SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES
De Leon v. ESGUERRA
The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a
plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date,
therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be
deemed to have been superseded. (Effectivity
is immediately upon ratification)
Gonzales v. COMELEC
Nature of power to amend the Constitution or to
propose amendments thereto: not inherent
power of Congress but of the people;
constituent power of Congress
Tolentino v. COMELEC
The condition and limitation that all the
amendments to be proposed by the same
convention must be submitted in a single

election or plebiscite.
Imbong v. COMELEC
Competence of Congress acting as Constituent
Assembly: Authority to call constitutional
convention as Constituent Assembly in
enacting implementing details.
Sanidad v. COMELEC
-Presidential exercise of legislative powers
(and proposing amendments) is valid in martial
law.
-Amending process is a sovereign act, although
the authority to institute the same and the
procedure to be followed reside somehow in a
particular body (Pres. Marcos).
Santiago v. COMELEC
The right of the people to directly propose
amendments to the Constitution through the
system of initiative would remain entombed in a
cold niche until Congress provides for its
implementation. Section 2 of Article XVII is not
self-executing.

Lambino v. COMELEC
Essence of people's initiative: (1) people must
author; (2) they must sign the proposal; (3)
proposal is embodied in petition
CONCEPT OF STATE
Bacani vs NACOCO
The mere fact that the Government happens to
be a major stockholder of a corporation does
not make it a public corporation.
Distinction between constituent and ministrant
functions.
PVTA vs CIR
Distinction between constituent and ministrant
functions obsolete.
Government has to provide for general welfare.
Gov. of the Phil. Islands vs. Monte de Piedad
Doctrine of Parens Patriae (state as guardian
of the people)

Transfer of sovereignty; effect on laws:

- abrogation of laws in conflict with the political
character of the substituted sovereign (political
law).
- great body of municipal law regarding private
and domestic rights continue in force until
abrogated or changed by new ruler.
Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh
Continuity of Law: Law, once established,
continues until changed by some competent
legislative power (not changed by mere change
of sovereignty)
All acts and proceedings of the 3 gov. depts. of
a de facto government are good and valid.
Kinds of De facto government:
(1) de facto proper government obtained by
force or voice of the majority
(2) paramount force by military forces who
invade the territory
(3) independent government established by
inhabitants through insurrection
Republic of the Philippines (during Japanese
occupation) was a de facto government.

People vs Gozo
Principle of Auto-limitation: Extent of Philippine
sovereignty over American bases Philippine
Government has not abdicated its sovereignty
over the bases as part of the Philippine
territory.
Laurel vs Misa
Nature of Allegiance to sovereign: Absolute and
permanent
Effect of enemy occupation: sovereignty of the
government not transferred to occupier
Ruffy v Chief of Staff
The rule that laws of political nature or affecting
political relations are considered superseded or
held in abeyance during the military
occupation, is intended for the governing of the
civil inhabitants of the occupied territory and
not for the enemies in arms.

STATE IMMUNITY
Sanders v Veridiano
Mere allegation that a government functionary
is being sued in his personal capacity will not
automatically remove him from the protection of
the laws of public officers and doctrine of state
immunity
Doctrine of state immunity applicable also to
other states.
Republic v Sandoval
State cannot be held liable for the deaths that
followed the incident; liability should fall on the
public officers who committed acts beyond their
authority
3 instances when suit is proper:
1. when sued by its name
2. when unincorporated government agency is
sued
3. when the suit is against a government
employee but liability belongs to the
government

Festejo v Fernando
Officer or employee committing the tort is
personally liable and maybe sued as any other
citizen and held answerable for whatever injury
USA vs Guinto
- A state may be said to have descended to the
level of an individual and can thus be deemed
to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only
when it enters into business contracts.
Veterans Manpower vs CA
- The state is deemed to have given tacitly its
consent to be sued when it enters into a
contract. However, it does not apply where the
contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign
functions.

waives its immunity from suit. It does not

thereby concede its liability to the plaintiff, or
create any cause of action in his favor, or
extend its liability to any cause not previously
recognized. It merely gives remedy to enforce a
pre-existing liability and submit itself to the
jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to
interpose any lawful defense.
Amigable vs. Cuenca
The government, when it takes away a property
from a private land owner for public use without
going through the legal process of
expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved
party may properly maintain a suit against the
government without thereby violating the
doctrine of governmental immunity from suit.
This doctrine cannot be used in perpetrating
injustice to a citizen.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

