Political Law: People vs. Perfecto, G.R. No.
L-18463, October 4, 1922 Constitutional Convention, Providing for Proportional Representation Therein
Facts:
The controversy begin when the document are lost inside the vault and
electoral fraud and robbery of the Senators are discovered.
For a reason that Gregorio Perfecto wrote an article about the matter
mentioned above. The newspaper named La Nacion.
Under article 256 of the Penal Code, it is considered as an oral defamation
especially against the Spanish King.
Effectivity of 1987 Constitution: De Leon vs. Esguerra, G.R. No. L-78059,
August 31, 1987
Facts:
On May 17, 1982, Alfredo M. De Leon was elected Barangay Captain and the
other petitioners Angel S. Salamat, Mario C. Sta. Ana, Jose C. Tolentino,
Rogelio J. Dela Rosa and Jose M. Resurreccion, as Barangay Councilmen of
Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal under Batas Pambansa Blg. 222, otherwise
known as the Barangay Election aqct of 1982.
Respondent OIC Gorvernor Benjamin Esguerra on February 8, 1987
designating respondent Florentino G. Magno as Barangay Captain of
Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal.
Del Rosario vs. COMELEC, 35 SCRA 367
Facts:
Simeon Del Rosario filed a petition that pursuant to Sec. 19 of RA No. 6132
agaginst the Natioanl Treasures as well the Chairman and members of the
Commission as well as the members of the Commission on Elections, be
declared unconstitutional. There is a waste of public funds, because there is
no certain time for the duration of Constitutional Convention. There is a
pointless discussion. The title of act is “An Act Implementing Resolution of
Both Houses Numbered Four of the Congress of the Philippines Calling for a
and Other Details Relating to the Election of Delegates to and the Holding of
the Constitutional Convention, Repealing for the Purpose Republic Act Four
Thousand Nine Hundred Fourteen, and for Other Purpose.
Imbong vs. COMELEC, 35 SCRA 28
Facts:
Manuel B. Imbong and Raul M. Gonzales, both members of the Bar,
taxpayers and interested in running as candidates for delegates to the
Constitutional Convention. Claiming oral argument about the prejudices of
their rights as a candidate. November 1970 elections, Imbong and Gonzales
runs for two delegates of districts for Constituent Convention.
Lambino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006
Facts:
On 15 February 2006, Raul L. Lambino, and Erico B. Aumentado (Lambino
Group) with other groups and individuals, started gathering signatures for an
initiative petition filed in the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their
initiative petition.
The Lambino Group gathered 6,327, 952 signatures of individuals which
constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) of registered voters verified by
the COMELEC, with each legislative district represented by at least three per
centum (3%) of its registered voters.
The Lambino Group prays for the issuance writs of certiorari and mandamus,
The nature of the proposal changes as revisions and not mere amendments.
Santiago vs. COMELEC, supra
Facts:
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel
Ongpin filed this special civil action on December 18, 1996. The constitution
provisions on people’s initiative to amend constitution only by the law passed
by Congress, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago filed a senate bill entitled
“An Act Prescribing and Regulating Constitution Amendments by People’s
Initiative.” The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution,
not to revision thereof.
By Congress as Constituent Assembly
Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, G.R. No. L-1123, March 5, 1947
Tuason, J.:
Facts:
Eight senators and 17 representatives filed a petition for prohibition to prevent
a Congressional Resolution for a proposal to amend the Constitution. Three
of these plaintiff senators were suspended and eight of the plaintiff
representatives were not allowed to take sit in the lower house. Thus, they
were not allowed to take part in the passage of the questioned resolution, nor
was their membership reckoned within the computation of the necessary
three-fourths vote required in proposing an amendment to the constitution.
Occena vs. Commission, 104 SCRA 1
Facts:
Petitioners Samuel Occena and Ramon Gonzales, suing as taxpayers,
petitioned for the prohibition against the validity of the three Batasang
Pambansa Resolutions proposing constitutional amendments, which goes
further than merely assailing their constitutional infirmity.
Ramon A. Gonzales, petitioner, vs. Commission on Elections, Director
of Printing and Auditor General, respondents. G.R. No. L-28196,
November 9, 1967
Facts:
The Senate and the House of Representatives passed 3 resolutions,
proposing amendments to the Constitution the resolutions are the following:
