CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW

2022 COURSE SYLLABUS AND LIST OF CASES

(Atty. Mary Ellen S. Cabuhat)

MODULE 1: THE CONCEPT OF STATE

1.1. Definition of State

Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Campos Rueda (G.R. No. L-13250, October 29, 1971)

1.2. Elements of a State

1.2.1. Territory (Refer to Module 6)

1.2.2. People
Sanidad vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. L-44640, October 12, 1976)

1.2.3. Government

a. Definition
U.S. vs. Dorr (2 Phil 33)

b. Distinguished from Administration

c. Doctrine of Parens Patriae

1. Gov. of the Philippine Islands vs. Monte de Piedad (G.R. No. 9959, December 13, 1916)
2. Cabanas vs. Pilapil (58 SCRA 94)

d. Functions of the Government

i. Constituent ii. Ministrant

Cases:
1. Liban vs. Gordon [639 SCRA 709 (2011)]
2. Association of Philippine Coconut Dessicators vs. Philippine Coconut Authority
(G.R. No. 110526, February 10, 1998)
3. Philippine Virginia Tobacco Adm. vs. CIR (G.R. No. L-32052, July 25, 1975)
4. Bacani vs. NACOCO (G.R. No. L-9657, November 29, 1956) 5. MIAA vs. Court of
Appeals (G.R. No. 155650, July 20, 2006)

e. Classifications of Government (legitimacy)

i. De Jure ii. De Facto

Cases:
1. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan [407 SCRA 10 (2003)]
2. Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh (75 Phil. 113)
3. Lawyer's League vs. Aquino (G.R. no. 73748, May 22, 1986)
4. Aquino vs. COMELEC (62 SCRA 275)
5. Estrada vs. Desierto (G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001) and Estrada vs.
Macapagal-Arroyo (G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001)
6. In Re: Saturnino Bermudez (145 SCRA 160)
1.2.4. Sovereignty
a. Definition
b. Kinds and Characteristics
c. Effects of Change in Sovereignty
d. Effects of Military Occupation
e. Territorial, personal and extraterritorial jurisdiction
f. Acts of State

Cases:
1. Laurel vs. Misa (G.R. No. L-409, January 30, 1947)
2. Macariola vs. Asuncion (114 SCRA 77)
3. Ruffy vs. Chief of Staff (G.R. No. L-533, August 20, 1946)
4. Commissioner vs. Robertson (143 SCRA 397)
5. Reagan vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (30 SCRA 968)
6. People vs. Gozo (G.R. No. L-36409, October 26, 1973)

1
MODULE 2: DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

2.1. Concept, Theory and Basis

2.1.1. Article XVI, Section 3
2.1.2. Article II, Section 2
a. Suits against Foreign States, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunity
b. Suits International Agencies, Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of
Specialized Agencies of the United Nations Cases:
1. Minucher vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 142396, February 11, 2003)
2. Liang vs. People (G.R. No. 125865, January 28, 2000)
3. The Holy See vs. Rosario (G.R. No. 101949, December 1, 1994)
4. Republic vs. Villasor (G.R. No. L-30671, November 28, 1973)
5. United States vs. Guinto (G.R. No. 76607, February 26, 1990)
6. USA vs. Ruiz (G.R. No. L-35645, May 22, 1985)
7. Republic of Indonesia vs. Vinzon (G.R, No. 154705, June 26, 2003)
8. ATCI Overseas Corp., et. al. vs. Echin (G.R. No. 178551, October 11, 2010)
9. Arigo vs. Swift (G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014)

2.2. Forms of Consent

2.2.1. Express Consent
a. General and Special Laws
i. Act No. 3083
ii. C.A. No. 327, as amended by P.D. No. 1445, Sections 49-50 iii. Civil Code,
Article 2180 iv. R.A. 7160, Sections 22 & 24
b. Money claims arising from contract
c. Torts committed by special agents

Cases:
1. Republic vs. Purisima (78 SCRA 470)
2. Merritt vs. Government of the Philippine Islands (G.R. No. 11154, March 21, 1916)
3. Amigable vs. Cuenca (G.R. No. L-26400, February 29, 1972)
4. Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 104269, November 11, 1993)
5. United States vs. Guinto (G.R. No. 76607, February 26, 1990)
6. Festejo vs. Fernando, G.R. No. L-5156, March 11, 1954
d. Incorporated and Unincorporated Government Agencies
1. Rayo vs. CFI of Bulacan (G.R. No. L-55273-83, December 19, 1981)
2. Mobil Phils. Exploration vs. Customs Arrastre Service (G.R. No. L-23139, December
17,1966)
3. Air Transportation Administration vs. Spouses David (G.R. No. 159402, February 23,
2011)
4. Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Association (G.R. No. L-15751,
January 28, 1961)
5. SSS vs. Court of Appeals (120 SCRA 707)
6. National Irrigation Administration vs. Court of Appeals (214 SCRA 35)
7. Civil Aeronautics Administration vs. CA (G.R. No. L-51806, November 8, 1988)