The Merritt vs Govt of the Phil

- By consenting to be sued, a state simply

- When the state files an action, it divests itself of

the sovereign character and shed its immunity

form suit, descending to the level of an ordinary

litigant.
Republic vs. Feliciano
- failure to allege in the complaint the existence of
consent by the State is a fatal defect (construction
must be strict against conferment of waiver
- Immunity may be invoked by the courts at any
point/stage of the proceedings.
USA vs. Ruiz
Restrictive Application of State Immunity to
foreign states: States may be sued when the
proceedings arise out of commercial transactions
of the foreign sovereign.

over any real action relating to private

immovable property situated in the territory of
the receiving state which the envoy holds on
behalf of the sending state for the purposes of
the mission
Republic vs. Villasor
- Judgment against the State cannot be
enforced by execution. It may limit claimants
action only up to the completion of proceedings
anterior to the state of execution. Power of
courts end when judgment is rendered.
[suability vs. liability]
- Functions and public services cannot be
allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the
disruption of public funds.
Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC

The Holy See v Rosario, Jr.

Pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic envoy is
granted immunity from the civil and
administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state

- Not all contracts entered into by the

government operate as a waiver of its nonsuability. Distinction must still be made
between one which is executed in the exercise
of its sovereign function and another which is

done in the proprietary capacity.

- State gives consent upon moneyed claim
arising from contract.

- Non-suability of the State is available to the

agency even if it is shown that it is engaged not
only in governmental functions but also,
incidentally, in proprietary enterprises
(unincorporated agency).

PNB vs. Pabalan

- State immunity from suit cannot be validly
invoked with regard to funds of public
corporations.
- [suable corporations] Public funds of
corporations which can sue and be sued are
not exempt from gaarnishment.
Rayo vs. CFI of Bulacan
- The character of an incorporated agency allows
it to sue and be sued without qualification
Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing
Employees Assoc.
- Acceptance of outside work and payment of
overtime compensation does not make work of
Bureau of Printing proprietary.

Mobil Phils. Exploration, Inc. vs. CA

If an agencys function is deemed proprietary, if
such is a necessary incident of the primary and
gov. function of such agency, such agency is not
suable (for an unincorporated agency only).
Civil Aeronautics Administration v. Court of
Appeals
- Not all government entities whether corporate
or not are immune from suits. Immunity from
suits is determined by the character of the
objects for which the entity was organized.
- Suits against State agencies with relation to
matters in which they have assumed to act in
private or non-governmental capacity, and
various suits against certain corporations
created by the State to engage In matters
partaking more of the nature of ordinary

business are not regarded as suits against the

State.
Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Judge
Firme
The test of liability of the municipality depends
on whether or not the driver acting in behalf of
the municipality is performing governmental or
proprietary functions. It has already been
remarked that municipal corporations are
suable because their charters grant them the
competence to sue and be sued. Nevertheless,
they are generally not liable for torts committed
by them in the discharge of governmental
functions and can be held answerable only if it
can be shown that they were acting in a
proprietary capacity. In permitting such entities
to be sued, the state merely gives the
claimants the right to show the defendant was
not acting in its governmental capacity when
the injury was inflicted or that the case comes
under the exceptions recognized by law. Failing
this, the claimants cannot recover.

Municipal funds in possession of municipal and

provincial treasurers are public funds exempt
from execution. Municipal funds are held in
trust for the people intended and used for the
accomplishments of the purposes for which
municipal corporations are created and that to
subject said properties and public funds to
execution would materially impede, even defeat
and in some instance destroy said purposes.
Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals
When a municipality fails or refuses without
justifiable reason to effect payment of a final
money judgment rendered against it, the
claimant may avail of the remedy of mandamus
in order to compel the enactment and approval
of the necessary appropriation ordinance and
the corresponding disbursement of municipal
funds.

Fundamental Principles and State Policies

Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez

Section 1
Villavicencio v. Lukban:
Mayors act is unconstitutional. It was not
authorized by any law or ordinance. Our
government is a government of laws and not of
men.
Section 2
Kuroda v. Jalandoni:
think Japanese Lieutenant-General charged
before the military commission.
Held: The Philippines can adopt the rules and
regulations laid down on the Hague and
Geneva Conventions notwithstanding that it is
not a signatory thereto. It embodied generally
accepted principles of international law binding
upon all states.

