, 03 May 2006
 Kulayan v. Tan, G.R. # 187298, 03 July 2012
o Power to declare a state of rebellion
o Power to declare a state of emergency
 David v. Arroyo, G.R. # 171396, 03 May 2006
 To Suspend the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
o Meaning of Writ of Habeas Corpus
o Meaning of Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas
Corpus
o Grounds for Suspension
o Article III, Section 15
 To Declare Martial Law
o Grounds
o Limitations
o Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. Nos. 231658, 231771 and 231774
 Locus standi of the petitioners
 Whether or not the petitions are the "appropriate
proceeding" mentioned in paragraph 3, Section 18, Article
VII of the Constitution refers to a petition for certiorari filed
under Section 1 or 5 of Article VIII.
 The power of the Court to review the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law under Section
18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution is independent of the
actions taken by Congress.
 The scope of the power of the SC to review the sufficiency of
the factual basis of the declaration of martial law; The
"sufficiency of factual basis test".
 The parameters for determining the sufficiency of the factual
basis

21
  Was there is sufficient factual basis for the declaration of
martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus?

6. The Pardoning Power (Section 19)

 Definitions
o Pardon; Commutation; Reprieve
 Constitutional Limitations
o People v. Salle, Jr., 250 SCRA 581
 Meaning of the “conviction by final judgment” limitation
under Section 19, Art.
o Llamas v. Orbos, 202 SCRA 844
 Can pardon be granted by the President to a person
convicted in an administrative case?
 Kinds of Pardon
o Absolute or Conditional pardon
 Remedies against violation of conditions of Pardon
 Espuelas v. Provincial Warden of Bohol, 108 Phil.
353
o Plenary or Partial pardon
 Effects of Pardon
o Vidal v. Estrada, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015
o Monsanto v. Factoran, 170 SCRA 190 (1989)
o Garcia v. Chairman, COA, G.R. No. 75025, 14 September 1993
 Amnesty
o Distinctions between Amnesty and Pardon

7. The Borrowing Power (Section 20)

8. The Diplomatic Power (Section 21)

 Distinction between International and Executive Agreement
o Bayan Muna v. Romulo, G.R. No. 159618, 01 February 2011
 Power to Ratify Treaties
o Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 158088, 16 July 2008
 To whom does the power to ratify a treaty belongs?

9. The Budgetary Power (Section 22)

 Relate with Article VI, Section 25(1)

10. The Informing Power (Section 23)

11. Other Powers

 Article VI, Section 15
 Article VI, Section 27
 Article IX(C), Section 2(4)
 Article IX(C), Section 2(8)
 Article VI, Section 23(2)
 Article VI, Section 28(2)

22
XIII. THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT (ARTICLE VIII)

1. Independence of the Judiciary; Safeguards in the Constitution

2. Judicial Power (Section 1)

 Traditional Meaning
 Expanded Meaning
o IBP v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81

3. Jurisdiction (Section 2)
 Jurisdiction v. Judicial Power
 Limitations on Congress’ Power to Prescribe Jurisdiction of the SC
o Article VIII, Section 5, pars. 1 and 2
o Article VI, Section 30

4. Appointments
 Qualifications (Section 7)
o Justices of the Supreme Court
 Kilosbayan v. Ermita and Ong, G.R. No. 177721, 03 July
2007
 Topacio v. Ong, G.R. No. 179895, 18 December 2008
o Justices of Lower Collegiate Courts
o Judges of Lower Courts
 The Judicial and Bar Council (Section 8)
o Composition
 Ex Officio and Regular Members
 Chavez v. JBC, G.R. No. 202242, 17 July 2012
o Appointment/Term
o Function
 De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council - G. R. No. 191002,
March 17, 2010
 Filling up of vacancy in the SC
 Interpretation of the prohibition under Article VII,
Section 15 of the Constitution against presidential
appointments immediately before the next
presidential elections and up to the end of the term of
the President.
 De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council - G. R. No. 191002,
April 20, 2010
 Appointment from List of Nominees (Section 9)
o Aguinaldo et al. v. Aquino et al., G.R. No. 224302, November 29,
2016
 whether President Aquino, under the circumstances, was
limited to appoint only from the nominees in the shortlist
submitted by the JBC for each specific vacancy.
 Constitutionality of the clustering of nominees by the JBC