2.2.2. Implied Consent

a. When the State Commences Litigation

1. DOTC vs. Sps. Abecina (G.R. No. 206484, January 29, 2016)
2. Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 85284, February 28, 1990)
3. Santiago vs. GRP (G.R. No. L- 48214, December 19, 1978) (87 SCRA 294)
4. Froilan vs. Pan Oriental Shipping Corp. (G.R. No. L-6060, September 30, 1950)
5. Republic vs. Feliciano (G.R. No. 70853, March 12, 1987)

b. When the State Enters into a Contract

i. Jure Imperii ii. Jure Gestionis
1. DOTC vs. Sps. Abecina (G.R. No. 206484, January 29, 2016)
2. USA vs. Ruiz (G.R. No. L-35645, May 22, 1985) 3. Republic vs.
Sandiganbayan (204 SCRA 212)

c. When it is Inequitable for the State to Claim Immunity

Amigable vs. Cuenca (G.R. No. L-26400, February 29, 1972)

d. Suits against Public Officers

1. Sanders vs. Veridiano (G.R. No. L-46930, June 10, 1988)
2
 2. Republic vs. Sandoval (G.R. No. 84607, March 19, 1993) 3. Festejo vs.
Fernando (G.R. No. L-5156, Marzo 11, 1954)

e. Suits against Municipal Corporations

1. Mun. of San Miguel vs. Fernandez (G.R. No. L-61744, June 25, 1984)
2. City of Bacolod vs. Mayor Leonardia (G.R. No. 190289, January 17, 2018)
3. Palafox vs. Province of Ilocos Norte (G.R. No. L-10659, January 31, 1958)

2.3. Suability, Liability and Execution

1. Republic v. National Labor Relations Commission (Third Division) [787 SCRA 90 (2016)]
2. National Housing Authority vs. Roxas [773 SCRA 358 (2015)]
3. UP vs. Dizon [679 SCRA 54 (2012]
4. Republic vs. Hidalgo [534 SCRA 619 (2007)]
5. Republic vs. Villasor (G.R. No. L-30671, November 28, 1973)
6. Merritt vs. Government of the Philippine Islands (G.R. No. 11154, March 21, 1916)
7. Mun. of San Fernando vs. Firme (G.R. No. 52179, April 8, 1991)
8. Mun. of Makati vs. CA (G.R. Nos. 89898-99, October 1, 1990)
9. City of Caloocan vs. Judge Allarde (G.R. No. 107271, September 10, 2003)
10. PNB vs. Pabalan (G.R. No. L-33112, June 15, 1978)

MODULE 3: SEPARATION OF POWERS

3.1. Basis/Purpose

To prevent concentration of authority in one person or group of persons that might lead to an irreversible error or
abuse in its exercise to the detriment of republican institutions.

In Pangasinan Transportation Co. v. Public Service Commission, GR No. 47065, it is said that separation of
powers has the following purposes: to secure action, to forestall overaction, to prevent despotism and to obtain
efficiency.

Despotism – excessive or abusive way of using power.

3.2. Blending of Powers (Articles VI, VII and VIII)

Instances when powers are not confined exclusively within one department but are assigned to or shared by
several departments.

Example: Enactment of general appropriation law.

3.3. Check and Balances (Articles VI, VII and VIII)

This allows one department to resist encroachments upon its prerogatives or to rectify mistakes or excesses
committed by the other department.

Example: Veto power of the President as check on improvident legislation, etc.

3.4. Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy

Constitutional supremacy means that no laws or actions can violate a nation's constitution since the Constitution
takes precedence over all other law.

Rationale: The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which
all persons, including highest officials of the land, must defer.

3.5. Justiciable vs. Political Questions

A purely justiciable question implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission
violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law for said breach of right.

A political question connotes a question of policy. It refers to the questions which, under the Constitution, are to
be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has
been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of government. It has concerned with issues dependent
upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.

3
 NOTE: The scope of the political question doctrine has been limited by power of the judiciary to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

Cases:
In Agcaoili vs. Fariñas, G.R. No. 232395, under the Court's expanded jurisdiction, the remedy of prohibition may be
issued to correct errors of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the Government. But while there is no question
that a writ of prohibition lies against legislative functions, the Court finds no justification for the issuance thereof. It is
this very principle of the doctrine of separation of powers as enshrined under the Constitution that urges the Court to
carefully tread on areas falling under the sole discretion of the legislative branch of the government.

The power of administrative supervision over civil registrar’s rests on the municipal and city mayors of the respective
local government units. In Mamiscal vs. Abdullah, that unless jurisdiction has been conferred by some legislative act, no
court or tribunal can act on a matter submitted to it.