Agustin v. Edu:

think triangular reflectorized early warning

devices.
Held: Legislative enactment is not necessary in
order to authorize the issuance of LOI
prescribing the use of triangular reflectorized
early warning devices. This is also an
illustration of generally accepted principles of
international law (Pacta sunt servanda).
Ichong v. Hernandez:
think Retail Trade Nationalization Law which is
against the principle of Pacta sunt
servanda.Held: the Retail Trade Nationalization
Law is not unconstitutional because it was
passed in the exercise of the police power
which cannot be bargained away through the
medium of a treaty.
Gonzales v. Hechanova:
Prevalence of National or Municipal law over
International law: Constitution authorizes the
nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts
with the fundamental law, but also when it runs

counter to an act of Congress.

In re Garcia
A treaty cannot modify regulations governing
admission to Philippine bar (that would be an
encroachment upon Supreme Court by the
Executive)
Section 3
IBP vs. Zamora
the deployment of the Marines does not
constitute a breach of the civilian supremacy
clause. The calling of the marines in this case
constitutes permissible use of military asset for
civilian law enforcement. x x x The limited
participation of the Marines is evident in the
provisions of the Letter of Instruction (LOI)
itself, which sufficiently provides the metes and
bounds of the Marines authority. It is
noteworthy that the local police forces are the
ones charge of the visibility patrols at all times,

the real authority belonging to the PNP. In fact,

the Metro Manila Police Chief is the overall
leader of the PNP-Marines joint visibility
patrols.
Under the LOI, the police forces are tasked to
brief or orient the soldiers on police patrol
procedures. It is their responsibility to direct
and manage the deployment of the
marines. It is, likewise, their duty to provide the
necessary equipment to the Marines
and render logistic support to these soldiers. In
view of the foregoing, it cannot be
properly argued that military authority is
supreme over civilian authority.
It is worth mentioning that military assistance to
civilian authorities in various
forms persists in Philippine jurisdiction. The
Philippine experience reveals that it is not
averse to requesting the assistance of the
military in the implementation and execution
of certain traditionally civil functions. x x x
Some of the multifarious activities wherein
military aid has been rendered, exemplifying
the activities that bring both the civilian and
the military together in a relationship of
cooperation are:
1. Elections;

2. Administration of the Philippine National Red

Cross;
3. Relief and rescue operations during
calamities and disasters;
4. Amateur sports promotion and development;
5. Development of the culture and the arts;
6. Conservation of the natural resources;
7. Implementation of the agrarian reform
program;
8. Enforcement of customs laws;
9. Composite civilian-military law enforcement
activities;
10. Conduct of licensure examinations;
11. Conduct of nationwide test for elementary
and high school students;
12. Anti-drug enforcement activities;
13. Sanitary inspections;
14. Conduct of census work;
15. Administration of the Civil Aeronautic
Board;
16. Assistance in installation of weather
forecasting devices;
17. Peace and order policy formulation in local
government units.
This unquestionably constitutes a gloss on
executive power resulting from a
systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long

pursued to the knowledge of Congress

and, yet, never before questioned. What we
have here is a mutual support and
cooperation between the military and civilian
authorities, not derogation of civilian
supremacy.
Section 4
People vs. Lagman
- Case at bar: accused is prosecuted for failure
to register for military service under the
National Defense Act
- SC upheld the National Defense Act. To leave
an organization of an army to the will of the
citizens would be to make this duty of the
Government excusable should there be no
sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein.
Section 5
Chavez vs. Romulo
Right to bear arms: It is statutory and not a
constitutional right. The license to carry a
firearm is neither a property nor a property

right. Neither does it create a vested right.

Even if it were a property right, it cannot be
considered absolute as to be placed beyond
the reach of police power. The maintenance of
peace and order, and the protection of the
people against violence are constitutional
duties of the State, and the right to bear firearm
is to be construed in connection and in
harmony with these constitutional duties.
Section 6
Aglipay vs. Ruiz
-There is no violation of the principle of the
separation of church and state. The issuance
and sale of the stamps in question may be said
to be linked with an event of a religious
character, but the resulting propaganda, if any,
received by the Catholic Church, was not the
aim and purpose of the government. The idea
behind the issuance of the postage stamps was
to attract tourists to our country and not
primarily the religious event.
- What is guaranteed by our Constitution is
religious liberty , not mere religious toleration.