5. Fiscal Autonomy (Section 3)

 Bengzon v. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133

23
  In Re: COA Opinion on the Computations of the Appraised Value of
Properties Purchased by Retired Justices of the SC, A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC,
31 July 2012.

6. Composition of the Supreme Court (Section 4(1))

 Filling up of Vacancy
o In re Appointment of Mateo A. Valenzuela and Placido B. Vallarte,
298 SCRA 408.
o De Castro v. JBC, G. R. No. 191002, 17 March 2010.
 En Banc and Division Cases (Section 4(2) and (3))
o Voting Requirements

7. Power of Judicial Inquiry

 Constitutional Basis of the Power
o Article VIII, Section 1
o Article VIII, Section 4(2)
 Requisites of a Judicial Inquiry
o Actual Case or Controversy
 Meaning of Controversy
 PACU v. Secretary of Education, G.R. No. L-5279, 31
October 1955 ( 97 Phil. 806)
 The Province of North Cotabato v. GRPPPAD, G.R. No.
183591, 14 October 2008
 David et al. v. Arroyo et al., G.R. No. 171396, 03 May 2008
 Whether the issuance of Presidential Proclamation
No. 1021 renders the petitions moot and academic.
 Exceptions to the Mootness Principle
o Proper Party
 Direct injury test; Meaning of proper party
 Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation, G.R.
No. 166006, 14 March 2008
 Locus standi
 Senate v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1
o Elements to determine locus standi
 Proper party in a quo warranto petition
 Topacio v. Ong, G.R. No. 179895, 18 December
2008
 Taxpayers as proper party
 Mamba v. Lara, G.R. No. 165109, 14 December
2009
 Concerned citizens as proper party
 David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, 03 May 2006
 Legaspi v. CSC, 150 SCRA 530 (1987)
 Legislators as proper party
 Philconsa v. Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506 (1884)
 An Organization as proper party
 Aguinaldo et al. v. Aquino et al., G.R. No. 224302,
November 29, 2016
 IBP v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81, 15 August 2000

24
  Transcendental Importance of the Issue/s raised
 Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Guingona, Jr.
o Earliest Opportunity
 When is the earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional
question
 Exceptions
 Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 167614,
24 March 2009
 Apec Mining Co., Inc. v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining
Corp., et al., G.R. No. 152613/G.R. No. 152628, 20
November 2009
o Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Question
 Zandueta v. De la Costa, 66 Phil. 115
 General v. Urro, G.R. No. 191560, 29 March 2011
 Demetria v. Alba, G.R. No. 71977, 27 February 1987
 Effects of a Declaration of Unconstitutionality
o Orthodox View
o Modern View
o The Doctrine of Operative Fact
 Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation, G.R. No.
166006, 14 March 2008
 League of Cities of the Phils. V. COMELEC, G.R. No.
176951, 24 August 2010
o Partial Unconstitutionality

8. Powers of the Supreme Court

 Original Jurisdiction (Section 5(1))
o People v. Cuaresma, G.R. No. 67787, April 18, 1989 (Doctrine of
Hierarchy of Courts)
o CREBA v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 183409, 18 June
2010
o SC shares concurrent jurisdiction over actions with lower courts
 Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts
 Banez, Jr. v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 159508, August
29, 2012
 GIOS-Samar, Inc. v. DOTC, G.R. No. 217158, March
12, 2019
 Appellate Jurisdiction (Section 5(2))
o Right to Appeal not embraced in due process
o Competence of lower courts to decide constitutional questions
(Section 5(a)
 Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corp., G. R. No. 166006,
14 March 2008
 British American Tobacco v. Camacho, G.R. No. 163583, 20
August 2008
 Temporary Assignment of Judges (Section 5(3))
o Temporary Assignment of Judges
o Permanent Transfer
 Change of Venue or Place of Trial (Section 5(4))
o Larranaga v. CA et al., 287 SCRA 581, 13 March 1998