1. Belgica vs. Ochoa, Jr. [710 SCRA 1 (2013)]

2. Ongsiako Reyes vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013)
3. Vinuya vs. Romulo (G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010)
4. Office of the Court Administrator vs. Reyes [621 SCRA 511 (2010)]
5. Silverio vs. Republic [537 SCRA 373 (2007)]
6. Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita [488 SCRA 1 (2006)]
7. 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
8. Mendoza vs. People [659 SCRA 681 (2011)]
9. Daza vs. Singson (G.R. No. 86344, December 21, 1989)
10.In re: Manzano (A.M. No. 88-7-1861-RT, October 5, 1988)
11.Casibang vs. Aquino (G.R. No. L-38025, August 20, 1979)

In Tañada vs. Cuenco, the court defined political question as a question of policy. They are questions which, under the
Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority
has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of government. It has concerned with issues dependent upon the
wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.

12.Sanidad vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. L-44640, October 12, 1976)

When the court mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries or invalidates the acts of a coordinate body, what it
upholds is not his own superiority but the supremacy of the Constitution. (Angara vs. Electoral Commission, G.R.
No. 45081, July 15, 1936)

NOTE: The first and safest criterion to determine whether a given power has been validly exercised by a particular
department is whether or not the power has been constitutionally conferred upon the department claiming its
exercise. However, even in the absence of express conferment, the exercise of the power may be justified under the
DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION. i.e. that the grant of an express power carries with it all other
powers that may be reasonably inferred from it.

Doctrine of Necessary Implication - this doctrine states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof
as that which is expressed. Every statute is understood by implication to contain all such provision as may be
necessary to effectuate to its object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction
which it grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred
from its terms.

MODULE 4: DELEGATION OF POWER

General Rule: What has been delegated cannot be delegated.

4
Maxim: Potestas delegate non potest delegare.
Basis: Delegated powers constitute not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality
of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another.

CASES:
1. Sema vs. Commission on Elections [558 SCRA 700 (2008)]
2. NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC DAMA) vs. National Power Corporation (NPC),
845 SCRA 487 (G.R. No. 156208, 21 November 2017)
3. People vs. Vera (G.R. No. 45685, November 16, 1937)
4. Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA (G.R. No. L-76633, October 18, 1988)
5. Demetria vs. Alba (148 SCRA 208)
6. Chiongbian vs. Orbos (245 SCRA 253)

4.2. Permissible Delegation (Exceptions)

4.2.1. Delegation to the Executive Department (President)

a. Emergency powers to the President, Article VI, Section 23 (2); Article XII, Section 12

HOW IS IT GIVEN: In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law,
authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to
exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy.

HOW IS IT WITHDRAWN: Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such

powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.

b. Tariff powers to the President, Article VI, Section 28 (2)

General Rule: The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits,
and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues and other duties or imposts within the framework of the
national development program of the Government.

NOTE: When the president provided new tariff rates as an exercise of his delegated authority,
such rate cannot be revised unless the congress vetoes.

Cases:
1. Ampatuan vs. Puno [651 SCRA 228 (2011)]

In David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, where the case was decided under the 1935 Constitution, Supreme
Court said that courts have sustained the delegation of legislative power to the people at large. Under the 1987
Constitution, there are specific provisions where the people have reserved to themselves the function of legislation.

2. Southern Cross Cement Corporation v. Cement Manufacturers Association of the Philippines, 465
SCRA 532 (2005)

The Supreme Court as decided in Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 10127, upheld the constitutionality of EO 475
and 478, which levied a special duty P.95 per liter on imported crude oil, and P1 per liter on imported oil products as a
valid exercise of delegated legislative authority under the Tariff and Customs.

3. Rodriguez vs. Gella (G.R. No. L-6266, February 2, 1953)

In Araneta vs. Dinglasan, G.R. No. L-2044, the Court ruled that President’s issuance of National Emergency
Memorandum Orders (NEMOs) in the exercise of delegated legislative powers is valid.

4.2.2. Delegation to the Judicial Department (Rule-making power to the Supreme Court, Article VIII, Section 5
(5)

5
 4.2.3. Delegation to the Constitutional Commissions [Article IX-A, Section 6; Article IX-C, Section 3; Article
IX-D, Section 2 (2)]

4.2.4. Delegation to Commission on Human Rights, Article XIII, Section 18

4.2.5. Delegation to Administrative Bodies – it is the power of subordinate legislation.

In NPC Drivers and Mechanical Association vs. NAPOCOR, the

In the case of Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center vs. Garcia Jr., it was stated that the authority given by LTFRB to
provincial bus operators to set a fare range over and above the existing authorized fare was held to be illegal for being an
undue delegation of power.