First, proposing amendments to the Constitution so as to increase the
membership of the House of Representatives from a maximum of 120, as
provided in the present Constitution, to a maximum of 180.
Second, calling a convention to propose amendments to said Constitution, the
convention to be composed of two (2) elective delegates from each
representative district, to be elected in the general elections.
Third, proposing that the same Constitution be amended so as to authorize
Senators and members of the House of Representatives to become delegates
to the aforementioned constitutional convention, without forfeiting their
respective seats in Congress.
Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the President,
became Republic Act No. 4913 providing that the amendments to the
Constitution were proposed in the aforementioned resolutions.
By Constitutional Convention
Tan v. Macapagal
G.R. Nos. L-34161 February 29, 1972
Facts:
On October 6, 1971, a petition was filed by Eugene A. Tan, Silvestre J.
Acejas and Rogelio V. Fernandez regarding the declaratory relief as a tax
payers, but allegedly suing in behalf of themselves and the Filipino people,
questioning the validity of the range of the authority of the 1971 Constitutional
Convention. Tan and others seek although the convention was merely
empowered to propose improvements. However, on October 8,1971 a
resolution was issued by the Court dismissing the petition. Thus, a motion for
reconsideration was filed before the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the
Court said that it cannot exercise the competence petitioners would
erroneously assume it possesses, even assuming that they have the requisite
standing, which is the first question to be faced.
By People’s Initiative
Lambino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006
Facts:
On 15 February 2006, Raul L. Lambino, and Erico B. Aumentado (Lambino
Group) with other groups and individuals, started gathering signatures for an
initiative petition filed in the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their
initiative petition.
The Lambino Group gathered 6,327, 952 signatures of individuals which
constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) of registered voters verified by
the COMELEC, with each legislative district represented by at least three per
centum (3%) of its registered voters.
The Lambino Group prays for the issuance writs of certiorari and mandamus,
The nature of the proposal changes as revisions and not mere amendments.
Santiago vs. COMELEC, supra
Facts:
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel
Ongpin filed this special civil action on December 18, 1996. The constitution
provisions on people’s initiative to amend constitution only by the law passed
by Congress, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago filed a senate bill entitled
“An Act Prescribing and Regulating Constitution Amendments by People’s
Initiative.” The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution,
not to revision thereof.
Tolentino vs. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702
Facts:
The petitioners filed petition for prohibition to postpone the plebiscite at which
to propose the plebiscite at which to proposed constitutional amendment
“reducing the voting age” to eighteen years.
The original age is twenty-one years old that was passed in 1971
Constitutional Convention.
It was also provided therein that the plebiscite to ratify such partial
amendments that will be proposed in the future by the same Convention.
Petitioners now seek to restrain COMELEC on acting on such resolution.
Planas vs. COMELEC, 49 SCRA 105
Facts:
The Congress of the Philippines passed Resolution No. 2, which was
amended by Resolution No. 4 of said body, calling a Convention to propose
amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines.
The Proclamation No.1081 that place the entire Philippines under Martial
Law. The Convention approved its Proposed Constitution of the Republic of
the Philippines,
Presidential Decree No. 73 is about the submitting of the proposed
Constitution by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, The setting for the
proposed Constitution is plebiscite to ratify or reject.
UNIDO vs. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 17
Facts:
UNIDO, a political organization, appeal for “NO” votes to the amendments to
the Constitution of the Philippines of 1973 proposed by the Batasang
Pambansa.
The following rules and printing, and regulations on the use of the print media
and dissemination of printed political propaganda in the campaign for or
against the 1981 plebiscite questions.
Javellana vs. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 30
Facts:
Josue Javellana, the petitioner, filed Case G.R. No. L-36142 against the