25
  Rule-making Power (Section 5(5))
o Limitations on the Rule-Making Power
o First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v. CA et al., G.R. No. 110571, March
10, 1984.
 Whether or not Art. 82 of EO 226 can be validly repealed by
circular 1-91 because the former grants a substantive right
which, under the Constitution cannot be modified,
diminished, or increased by the SC in the exercise of its rule-
making powers.
o Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin M.
Dacanay, B.M. No. 1678, 17 December 2007
o RE: Exemption of the National Power Corporation from
Filing/Docket Fees, A.M. No. 05-10-20-SC, 10 March 2010.
o RE: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the GSIS from
Pyment of Legal Fees, A.M. No. 08-2-01-0, 11 February 2010.
o Javellana v. DILG, G.R. No. 102549, August 10, 1992, 212 SCRA
475.
 Appointment of Court Personnel (Section 5 (6))
 Administrative Supervision of Courts (Section 6)
o Maceda v. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464
 Whether the Office of the Ombudsman could entertain a
criminal complaint for the alleged falsification of a judge's
certification submitted to the Supreme Court, and assuming
that it can, whether a referral should be made first to the
Supreme Court.
o Ampong v. CSC, G.R. No. 167916, 26 August 2008
 Whether the CSC has administrative jurisdiction over an
employee of the Judiciary for acts committed while said
employee was still with the Executive or Education
Department.

9. Salaries of Members of the Judiciary (Section 10)

 Nitafan v. Commissioner of the BIR, 152 SCRA 284

10. Tenure of Judges (Section 11)

 De la Llana v. Alba, 112 SCRA 294
 Sinsuat v. Judge Vicente Hidalgo, RTC, Manila, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2133, 06
August 2008
o How administrative proceedings against judges may be instituted
 Caoibes, Jr. v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 132177, 19 July 2001
 People v. Judge Gacott, Jr., 246 SCRA 52
o "Bar Matter No. 209. — In the Matter of the Amendment and/or
Clarification of various Supreme Court Rules and Resolutions,"
o Can a Division of the SC discipline a judge?

11. Prohibition Against Designation to Quasi-Judicial or Administrative Agencies

(Section 12)
 Makalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), G.R. No. 191618, 23
November 2010

26
 o In acting as the PET, does the Supreme Court exercise quasi-
judicial power in violation of Section 12, Article VII?
 In re Judge Manzano as Member of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee
on Justice, 166 SCRA 246, 5 October 1988
o May a judge be designated as member of the Ilocos Norte
Provincial Committee on Justice?

12. Consultations of the Court (Section 13)

 Vios v. Pantangco, G.R. No. 163103, 6 February 2009

13. Decisions of the Court (Section 14)

 Valdez v. CA, G.R. No. 85082, February 25, 1991 (194 SCRA 360).
o Rules on decisions of the court
 Albaña v. Belo, G. R. No. 158734, 02 October 2009
 Mahawan v. People, G.R. No. 176609, 18 December 2008
 Prudential Bank v. Castro, A.C. No. 2756, March 15, 1988 (158 SCRA 646)
o Whether the SC’s Minute Resolution dated January 12, 1988,
denying the MR disregarded Section 14, Article VIII of the
Constitution.
 Solid Homes, Inc., v. Laserna, G.R. No. 166051, 08 April 2008
 Protacio v. Laya Mananghaya & Co., G.R. No. 168654, 25 March 2009
 Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. CA, 293 SCRA 26, 1998

14. Periods for Decision (Section 15)

 Elvira N. Enalbes et al. v. CJ Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, A.M. No. 18-
11-09-SC, January 22, 2019.
o While the 24-month period provided under the 1987 Constitution is
persuasive, it does not summarily bind the Court to the disposition
of cases before it. It is a mere directive to ensure the Court’s prompt
resolution of cases, and should not be interpreted as an inflexible
rule.
 Sesbreno v. CA, G.R. No. 161390, 16 April 2008
o Whether or not the CA should have affirmed the trial court’s
decision in view of the delay in resolving the case.