1. Philippine Interisland Shipping Association vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 100481, January 22,
1997)
2. Tablarin vs. Gutierrez (G.R. No. 78164, July 31, 1987)
3. Cruz vs. Youngberg (56 Phil. 234)

4.2.6.Delegation to Local Government Units (Article X)

Such legislation is not regarded as a transfer of general legislative power, but rather as the grant of the
authority to prescribe local regulations, according to immemorial practice, subject to the interposition of the
superior cases of necessity.

Rationale: Local legislatures are more knowledgeable than the national lawmaking body on matters of purely
local concern, and are in a better position to enact appropriate legislative measures.

a. Ordinances as subordinate legislation

b. Fundamental Powers of the State and General Welfare Clause

i. Police Power – the power of promoting public welfare by restraining and regulating the use
and enjoyment of liberty and property.

Who may exercise? Inherently vested in the Legislature. However, Congress may
validly delegate this power to the President, to administrative bodies and to lawmaking
bodies of LGU.

NOTE: It is the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding power.

ii. Eminent Domain - power of expropriation. It is the inherent right of the State to
condemn private property to public use upon payment of just compensation.

Who may exercise? Congress and, by delegation, the President, administrative bodies, local
government units, and even private enterprises performing public services.

Requisites:
a. Necessity of the expropriation
b. Private property
c. Taking in constitutional sense
d. For public use
e. Payment of just compensation

iii. Taxation - power by which the sovereign, through its law-making body, raises revenue to
defray the necessary expenses of government.

Taxation v. Police power v. Eminent Domain

Who exercises the power:

Taxation and Police Power are exercise by the government or its political subdivisions. Eminent Domain is exercise by
the government or public service companies and public utilities.

Purpose:
Taxation is exercise to raise revenue. Police power is to promote of general welfare. Eminent Domain is to facilitate the
taking of private property for public purpose.

Affected party:

6
Taxation and Police Power upon all persons or a class of persons. Eminent Domain is upon the owner or owners of
property taken.

As to monetary limitations:
Taxation and Eminent Domain have no such limitation. Police Power is limited to the reasonable cost of regulation,
issuance of license or surveillance.

As to benefits:
Taxation gives no direct benefit but allows a civilized society. Police power also has no direct benefit but the welfare of
the people is protected. Eminent Domain gives direct benefit to the owner in the form of just compensation.

As to impairment of the obligation of contracts:

Police Power and Eminent Domain are supreme over the non-impairment clause. Taxation cannot impair the obligation
of contracts if, for example, the grant of exemption is supported by sufficient consideration.

Cases:

1. Sema vs. COMELEC [558 SCRA 700 (2008)]

2. US vs. Salaveria (39 Phil 102)
3. Fernando vs. St. Scholasticas College [G.R. No. 161107 (2013)]
4. Ermita–Malate Hotel & Motel Operators vs. City Mayor [20 SCRA 849
(1967)]
5. City of Manila vs. Judge Laguio (G. R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005)
6. Ferrer vs. City Mayor Bautista (G.R. No. 210551, June 30, 2015)

4.2.7. Delegation to the People

i. Referendum – the power of the electorate to approve or reject legislation through an election called for
the purpose. There are two kinds, namely:

a. Referendum on statutes – refers to a petition to approve or reject an act or law, or part

thereof, passed by Congress.
b. Referendum on local law – refers to a petition to approve or reject a law, resolution or ordinance
enacted by regional assemblies and local legislative bodies.

ii. Plebiscite – is the electoral process by which an initiative on the Constitution is approved or rejected by
the people.

iii. Initiative – is the process of amending the Constitution.

4.2.8. Tests for Valid Delegation of Power

a. Completeness Test – the law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it
leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do when it reaches him
except to enforce it.

b. Sufficient Standard Test – intended to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority by
defining the legislative policy and indicating the circumstances under which it is to be pursued
and effected.

NOTE: To prevent total transference of legislative power from the legislature to the delegate.

Cases:

1. Southern Luzon Drug Corporation vs. DSWD (G.R. No. 199699, April 25, 2017)
2. Gerochi vs. Department of Energy (G.R. No. 159796, July 17, 2007)
3. Jaworski vs. PAGCOR (G.R. No. 144463, January 14, 2004)
4. Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc. vs. POEA (243 SCRA 666)
5. Lozano vs. Martinez (146 SCRA 323)
6. U.S. vs. Ang Tang Ho (43 Phil. 1)
7. Ynot vs. IAC (G.R. No. 74457, March 20, 1987)
8. Pelaez vs. Auditor General (G.R. No. L-23825, December 24, 1965)
9. Lorenzo vs. Director of Health (50 Phil 595)