Executive Secretary and the Secretaries of National Defense, Justice and
Finance, to restrain the said respondents to prevent their subordinates to
implement of the propose Constitution not found in the present Constitution.
The petitioner alleged that the President has no authority to create the
Citizens Assemblies, no power to approve the proposed Constitution, and the
President has no power to proclaim the ratification by the Filipino people of
the proposed Constitution,
The 1935 Constitution is being imposed by the petitioners, and 1973
Constitution is considered illegal and unconstitutional.
Manila Prince Hotel vs. Government Service Insurance System, 267
SCRA 408 (1997)
Facts:
The controversy begin when the Manila Prince Hotel is going to sell their
shares to respondents, Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).
The Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm will buy the 51% shares at P44.00 per
share, and Manila Hotel Corporation will buy the share and Manila Hotel
Corporation will buy the share at P 41.58. This is a closed bidding.
The contracts of (GSIS) said that whoever is the highest bidder they can
Stock Purchase and have Sale agreement. The petitioner filed petition for
prohibition and mandamus to temporary restraining order for consummating
the sale to the Malaysian firm.
Tondo Medical Employees Assiociation vs. CA, G.R. No. 167324, July
17,2007
Facts:
The DOH launched the Health Sector Reform Agenda (HSRA) to reform the 5
general areas:
(1) To provide fiscal autonomy to government hospitals;
(2) Secure funding for priority public health programs
(3) Promote the development of local health systems and ensure its
effective performance:
(4) Strengthen the capacities of health regulatory agencies; and
(5) Expand the coverage of the National Health Insurance Program (NHIP)
Government hospitals are going to be fiscal autonomy for an adequate and
competitive health service.
Petitioner assail that reforms had resulted in making fee medicine and free
medical service inaccessible to economically disadvantaged Filipinos.
Oposa vs. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993
Facts:
The petitioners are representing all minors and their respective parents.
The use of the national resources, such as country’s virgin tropical forests.
They are concerned with the preservation of the resource and to protect the
future generations to come.
Magallona vs. Ermita, 655 SCRA 476 (2011)
Facts:
The petitioners are professors of law, law students and a legislator, as their
capacities of being taxpayers or legislator. These are the two principals
grounds that assess the constitutionality of RA 9522:
(1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, And logically, the reach
of the Philippine state’s sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the
1987 Constitution embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris and
ancillary treaties and
(2) RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the baselines to
maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine
sovereignty and national security, contravening the country’s nuclear-
free policy and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant
constitutional provisions.
 The RA 3046 correct the typographical errors because the baselines is
drawn around Sabah in North Borneo, while RA 9522 shorten the
baseline. The petitioners contend that RA 9522 treatment of the Kalayaan
Island Group (KIG) the result would limit the marine territory and the
fishermen cannot have their livelihood.

Philippines vs. China Arbitral Award (ITLOS) 12 July 2016

Facts:

China claims that in historic basis through nine-dash line the Scarborough
shore, and Spartly Islands including Kalayaan Island Group are theirs. 
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Annex VII
makes provision dispute settlements mechanisms:
1. The International Tribunal on the Law of the sea (ITLOS)
2. International Court of Justice (ICJ)
3. Arbitral Tribunal
4. Special Arbitral
Philippine nominated a judge to represents its interest but China did not
nominate one. The Arbitral Tribunal is an ad hoc body, it has no premises,
library, legal archive, or administration and support staff. The Permanent
Court of Arbitration is an oldest in the world but it is not part of United Nations.

William C. Reagan vs. CIR, G.R. No. L-26379, December 27, 1969

Facts:

The petitioner, William C. Reagan is an American civilian employee providing

technical assistance to the United States Air Force in the Philippines.

The dispute is about the payment of the Income tax assessed on by

respondent of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on an amount that was
sell in his automobile. The areas not foreign territories both in political and
geographical sense.