15. Annual Report (Section 16)

XIV. The CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS (ARTICLE IX)

A. COMMON PROVISIONS (Article IX-A)

1. Constitutional Guarantees of Independence

2. Disqualifications (Section 2)

3. Staggering of Terms
 Purpose of Scheme
 Requisites

27
 o Republic v. Imperial, 96 Phil 770.

4. No Reappointment/No Acting Capacity

 Funa v. The Chairman, COA, G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012
o Meaning of no re-appointment
o Appointment not covered by the ban on no reappointment.
o Summary of the Court’s ruling
 Brillantes v. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358.
 Matibag v. Benipayo, April 2, 2002, 380 SCRA 49.
o Disapproved appointment
o By-passed ad interim appointment

5. Rulemaking Power (Section 6)

 Relate with Section 5 (5), Article VIII
 Aruelo v. CA , 227 SCRA 311 (1993)
 A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC
 A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC

6. Decisions (Section 7)
 Voting requirement on decisions
o Estrella v. Comelec, G.R. No. 160465, May 27, 2004
o Marcoleta v. Comelec, G.R. No. 181377, April 24, 2009
 Mode of Review from decisions
o COMELEC, COA – Rule 64 of the Rules of Court in relation to Rule
65
o CSC – R.A. No. 7902
o Cayetano v. Comelec, G.R. No. 193846, April 12, 2011
o Cagas v. Comelec, G.R. No. 194139, January 24, 2012, 663 SCRA
645

B. The CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (Article IX-B)

1. Composition and Qualifications (Section 1)

2. Scope of the Civil Service (Section 2 (1))

 Government agencies, instrumentalities, agencies
o RA No. 10149, Section 3(k)
 What is a government agency?
o Hidalgo v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179793, 623 SCRA
391
o Republic of the Philippines v. City of Paranaque
 Philippine Reclamation Authority is a government
instrumentality
 GOCCs with original charters
o Definition of GOCC with original charter
 Davao City Water District, et al. v. CSC et al., G.R. No.
95237-38, September 13, 1991

28
 o GOCC includes:
 Government Instrumentalities with Corporate Powers
(GICPs)
 Government Corporate Entities (GCEs)
 Government Financial Institutions (GFIs)
o Liban v. Gordon, G.R. No. 175352, July 15, 2009, 593 SCRA 68
 Is the Philippine National Red Cross a GOCC?
 Cases:
o National Service Corporation v. NLRC, 168 SCRA 122
o TUPAS v. National Housing Corporation, 173 SCRA 33, May 4,
1989
o Duty Free Philippines v. Mojica, G.R. No. 166365, Sept. 30, 2005

3. Classes of Service
 Career Service
o Characteristics
o Positions under the career service
 Non-Career Service
o Characteristics
o Positions under the non-career service

4. Appointments (Section 2 (2))

 How made?
o Exceptions
 Corpus v. Cuaderno, G.R. No. L-32721, March 31, 1965, 13
SCRA 591.
 PAGCOR v. Angara, 475 SCRA 41 (2005)
o CSC v. Pililla Water District, G.R. No. 190147, March 5, 2013, 692
SCRA 406.
 Permanent v. Temporary Appointments
o Definitions