However, religious freedom is not inhibition of

profound reverence for religion and is not a
denial of its influence in human affairs.
Austria vs. NLRC
an ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship
between the church and its members and
relates to matter of faith, religious doctrines,
worship and governance of the congregation.
Examples of these affairs in which the State
cannot meddle are proceedings for
excommunication, ordination of religious
ministers, administration of sacraments, and
other activities to which is attached religious
significance. In this case, what is involved is
the relationship of the church as an employer
and the minister as an employee. It is purely
secular and has no relation whatsoever with
the practice of faith, worship or doctrine of the
church.

Section 10

Calalang vs. Williams

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

our social and economic life, consistent with

the fundamental and paramount objective of
the state of promoting the health, comfort, and
quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the
greatest good to the greatest number.
Almeda vs. CA
-There exists a tenants right of redemption in
sugar and coconut lands. Pursuant to
Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963, it
recognizes share tenancy in sugar lands which
is in consonance with the States promotion of
social justice wherein it may regulate the
acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment and
disposition of private property, and equitably
diffuse propertyownership and profits.
Ondoy .vs. Ignacio
-The principle of social justice applied in this
case is a matter of protection, not equality. The
Court recognized the right of the petitioner to
the claim of compensation because her son
was shown to have died while in the actual
performance of his work. To strengthen the

constitutional scheme of social justice and

protection to labor, The Court made mention
that as between a laborer, usually poor and
unlettered, and the employer, who has
resources to secure able legal advice, the law
has reason to demand from the latter the
stricter compliance.

It is incompetent for the government to prohibit

the teaching of a foreign language to students.
There is nothing harmful in the language that
will impair the upbringing of the child.
Pierce vs. Society of Sisters

Salonga vs. Farrales

-The plea of social justice of the plaintiff cannot
be considered because it was shown that no
contract, either to sell or of sale, was ever
perfected between him and the defendant. It
must be remembered that social justice cannot
be invoked to trample on the rights of property
owners who under our Constitution and laws
are also entitled to protection. The social justice
consecrated in our Constitution was not
intended to take away rights from a person and
give them to another who is not entitled thereto.

Section 12
Meyer vs. Nebraska

State may not require children to attend only

public schools. The child is not a creature of
the State.
Virtuouso vs. Municipal Judge
Youthful Offender: A person charged with an
offense but found to be a youthful offender
could be provisionally released on
recognizance at courts decision.

Section 14

PT&T Co. vs. NLRC

the SC held that the petitioners policy of not
accepting or considering as disqualified from
work any woman worker who contracts
marriage, runs afoul of the test of, and the right
against, discrimination, which is guaranteed all
women workers under the Constitution. While a
requirement that a woman employee must
remain unmarried may be justified as a bona
fide occupational qualification where the
particular requirements of the job would
demand the same, discrimination against
married women cannot be adopted by the
employer as a general principle.

Section 16
Oposa vs. Factoran
[Intergenerational Responsibility /
Intergenerational Justice] the 34 minors duly
joined by their respective parents pleading the
cause of inter-generational responsibility and
inter-generational justice, had a valid cause of

action in questioning the grant of Timber

Licensing Agreements (TLAs) for commercial
logging purposes. The minors filed the action
for themselves as representing their
generation as well as generations yet unborn.
The SC, on the basis of Section 16, Article II
linked with the right to health, recognized a
right to a balanced and healthful ecology and
the correlative duty to refrain from impairing
the environment.
LLDA v. CA
The immediate response to the demands of
necessities of protecting vital public interests
gives vitality to the statement on ecology
embodied in the Declaration of Principles and
State Policies of the 1987 Constitution. Article
II, Section 16. As a constitutionally guaranteed
right of every person, it carries the correlative
duty of non-impairment. This is but the
consonance with the declared policy of the
state to protect and promote the right to health
of the people and instill health consciousness
among them.