7
 MODULE 5: THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

5.1. History and Background

5.1.1.The Philippine Revolution and the Malolos Constitution
5.1.2. Organic Laws under the American Period
a. McKinley’s Instructions (1900)
b. Spooner Amendment (1901)
c. Philippine Bill of 1902
d. Philippine Autonomy Act or Jones Law (1916)
5.1.3. Japanese Occupation
5.1.4. 1935 Constitution
5.1.5. 1973 Constitution
5.1.6.1986 (EDSA) Revolution and the Freedom Constitution
5.1.7. 1987 Constitution

5.2. Definition, Nature and Concepts

5.2.1. Parts, Features, Characteristics and Requisites
5.2.2. Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy 5.2.3. Self-Executing vs. Non-Self-
Executing

Cases:
1. Marcos vs. Manglapus, 177 [SCRA 668 (1989)]
2. De Leon vs. Esguerra (G.R. No. 78059, August 31, 1987)
3. Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408 (1997)
4. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (407 SCRA 10)
5. Flores vs. Drilon (G.R. No. 104732, June 22, 1993)
6. Oposa vs. Factoran (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993)
7. Imbong vs. Executive Secretary, GR. 204819, April 8, 2014)
8. Legaspi vs. CSC (G.R. No. L-72119, May 29, 1987)

5.3. Interpretation
Francisco vs. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003)

5.4. Amendments and Revisions (Article XVII, Sections 1, 2 & 3)

5.4.1. Quantitative vs. Qualitative
5.4.2. Procedure
a. Proposal
i. Congress (Constituent Assembly)
ii. Constitutional Convention
1. Province of Cotabato vs. The Government of the RP Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain
(G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008)
2. Imbong vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. L-32432, September 11, 1970)
3. Gonzales vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. L-28196, November 9, 1967)
4. Occena vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 56350, April 2, 1981)
5. Loomis vs. Jackson, 6 W Va.613) 6. Frantz vs. Autry (91 Pac. 193)

iii. People (Initiative and Referendum)

1. Santiago vs. COMELEC [270 SCRA 106 (1997)]
2. Lambino vs. COMELEC [505 SCRA 160 (2006)] 3. R.A. 6735

b. Ratification
Tolentino vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. L-34150, October 16, 1971)
5.5. Judicial Review
1. Sanidad vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. L-44640, October 12, 1976)
2. Lambino vs. COMELEC [505 SCRA 160 (2006)]

MODULE 6: ARTICLE I – NATIONAL TERRITORY

6.1. Components of Territory

6.2. Philippine Archipelagic Doctrine
6.2.1.Article III, Treaty of Paris, Dec 10, 1898 (Spain ceded the P.I. to the U.S.)
6.2.2.US-Spain Treaty, Nov 7, 1900 (Cagayan, Sulu, and Sibutu)
6.2.3.US-Great Britain Treaty, Jan 2, 1930 (Turtle and Mangsee Islands)
6.2.4. 1935 Constitution (Batanes)

8
 6.2.5.1973 Constitution (territories by historic right or legal title)
6.2.6. R.A. 3046, Jun 17, 1961
6.2.7. R.A. 5446, Sep 8, 1968 (Sabah claim)
6.2.8.P.D. 1596, Jun 11, 1978 [other territories, claim over Kalayaan Island Group (KIG)]
6.2.9. P.D. 1599, Jun 11, 1978 (200 miles EEZ)

6.3.United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II and III) - Maritime Zones
6.3.1. Territorial Sea
6.3.2. Contiguous Zone
6.3.3. Exclusive Economic Zone
6.3.4. Continental Shelf
6.3.5. Extended Continental Shelf

6.4. Straight Baselines Method

1. R.A. 9522 (Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines)
2. Magallona vs. Ermita (G.R. No. 187167, July 16, 2011)

Cases:
1. Province of Cotabato vs. The Government of the RP Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (G.R. No. 183591,
October 14, 2008)
2. 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, July 12, 2016)

MODULE 7: ARTICLE II – DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

PRINCIPLES

Section 1
a. Democratic and Republican State
b. Separation of Powers
c. Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws
d. Rule of law
e. Rule of the majority (plurality in elections)
f. Bill of Rights
g. Accountability of Public Officials

Cases:
1) Villavicencio vs. Lukban (G.R. No. 14639, March 25, 1919)
2) Pablo Ocampo vs. HRET (G.R. No. 158466. June 15, 2004)
3) Free Telephone Workers Union vs. Ople (108 SCRA 757)
4) Legaspi vs. Secretary of Finance (115 SCRA 418)
5) The Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA) vs. ACCFA Supervisors’
Association, ACCFA Workers’ Association and the CIR (G.R. No. L-21484, November 29, 1969) 6) Valmonte
vs. Belmonte [170 SCRA 256 (1989)]

Section 2
a. Renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy
b. Incorporation Clause
c. Adherence Policy (peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, amity with nations)
d. Incorporation vs. Transformation