5. Security of Tenure (Section 2 (3))

 Rules for the discipline of civil servants (Administrative Code):
o Grounds (Book V, Section 46, Administrative Code)
o Procedure (Sections 48 to 53, Administrative Code)
 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service ( CSC
Resolution No. 1101502, November 18, 2011)
o Preliminary investigation
o Institution of the formal charge or Notice of charge
 Garcia v. Molina, G.R. Nos. 157383 & 174137, April 2, 2010,
627 SCRA 540.
 RA No. 6770
o Discipline of errant public officers
 The Magna Carta for Public School Teachers (RA 4670, Section 9.
o Disciplinary jurisdiction over public school teachers.
 CSC v. CA, G.R. No. 176162, October 9, 2012, 682 SCRA
353.

29
  Camacho v. Gloria, 456 SCRA 399 (2003)
 Ampong v. CSC, G.R. No. 167916, August 26, 2008, 563
SCRA 293.
 Reorganizations
o Dario v. Mison, 176 SCRA 84

6. Partisan Political Activity (Section 2 (4))

 Implemented by Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 7, Section 55,
Administrative Code of 1987
 Joint Resolution No. 1600298 (Advisory on Electioneering and Partisan
Political Activity; CSC and Comelec)
 Meaning of partisan political activity
o Seneres v. Comelec, G.R. No. 178678, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA
557.
o De los Santos v. Yatco, 106 Phil. 745
o Quinto v. Comelec, G.R. No. 189698, February 22, 2010, 613
SCRA 385.
o Cailles v. Bonifacio, 65 Phil. 328

7. Self-organization (Section 2 (5))

 SSS Employees Association v. CA, 175 SCRA 686 (1989).

8. Temporary Employees (Section 2 (6))

 Ambas v. Buenaseda, 201 SCRA 308 (1991)
 Security of tenure: Re: Vehicular Accident involving SC Shuttle Bus No. 3
with Plate No. SEG-357 driven by Gerry B. Moral, Driver II-Casual, A.M.
No. 2008-13-SC, November 19, 2008, 648 SCRA 546.
 R.A. No. 6850, Section 1.

9. Objectives of the Civil Service (Section 3)

 Objectives of the Civil Service
 City Government of Makati v. CSC, 426 Phil. 631, 644 (2002)

10. Oath (Section 4)

11. Standardization of Compenssation (Section 5)

12. Disqualifications (Sections 6 and 7)

 Section 6:
o Section 94(b), Local Government Code, prohibition does not apply
to losing candidates in barangay elections
o The prohibition does not apply to nominees of losing party list
groups (Minute Resolution No. 19-0677, Comelec)
o People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164185, July 23, 2008
 Section 7:
o Section 13, Article VII v. Section 7, Article IX-B
o Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (1991)
o Public Interest Center, Inc. v. Elma, G.R. No. 138965, June 30,
2006, 494 SCRA 53.

30
13. Double Compensation (Section 8)
 Dual purpose:
o Exception
 Double compensation v. Additional compensation
 Dual Purpose
 Rationale for the prohibition
o Peralta v. Auditor General, 148 Pjil. 216 (1971)
o Veloso v. COA, G.R. No. 193677, September 6, 2011.
o Dimagiba v. Espartero, G.R. No. 154952, July 16, 2012, 676 SCRA
420.
o Quinzon v. Ozaeta, 98 Phil. 705

 Majority of Comelec members must be lawyers

o Marcoleta v. Borra, A.C. No. 7732, March 20, 2009, 582 SCRA 474.
 Engaging in the practice of law: meaning
o Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210 (1991)
 Acting Capacity
o Brillantes v. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358 (1990).
o Matibag v. Benipayo, 380 SCRA 49, April 2, 2002

C. The COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (Article IX-C)

1. Composition and Qualifications (Section 1)

 Majority of Comelec members must be lawyers
o Marcoleta v. Borra, A.C. No. 7732, March 20, 2009, 582 SCRA 474.
 Engaging in the practice of law: meaning
o Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210 (1991)
 Acting Capacity
o Brillantes v. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358 (1990).
o Matibag v. Benipayo, 380 SCRA 49, April 2, 2002