C&M Timber Corporation vs. Alcala

On the issue that the total log ban is a new
policy which should be applied prospectively
and not affect the rights of petitioner vested
under the Timber Licensing Agreement (TLA),
the Sc held that this is not a new policy but a
mere reiteration of the policy of conservation
and protection the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology.
Section 17
PRC vs. De Guzman
while it is true that the SC has upheld the
constitutional right of every citizen to select a
profession or course of study subject to fair,
reasonable, and equitable admission and
academic requirements, the exercise of this
right may be regulated pursuant to the police
power of the State to safeguard health, morals,
peace, education, order, safety and general
welfare. Thus, persons who desire to engage in
the learned professions requiring scientific or

technical knowledge may be required to take

an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in
their chosen careers. This regulation assumes
particular pertinence in the field of medicine, in
order to protect the public from the potentially
deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance.
PMMS, Inc. vs. CA
the Court said that the requirement that a
school must first obtain government
authorization before operating is based on the
State policy that educational programs and/or
operations shall be of good quality and,
therefore, shall at least satisfy minimum
standards with respect to curricula, teaching
staff, physical plant and facilities and
administrative and management viability.
Section 18
Bernardo vs. NLRC
The SC held that the Magna Carta for Disabled
Persons mandates that qualified disabled
persons be granted the same terms and

conditions of employment as qualified able

bodied employees; thus, once hey have
attained the status of regular workers, they
should be accorded all the benefits granted by
law, notwithstanding written or verbal contracts
to the contrary. This treatment is rooted not
merely in charity or accommodation, but in
justice for all.
Section 19
Garcia vs. BOI
BOI committed grave abuse of discretion
because it repudiates the independent policy of
government to run its affairs the way it deems
best for the national interest.
Every provision of the Constitution on the
national economy and patrimony is infused with
the spirit of national interest. The nonalienation of national resources, the State full
control over the development and utilization of
contributions to the economic growth and
general welfare of the country and the
regulation of foreign investment in accordance

to national goals and priorities are too explicit

not to be noticed and understood.
Section 20
Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators
vs. PCA,
the SC said that although the Constitution
enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it
nevertheless reserves to the Government the
power to intervene whenever necessary for the
promotion of the general welfare as reflected in
Sections 6 & 19 of Article XII.
Pest Management Association of the Philippines
vs. Fertilizer and Pesticide
Authority, and Pharmaceutical and Health
Care Association of the Philippines vs. Sec.
Duque III
Despite the fact that our present Constitution
enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it
nevertheless reserves to the Government the
power to intervene whenever necessary to

promote the general welfare. Free enterprise

does not call for removal of protective
regulations. It must be clearly explained and
proven by competent evidence just exactly how
such protective regulation would result in the
restraint of trade.

Local Autonomy under 1987 Constitution

simply means the decentralization and does
not make the local governments sovereign
within the State or an imperium imperio.
LIMBONA VS MANGELIN

Section 21
ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHIL.
vs. SEC. OF AGRARIAN REFORM
Eminent domain is an inherent power of the
State that enables it to forcibly acquire private
lands intended for public use upon payment of
just compensation to the owner. Private rights
must yield to the irresistible demands of the
public interest on the time-honored justification,
as in the case of the policed power, that the
welfare of the people is the supreme law.

Section 25
BASCO VS PAGCOR

Decentralization of administration is merely

delegation of administrative powers to the
LGUs in order to broaden the base of
governmental power. Decentralization of power
is the abdication by the national government
powers.
Section 26
Pamatong vs. COMELEC
- There is no constitutional right to run for or
hold public office and, particularly, to seek the
presidency. What is recognized is merely a
privilege subject to limitations imposed by law.
Section 26, Article II of the Constitution neither
bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege
to the level of an enforceable right. There is

nothing in the plain language of the provision

which suggests such a thrust or justifies an
interpretation of the sort. The "equal access"
provision is a subsumed part of Article II of the
Constitution, entitled "Declaration of Principles
and State Policies." The provisions under the
Article are generally considered not selfexecuting, and there is no plausible reason for
according a different treatment to the "equal
access" provision. Like the rest of the policies
enumerated in Article II, the provision does not
contain any judicially enforceable constitutional
right but merely specifies a guideline for
legislative or executive action. The disregard of
the provision does not give rise to any cause of
action before the courts.
Section 30

Valmonte vs de Villa
The constitutional right to information is limited
on matters of public concern and is further
subject to such limitations as may be provided
by law. However, although citizens are afforded
the right to information, the Constitution does
not accord them the right to compel the
custodians of official records to prepare lists,
abstracts, summaries and the like in their
desire to acquire information of public concern.
Aquino-Sarmiento vs Morato
- When a committee or board is created as
public in its very existence and character such
as the MTRCB, there can be no valid claim to
privacy. Here, decisions of Board and individual
voting slips are public in character.