Cases:
1) Pangilinan et. al. vs. Cayetano (G.R. No. 238875, March 16, 2021)
2) Saguisag vs. Ochoa (G.R. No. 212426, July 26, 2016)
3) Air Canada vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue [778 SCRA 131 (2016)]
4) CBK Power Company Limited vs. CIR (G.R. No. 193407, January 14, 2015)
5) Arigo vs. Swift (G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014)
6) Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch vs CIR [704 SCRA 216 (2013)]
7) Vinuya vs. Romulo (G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010)
8) Nicolas vs. Romulo (G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009)
9) Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Phils. vs. Duque (G.R. No. 173034, October 9, 2007)
10) Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion [343 SCRA 377 (2000)]
11) Gov’t of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia, Jr. (G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007)
12) Gov’t of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Muñoz (G.R. No. 207342, August 16, 2016)
13) Agustin vs. Edu (G.R. No. L-49112, February 2, 1979)
9
 14) Gonzales vs. Hechanova (G.R. No. L-21897, October 22, 1963)
15) In Re: Garcia (2 SCRA 984, August 15, 1961)
16) Ichong vs. Hernandez (G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957)
17) Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons, 90 Phil. 70 (1952)
18) Kuroda vs. Jalandoni (G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1949)
19) R.A. 9851 - Philippine Act On Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law,Genocide and Other Crimes
Against Humanity

Section 3-5
a. Civilian Supremacy
b. Duty and Role of Government
c. Commander-in-chief clause, Article VII, Section 18
d. AFP in active service - Article XVI, Section 5 (4)
e. Respect for people’s rights - Article XVI, Section 5 (2)

Cases:
1. Gudani vs. Senga (G.R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006)
2. IBP vs. Zamora (G.R. No. 141284, August 12, 2000)
3. People vs. Lagman (G.R. No. 45892, July 13, 1938)
4. People vs. Manayao (78 Phil. 721)

STATE POLICIES

Section 6
a. Separation of State and Church
b. Free Exercise Clause
c. Benevolent Neutrality Doctrine
d. Clear and Present Danger Test
e. Compelling State Interest
1. Valmores vs. Achacoso (G.R. No. 217453, July 19, 2017)
2. Ronulo vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014)
3. Imbong vs. Ochoa (G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014)
4. Estrada vs. Escritor [A.M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006]
5. Taruc vs. Dela Cruz (G.R. No. 144801, March 10, 2005)
6. Re: Request of Muslim Employees in the Different Courts of Iligan (A.M. No. 02-2-10-SC, December 14,
2005)
7. German vs. Barangan (135 SCRA 514)
8. Fonacier vs. CA [96 Phil. 417 (1955)]
9. Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu [219 SCRA 256 (1993)]
10. Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union [59 SCRA 54 (1974)]
11. American Bible Society vs. City of Manila [181 Phil. 386 (1957)] 12. Pamil vs. Teleron (G.R. No. L-
34854, November 20, 1978)

f. Non-Establishment Clause
1. Peralta vs. Philippine Postal Corporation (Philpost) (G.R. No. 223395, December 4, 2018)
2. Ang Ladlad LGBT vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010)
3. Garces vs. Estenzo (104 SCRA 510)
4. Glassroth vs. Moore 229 [F. Supp. 2d 1290 (M.D. Ala. 2002)]
5. Epperson vs. Arkansas [33 U.S. 27 (1968)]
6. Lemon vs. Kurtzman [403 U.S. 602 (1971)
7. Schools District of Abington vs. Schempp [374 U.S. 203 (1973)]

g. Religious Test
1. Torcaso vs. Watkins [367 U.S. 488 (1961)]
2. In Re: Summers (325 US 561
3. People vs. Zosa (38 OG 1676)

h. Tax exemption - Art. VI, Sec. 28 (3)

i. Public aid to religion - Art. VI, Sec. 29 (2)
1. In Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano (A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, March 7, 2017)
2. Aglipay vs. Ruiz [64 Phil. 201 (1937)]
3. Islamic Da ‘wah Council vs. Executive Secretary [G.R. No. 153888, July 9, 2003]
4. Mueller vs. Allen [463 U.S. 388 (1983)]
5. Wallace vs. Jaffree [472 U.S. 38 (1985)]

j. Party-list Sectors (excluding religious sector) - Art. VI, Sec. 5(2)

10
 k. COMELEC registration of political parties, organizations or coalitions
(excluding religious denominations and sects) - Art. IX-C, Sec. 2(5)
l. Religious instruction in public schools - Art. XIV, Sec. 3(3)
m. Operation of Sectarian schools - Art. XIV, Sec. 4
n. Optional religious instruction - Civil Code, Art. 359(1)