2. Powers and Functions (Section 2)

 Enforcement of Election Laws (Section 2 (1)

o To register voters
 RA 8189 (Continuing Registration Act)
 RA 10367 (Biometrics Law)
o To annul an illegal registry of voters
 Section 145, Omnibus Election Code
 Prudente v. Genuino, G.R. No. L-5222, November 6, 1951
o To cancel a proclamation made by a board of canvassers based on
incomplete or irregular canvass
o To decide pre-proclamation cases
 Pre-proclamation issues under R.A. 9369
o To deny due course to a certificate of candidacy
 Ground:
 Section 78, Omnibus Election Code
 Procedure:

31
  Rule 23, Comelec Rules of Procedure, as amended
by Comelec Resolution No. 9523
 Fermin v. Comelec, G.R. No. 179695, December 18,
2008
 Aratea v. Comelec, G.R. No. 195229, October 2,
2012, 683 SCRA 105.
o To reject a nuisance candidate
 Grounds:
 Section 69, Omnibus Election Code
 Procedure:
 Rule 24, Comelec Rules of Procedure, as amended
by Comelec Resolution No. 9523
 De la Cruz v. Comelec, G.R. No. 192221, November 13,
2012
o To disqualify a candidate
 Grounds:
 Section 12, Omnibus Election Code
 Section 68, Omnibus Election Code
 Section 40, Local Government Code
 Distinctions between Sections 68 and 78
 Fermin v. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 179695 and 182369,
December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 782
 Procedure:
 Rule 25, Comelec Rules of Procedure, as amended
by Comelec Resolution No. 9523
 Effects of Disqualification:
 Section 6, R.A. 6646
o Codilla, Sr. v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 150605,
December 10, 2002
 Second placers and succession
o Geronimo v. Ramos, G.R. Nos. L-60504, L-
60591, 60732-39, May 14, 1985, 136 SCRA
435
o Maquiling v. Comelec, G.R. No. 195649, April
16, 2013.
 Electoral aspect vs Criminal aspect of disqualification
o Lanot v. Comelec, G.R. No. 164858,
November 16, 2006, 507 SCRA 114.
o To postpone an election
 Section 5, Omnibus Election Code
o To declare a failure of election
 Section 6, Omnibus Election Code
 Presbiterio v. Comelec, G.R. No. 178884, June 30,
2008
o To call a special election
 Section 7, Omnibus Election Code.
o Promulgate rules for purposes of regulating elections
 Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec, 396 Phil. 419

32
  Jurisdiction over election contests (Section 2 (2))
o Original jurisdiction
 Election contests involving regional, provincial and city
officials
 Javier v. Comelec,144 SCRA 194
 Meaning: Contest, Election, Returns and
Qualification
 Layug v. Comelec, G.R. No. 192984, February 28, 2012,
667 SCRA 135
 Reyes v. Comelec, G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013
o Appellate jurisdiction over:
 Election contests involving barangay officials
(A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC)
 Election contests involving municipal officials
(A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC)

 Decision of Administrative Questions (Section 2(3))

o Except: Matters involving the right to vote

 Deputization of Law-Enforcement Agencies (Section 2(4))

o Relate to Section 2(8)

 Registration of Political Parties (Section 2(5))

o What political parties may not be registered?
 Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago v. Comelec, G.R. No. 190793,
June 19, 2012, 673 SCRA 651
 Liberal Party v. Comelec, G.R. No. 191771, May 6, 2010,
620 SCRA 393
o R.A. 7941 – Registration of party-list groups/organizations
 Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. Comelec, G.R. No. 203766, April 2,
2013
 BANAT v. Comelec, G.R. No. 179271, July 8, 2009, 592
SCRA 294.
o Relate to Section 8 (no representation in registration, election and
canvassing boards)

 Investigation and Prosecution of Election Offenses (Section 2(6))

o Concurrent jurisdiction: Comelec and DOJ
 Section 43 of 9369 in relation to Section 2(6), Article IX-C of
the Constitution
 BANAT v. Comelec, G.R. No. 177508, August 7, 2009
 Arroyo v. DOJ, G.R. No. 199082, September 8, 2012, 681
SCRA 181.
 Lanot v. Comelec, G.R. No. 164858, November 16, 2006,
507 SCRA 114.