Legspi vs CSC
The constitutional right to information on
matters of public concern is self-executing
without the need for any ancillary act of
legislation.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

In re Manzano
- Members of the SC and other courts shall not
be designated to any agency performing quasijudicial or administrative functions.
- The committee performs administrative
function* which under Section 12, Article VIII of
the Constitution prohibits members of the SC
and other courts established by law to be
designated to any agency performing quasijudicial or administrative functions. To quote CJ
Fernando in Garcia vs. Macaraig, he said that
while the doctrine of separation of powers is a
relative theory not to be enforced with pedantic
rigor, the practical demands of government
precluding its doctrine application, it cannot
justify a member of the judiciary being required
to assume a position or perform a duty nonjudicial in character.
Administrative functions are those which
involves the regulation and control the
conduct and affairs of individuals for their
own welfare and the promulgation of rules
and regulations to better carry out the policy
of the legislative or such as are devolved
upon the administrative agency by the

organic law of its existence.

Angara vs. Electoral Commission

- Separation of powers as actual division than
obtained through express provision
- Judiciary is the only Constitutional Arbiter to
allocate Constitutional Boundaries
- Judicial Supremacy = supremacy of the
Constitution asserted by the judiciary (not
supremacy of the judiciary itself)
- Judicial Review is limited to Actual Litigation.
Judiciary does not pass upon questions of
wisdom, justice or expediency of litigation.
- The Electoral Commission is an independent,
impartial, and non-partisan tribunal. The sole
power to determine contests regarding the
elections, returns, and qualifications of the
members of the National Assembly has been
transferred in totality to the Electoral
Commission. Its power is clear, complete, and
exclusive.
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA

- Legislative discretion as to the substantive

contents of the law cannot be delegated. What
can be delegated is the discretion to determine
how the law may be enforced.
- Completeness test and Sufficient Standard
Test:
Completeness Test = complete in all its terms
and conditions when it leaves the legislature
such that what is left is merely its enforcement.
Sufficient Standard Test = adequate guidelines
or limitations in the law to map out the
boundaries of the delegates authority and
prevent the delegation from running riot.
- Subordinate Legislation = delegated power to
issue rules to carry out the general provision of
the statute. (Administrative bodies implement
the broad policies by promulgating their
supplementary regulations.)
Casibang vs. Aquino
- Political Question = question of policy;
question to be decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity or full discretionary authority
- Justiciable Question = implies a given right,
legally demandable and enforceable; an act or

omission violative of such right, and a remedy,

granted or sanctioned by law for said breach of
right.
Sanidad v. COMELEC
On whether the case is justiciable
Political questions are associated with the
wisdom of the legality of a particular act. Where
the vortex of the controversy refers to the
legality or validity of the contested act, that
matter is definitely justiciable or non-political. If
the Constitution provides how it may be
amended, the judiciary as the interpreter of that
Constitution, can declare whether the
procedure followed or the authority assumed
was valid or not.
On whether the President may propose
Constitutional amendments
If the President has been legitimately
discharging the legislative functions of the
interim Assembly, there is no reason why he
cannot validly discharge the function of that
Assembly to propose amendments to the
Constitution, which is but an adjunct, although

peculiar, to its gross legislative power.