Section 7-8
a. Independent foreign policy and nuclear free Philippines - Article II, Sections 7-8
b. Foreign military bases - Article XVIII, Sections 4 and 25

Cases:
1. Bayan vs. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000)
2. Lim vs. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 151445, April 11, 2002) SOCIAL JUSTICE, JUST
AND DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER, AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Related laws:
1. Social justice - Article II, Section 10; Article XIII
2. Respect for human dignity and human rights - Article II, Section 11; Article XIII, Sections 1, 17-19
3. Fundamental equality of women and men - Article II, Section 14; Article XIII, Section
4. Promotion of health and ecology - Article II, Sections 15 and 16; Article XIII, Section 11
5. Priority of education, science, technology, arts culture and sports - Article II, Section 17; Article XIII, Sections
15-16; Article XIV, Sections 1-19
6. Protection to labor, Article II, Section 18; Article XIII, Section 3
7. Self-reliant and independent economic order - Article II, Sections 19-20
8. Role of the private sector - Article II, Section 20
9. Reform in agriculture and other natural resources - Article II, Section 21; Article XIII, Sections 4-8
10.Role of People’s Organizations - Article II, Section 23; Article XIII, Sections 15-16
11.Independent people’s organization - Article II , Section 23; Article XIII, Sections 15-16
12.Urban land reform and housing - Article XIII, Sections 9-10

Section 9
Rep. Gerardo Espina et. al. vs. Exec. Sec. Ronaldo Zamora (G.R. No. 143855, September 21, 2010)

Section 10
1. Maglakas vs. NHA (G.R. No. 138823, September 17, 2008)
2. PLDT vs. NTC [190 SCRA 717 (1990)]
3. Salonga vs. Farrales (G.R. No. L-47088, July 10, 1981)
4. Ondoy vs. Ignacio (G.R. No. L-47178, May 16, 1980)
5. Almeda vs. CA (G.R. No. L-43800, July 29, 1977)
6. Calalang vs. Williams (G.R. No. 47800, December 2, 1940)
7. Association of Philippine Coconut Dessicators vs. Philippine Coconut Authority (G.R. No. 110526, February 10,
1998)
8. Maquera vs. Borja (G.R. No. L-24761, September 7, 1965)

Section 11
1. R.A. 9851 - Philippine Act On Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law,Genocide and Other Crimes
Against Humanity
2. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo - A.M. No. 07-09-12-SC
3. The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data - A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC
4. Secretary of National Defense vs. Manalo (G.R. No. 180906, October 7, 2008)
5. Caram vs. Segui [732 SCRA 86 (2014)]
6. De Lima vs. Gatdula [691 SCRA 226 (2013)]
7. Navia v. Pardico, 673 SCRA 618 (2012)
8. Balao vs. Macapagal-Arroyo [662 SCRA 312 (2011)]
9. Boac vs. Cadapan [649 SCRA 618 (2011)]
10. Razon, Jr. vs. Tagitis (G.R. No. 182498, December 3, 2009)

Section 14
1. Garcia vs. Drilon [699 SCRA 352 (2013)]
2. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co. vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 118978, May 23, 1997)

Section 15 & 16

1. C & M Timber Corporation vs. Alcala (G.R. No. 111088, June 13, 1997)
2. Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. CA (G.R. No. 110120, March 16, 1994)
3. Oposa vs. Factoran (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993)
4. Province of Rizal vs. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 129546, Dec. 13, 2005)
11
Section 18
1. JMM Promotion and Management vs. Court of Appeals (260 SCRA 319)
2. Bernardo vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 122917, July 12, 1999)
Section 21
1. Hacienda Luisita, Inc. vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (G.R. No. 171101, July 5, 2011)
2. Association of Small Land Owners in the Phils. vs. Sec. of DAR (G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989)

THE FAMILY AND ROLE OF THE YOUTH

Section 12-13
1. Republic vs. Albios [707 SCRA 584 (2013)]
2. Imbong vs. Ochoa (G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014)
3. Continental Steel Manufacturing Corp. vs. Montano (GR no. 182836, October 13, 2009)
4. Virtuoso vs. Municipal Judge (G.R. No. L-47841, March 21, 1978)
5. PACU vs. Secretary of Education (97 Phil 806)
6. Cabanas vs. Pilapil (58 SCRA 94)
7. Roe vs. Wade (410 US 113)
8. Meyer vs. Nebraska (262 US 390)
9. Pierce vs Society of Sisters (262 US 510)
10. Ginsberg vs. New York [(390 US 629 (1969)]
11. Angeles vs. Judge Sison [112 SCRA 26 (1982)]

Related laws:
1. E.O. 209 – Family Code of the Philippines
2. P.D. 603 – Child and Youth Welfare Code
3. R.A. 7610 - Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act
4. R.A. 9262 – Anti Violence Against Women and their Children (2004)
5. R.A. 10354 – Reproductive Health and Responsible Parenthood Act (2012)

EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE, AND SPORTS

Section 17
1. Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports - Article XIV
2. Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals (244 SCRA 770)
3. PRC vs. de Guzman (G.R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004)
4. Professional Regulation Commission vs. De Guzman (G.R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004)
5. Tablarin vs. Gutierrez [152 SCRA 370 (1987)]
6. U.P. BOR vs. C.A. (G.R. No. 134629, August 31, 1999)
7. Camacho vs. Coresis (G.R. No. 134372, August 22, 2002)

NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Section 19
1. National Economy and Patrimony - Article XI
2. Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408 (1997)
3. Roy III vs. Herbosa [810 SCRA 1 (2016)]
4. Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corporation vs. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corporation (G.R. No.
202877, December 9, 2015)
5. Gamboa vs. Teves (G.R. No. 176579, June 28, 2011)
6. Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait vs. Reyes [756 SCRA 513 (2015)]
7. La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramos (G.R. No. 127882, December 1, 2004)
8. Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment Through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. (IDEALS, Inc.) vs. Power
Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM) [682 SCRA 602 (2012)]
9. Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD) vs. Adala [526 SCRA 465 (2007)]
10. Tañada vs. Angara (G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997)
11. Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Phils. vs. Duque (G.R. No. 173034, October 9, 2007)
12. Garcia vs. Board of Investments (G.R. No. 92024, November 9, 1990)
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES

Section 22
1. Party-list sector - Article VI, Section 5(2)
2. Property rights and customary laws governing ancestral lands - Article XII, Section 5
3. Right to ancestral land - Article XIII, Section 6
4. Protection of indigenous cultural traditions and institutions - Article XIV, Section 17
5. Consultative body to advise the President on policies affecting indigenous cultural communities Article XVI,
Section 12
12
 6. R.A. 8371 - Indigenous People’s Rights Act (1997)
7. Cruz vs. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000)

COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION IN NATION-BUILDING

Section 24
1. PLDT vs. NTC (G.R. No. 88404, October 18, 1990)
2. Disini vs. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014)
3. R.A. 1017 - Data Privacy Act (2012)
4. R.A. 10175 - Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (Note: This will be discussed in the Module on Local Government for the 2 nd half of
the Semester.) Section 25
a. Local Government - Article X
b. Kinds of Autonomy
i. Administrative Autonomy
ii. Political Autonomy
c. R.A. 11054 - Bangsamoro Organic Law
d. R.A. 7160 - Local Government Code of 1991
i. Section 17 - Devolution ii. Section 528 - Deconcentration of powers

Cases:
1. Sema vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 177597, July 16, 2008)
2. Kida vs. Senate of the Philippines (G.R. No. 196271, February 28, 2012)
3. League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) vs. COMELEC (G.R. Nos. 176951, 177499, & 178056, April 12,
2011)
4. Navarro vs. Ermita (G.R. No. 180050, April 12, 2011)
5. Judge Dadoble vs. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 125350, December 3, 2002)
6. Miranda vs. Sandibanbayan [464 SCRA 165 (2005)]
7. Basco vs. PAGCOR (G.R. No. 91649, May 14, 1991)
8. Disomangcop vs. Datumanong [444 SCRA 203 (2004)]
9. Limbonas vs. Mangelin (G.R. No. 80391, February 28, 1989)

PUBLIC SERVICE AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

Section 26
1. Pamatong vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 161872, April 13 2004)
2. Ang Ladlad vs. COMELEC [618 SCRA 32 (2010)]

Section 27-28
1. Aquino-Sarmiento vs. Morato (G.R. No. 92541, November 13, 1991)
2. Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission (G.R. No. 72119, May 29, 1987)
3. Valmonte vs. Belmonte (G.R. No. 74930, February 13, 1989)
4. De Jesus vs. COA (G.R. 109023, August 12, 1998)
5. Antolin vs. Domondon [623 SCRA 163 (2010)]
6. Chavez vs. PEA & Amari (G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002)
7. Chavez vs. Presidential Commission on Good Government [299 SCRA 744 (1998)]

Related laws:
1. Right to information - Article III, Section 7
2. President’s health - Article VII, Section 12
3. Ombudsman - Article XI, Sections 4-6
4. SALN - Article XI, Sections 17
5. Publication of loan applications - Article VII, Section 20
6. Public foreign loans - Article XII, Section 21
7. Contracts with foreign groups, Article XII, Section 2 (5)
8. Conflict of Interest - books of account, Article VII, Sections 12 and 20
9. COA Annual Report - Article IX-D, Section 4
10.R.A. 6713 – Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (1989)
11.R.A. 3019 – Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
12.R.A. No. 1017 - Data Privacy Act (2012)

13