3. En Banc and Division Cases (Section 3)

 2 Divisions
 Only final orders of a Division may be raised before the En Banc

33
 o Cayetano v. Comelec, G.R. No. 193846, April 12, 2011, 648 SCRA
561
o Cagas v. Comelec, G.R. No. 194139, January 24, 2012, 663 SCRA
644
o Eriguel v. Comelec, G.R. No. 190526, February 26, 2010
o Exceptions:
 Kho v. Comelec, G.R. No. 124033, September 25, 1997,
279 SCRA 463.
 MR mandatory and jurisdictional before review by SC
o Esteves v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 182374, November 11, 2008, 570
SCRA 656
 Section 3 only applies to decisions in the exercise of adjudicatory or quasi-
judicial powers
o Canicosa v. Comelec, 282 SCRA 512 (1977)

4. Regulation of Public Utilities, Franchises, Mass media, etc. (Section 4)

 Rationale
 Philippine Press Institute v. Comelec, 244 SCRA 272

5. No Pardon, etc. without recommendation from Comelec (Section 5)

 Relate to Article VII, Section 19

6. Multi-Party System (Section 6); No block voting (Section 7); Political parties not
represented in Boards (Section 8); No Political Harassment (Section 10)

7. Election Period (Section 9)

 Election Period v. Campaign Period
 Penera v. Comelec, G.R. No. 181613, November 25, 2009 (Decision on
MR)

8. Fiscal Autonomy (Section 11)

9. Judicial Review (Article IX-A, Section 7)

 Orders, rulings and decisions issued in the exercise of adjudicatory or
quasi-judicial power
 Rule 64, Rules of Court in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
o Aratuc v. Comelec, 88 SCRA 251 (1979)
o Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25.

D. The COMMISSION ON AUDIT (Article IX-D)

1. Composition and Qualifications (Section 1(1))

2. Term (Section 1(2))

 Funa v. The Chairman, COA, G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012.
o Appointment not covered by ban on no re-appointment
o Summary of the Court’s ruling

34
 3. Powers and Functions (Section 2)
 What are the powers and functions of COA
 Agencies under post-audit authority of COA
 Authority to veto appropriations
o Basis: Section 2(2)
 Power to promulgate accounting rules and regulations
o Caltex Philippines, Inc. v. COA, G.R. No. 92585, May 8, 1992, 208
SCRA 726
o Verzosa v. Carague, G.R. No. 157838, March 8, 2011, 644 SCRA
679; February 7, 2012, 665 SCRA 124
 Monetary claims against the government
o CA No. 327
 Pacete v. Acting Chairman of COA, 185 SCRA 1 (1990)
 UP v. Dizon, G.R. No. 171182, August 23, 2012, 679 SCRA
54
 Review of COA decisions, orders or rulings
o Rule 64, Rules of Court

4. Prohibited Exemptions (Section 3)

 Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. v. Republic of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 177857-58, January 24, 2012, 663 SCRA 514.