(Note that at the time Prez. Marcos had
legislative powers and there was no legislative
department at the time)
Daza v. Singson
Where the legality or validity of the act is in
question and not the wisdom of the act, the
Court may take jurisdiction and decide on the
acts validity. Even in political questions the
Court may take jurisdiction under the expanded
judicial power extended to it by Art 8 Sec. 1 of
the Constitution.
(Judicial power includes the duty to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and 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 Government.)
Delegation of Powers

Garcia v. Exec. Secretary

The Congress may authorize the President to
fix tariff rates and duties subject to such
limitations and restrictions that they may
impose. This is expressly provided for in Art 6,
Sec 28 par 2 of the Constitution.
Araneta v. Dinglasan
The delegation of emergency powers by
Congress to the President may be limited by
Congress subject to restrictions it may provide.
Congress may withdraw the delegated power
at any time. In this case, the emergency power
was withdrawn at the time Congress became
able to exercise its legislative duties again.
Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA
The principle of non-delegation of powers is
applicable to all three branches of government
specifically in the case of the legislative. What
can be delegated is the discretion to determine
how the law may be enforced and not what the

law shall be since the ascertainment of the

latter subject is within the prerogative and
determination of the legislature. Delegation of
legislative power is permitted and valid
provided that is passes the two accepted testscompleteness test and the sufficient standard
test. The reason for such delegation is the
increasing complexity of the task of the
government and the growing inability of the
legislature to cope directly with the myriad
problems demanding its attention.
Rodriguez v. Gella
Act No. 671 was expressly in pursuance of the
constitutional limitation of the delegation of
emergency powers. It is presumed that the
National Assembly intended it to be for a limited
period. Executive Orders Nos. 545 and 546,
which was anchored to the said Act are
declared null and void and the respondents are
ordered to desist from appropriating, releasing
and allotting expending funds set aside therein.
People v. Vera
Act No. 4221 is tantamount to an undue

delegation of legislative power. The powers of

the government are distributed among three
coordinate and substantially independent
organs: the legislative, the executive and the
judicial. Each of the departments of the
government derives its authority from the
Constitution.
US vs. Ang Tang Ho
If the act within itself does not define a crime
and is not complete, legislative act remains to
be done to make it a law or a crime, the doing
of which is vested in the Gov, generally, the act
is a delegation of legislative power, and is thus
unconstitutional and void.
Ynot vs. IAC
There is no standard that the officials must
observe in determining to whom to distribute
the confiscated carabaos and carabeef. There
is thus an invalid delegation of legislatie power.
Tablarin vs. Gutierez
Because the necessity standards are set forth in the
statute (RA No. 2383), providing for standardization

and regulation of education, delegation is valid.

representative.
Mariano Jr. v. Comelec

Pelaez vs. Auditor General

The two tests (Completeness test and Sufficient
Standard test) must be applied together.
Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita
Where the effectivity of the law is made dependent
on the verification by the executive of the existence
of certain conditions, the verification is delegated to
the executive. (This is an example of contingent
legislation - a valid delegation of law execution).

As decided in Tobias v. Abalos, the Constitution

provides that the compositions of the House
should not be more than 250 members, unless
otherwise provided by law. The natural result in
the creation of a new legislative from a special
law whose purpose is to convert a municipality
into a city is sanctioned by the Constitution.
Montejo v. Comelec
The Comelec has no power to reapportion
districts but only to make minor adjustments.

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 5
Tobias v. Abalos
The creation of a new congressional district is
but a natural consequence of a municipalitys
conversion into a city. The Constitution
provides that a city should have a population
of at least 250,000 and is entitled to at least 1

Republic Act No. 7941 An act providing for the

election of the party-list representatives through
the party-list system and appropriating funds
therefrom.
Section 13
Zandueta vs. De la Costa

When a judge of first instance, presiding over a

branch of a Court of First Instance of a judicial
district by virtue of a legal and valid
appointment, accepts another appointment to
preside over the same branch of the same
Court of First Instance, in addition of another
Court of First Instance to the old one, enters
into the discharge of the functions of his new
office and receives the corresponding salary,
he abandons his old office and cannot claim to
be entitled to repossess it or question the
constitutionality of the law by virtue of which his
new appointment has been issued; and, said
new appointment having been disapproved by
the Commission on Appointments of the
National Assembly, neither can he claim to
continue occupying the office conferred upon
him by said new appointment, having ipso jure
ceased in the discharge of the functions
thereof.

No Member of the Batasang Pambansa shall

appear as counsel before any court without
appellate jurisdiction, before any court in any
civil case wherein the Government, or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof
is the adverse party, or in any criminal case
wherein any officer or employee of the
Government is accused of an offense
committed in relation to his office,or before any
administrative body.
Neither shall he, directly or indirectly be
interested financially in any contract with, or in
any franchise or special privilege granted by
the Government, or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including any
government-owned or controlled corporation,
during his term of office.
He shall not accept employment to intervene in
any cause or matter where he may be called to
act on account of his office.