5. Report (Section 4)

XV. ACCOUNTABILITY OF PULIC OFFICERS (Article XI)

1. Impeachment (Section 2)
 Definition
 Impeachable Officers
o Marcoleta v. Borra, A.C. No. 7732, March 90, 2009, 582 SCRA 474
 Impeachable officers who are lawyers must first be
impeached before disbarment.
o In re: Gonzales (160 SCRA 771 (1988)
o People v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 154473, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA
420
o Republic of the Philippines v. Sereno, G. R. No. 237428, May 11,
2018
 Can the Supreme Court assume jurisdiction and give due
course to a petition for quo warranto against an impeachable
officer?
 Can quo warranto and impeachment proceed independently
and simultaneously?
 Is the Supreme Court's exercise of its jurisdiction over a quo
warranto petition not violative of the doctrine of separation of
powers?
 Is Impeachment an exclusive remedy by which an invalidly
appointed or invalidly elected impeachable official may be
removed from office.
 Does prescription not lie against the State?

35
  Is Sereno ineligible as a candidate and nominee for the
position of Chief Justice?
 Does compliance with the SALN requirement indubitably
reflect on a person 's integrity?
 Grounds (Section 2)
o Meaning of each ground
 Betrayal of public trust
 Gonzales v. Office of the President, G.R. No.
196231, September 4, 2012, 679 SCRA 614.
 Procedure (Section 3)
o Initiation
 Limitations on the exclusive power of the House to initiate
impeachment cases
 Francisco, et al. v. The House of Representatives,
G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003, 415 SCRA 44
 Who may initiate filing of impeachment complaint? (Section
3(2) and (4))
 Meaning of “to initiate” (Section 3(5))
 Francisco, et al. v. The House of Representatives,
G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003, 415 SCRA 44
 Gutierrez v. The House of Representatives, G.R. No.
193459, February 15, 2011, 643 SCRA 198
o Referral to the proper Committee (Section 3(2))
o Hearing by the Committee (Section 3(2))
o Submission of Report by the Committee to the House with the
Resolution Section 3(2))
 Favorable resolution with Articles of Impeachment
 Contrary resolution
o Consideration of the Resolution by the House (Section 3(2))
o Voting by all the Members of the House (Section 3(3))
o Trial by the Senate (Section 3(6))
o Judgment (Section 3(7))
 Subject to judicial review?
o Rules on Impeachment (Section 3(8))
 Meaning of to “promulgate” its rules
 Gutierrez v. The House of Representatives, G.R. No.
193459, February 15, 2011, 643 SCRA 198
 Francisco, et al. v. The House of Representatives,
G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003, 415 SCRA 44
o Promulgation of rules on impeachment limited
by the phrase “to effectively carry out the
purpose of this section.”

2. The Sandiganbayan (Section 4)

 Composition
o PD 1606, as amended by RA 7975, RA 8249 and RA 10660
 Original jurisdiction
 Appellate jurisdiction

3. The Ombudsman

36
  Composition (Section 5)
 Qualifications and Disqualifications (Section 8)
 Appointment (Sections 9)
 Salary (Section 10)
 Term (Section 11)
 Powers and Function (Sections 12 and 13)

4. The Special Prosecutor (Section 7)

 Zaldivar v. Gonzales, 160 SCRA 843 (1988)

5. Ill-Gottten Wealth (Section 15)

 Republic of the Philippines v. Desierto, 438 Phil. 201, 121 (2002)
 Republic of the Philippines v. Conjuangco, G.R. No. 139930, June 26,
2012, 674 SCRA 492

6. Loans (Section 16)

7. Assets and Liabilities (Section 17)

 Ombudsman v. Racho, G.R. No. 185685, January 31, 2011, 641 SCRA
148
 Section 8, RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees
 Republic of the Philippines v. Sereno, G. R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018
o Does compliance with the SALN requirement indubitably reflect on
a person 's integrity?

8. Dual Citizenship/DualAllegiance
 Dual citizenship v. dual allegiance
o Mercado v. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999, 367 Phil.
132
o Jacot v. Dal, G.R. No. 179848, November 29, 2008, 572 SCRA 295
 RA No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003)
o Maquiling v. Comelec, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013
o Sobejana-Condon v. Comelec, G.R. No. 198742, August 10, 2012,
678 SCRA 267

37