Section 14
Section 16
Puyat vs. De Guzman
Santiago vs. Guingona, Jr.

Where no provision of the Constitution, the

laws or even the rules of the Senate has been
clearly shown to have been violated,
disregarded or overlooked, grave abuse of
discretion cannot be imputed to Senate officials
for acts done within their competence and
authority.

Constitution. Also, Congress has the inherent

legislative prerogative of suspension.
PAREDES, JR. VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Sandiganbayan has the authority to suspend a
district representative in violation of the AntiGraft Law as it is being imposed on the
representative NOT as a member of the House.

Avelino vs. Cuenco

U.S. VS PONS
The constitutional grant to the Senate of the
power to elect its own president should not be
interfered with, nor taken over, by the judiciary.
When the constitution declares that a majority
of each House shall constitute a quorum, it
does not mean all of its members. Majority of
all the members constitute the House. Hence,
12 senators who unanimously voted constitute
a majority of 23 senators (10 walked out, 1 out
of the country).

The Court may not go beyond the the recitals

of the legislative journals for the purpose of
determining the date of adjournment when
such journal are clear and explicit. To inquire
the veracity of journals, when they are clear
and explicit, would be to violate both the letter
and spirit of the laws, to invade the coordinate
and independent department of the
government and to interfere with the legitimate
powers and functions of the Legislature.
CASCO PHIL CHEMICAL CO VS GIMENEZ

OSMEA VS. PENDATUN

The House is the judge of what constitutes
disorderly behavior as conferred upon by the

Enrolled bill doctrine- the term urea

formaldehyde is conclusive upon the courts as
regards the tenor of the measure passed by the

Congress and approved by the President.

Section 18
Daza vs Singson
- The sense of the Constitution is that the
membership in the COA must always reflect political
alignments and must adjust to changes. Nowhere,
however, in the Constitution require that the party
must be a registered party.
Coseteng vs Mitra
- Endorsement of other representatives (in COA)
cannot be counted in favor of a representative if they
do not belong to the latter's party.
Guingona vs Gonzales
- Full complement of 12 seats in COA is not
mandatory
Rounding out 0.5 to 1 is unconstitutional as it would
deprive other parties of seats in COA.
Sec. 21:
Bengzon vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
- Investigation was not in aid of legislation where it
merely aims at determining whether a law is violated.

To allow such investigation is to violate separation of

powers.
Arnault vs Nazareno
- Power of Investigation includes power to punish a
contumacious witness for contempt. Experience has
shown that mere requests for information are
frequently unavailing.
- In aid of legislation - not difficult to satisfy.
Necessity or lack of necessity for legislative action is
determined by the sum total of information to be
gathered as a result of investigation, and not by a
fraction of such information elicited from single
question. It is sufficient that the question is germane
to the subject matter of inquiry. There is no need for it
to be directly related or connected to possible
legislation.
Neri vs Senate Committee on Accountability
- Exception to legislative inquiry: Executive Privilege
(which is extended to all close advisors of the
President)
- It is wrong for Senate to punish one for contempt
where executive privilege is properly invoked.
- Senate's mistakes in the case at bar: (1) invitations
to Neri did not include possible statute; (2) contempt
order lacks required # of votes; (3) Senate did not

first rule on the claim of executive privilege and

instead dismissed Neri's explanation; (4) rules of
procedure on inquiries in aid of legislation not duly
published.
Sec. 21 and 22:
Senate vs Ermita
- When Congress merely seeks to be informed on
how department heads are implementing the
statutes, it is not imperative.
- The oversight function of Congress may be
facilitated by compulsory process only to the extent
that it is performed in pursuit of legislation.
- Appearance of department heads in question hour
is discretionary.
- When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the
only way for the department heads to exempt
themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege.
- EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE privilege based on
doctrine of separation of powers, exempting
executive from disclosure requirements where such
exemption is necessary to the discharge of highly
important executive responsibilities. It covers
categories of information not of persons.

Sec. 24:
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance
- The phrase originate exclusively does not refer to
the appropriations law but to the appropriations bill. It
is sufficient that the House of Rep. initiated the
passage of the bill.
Alvarez vs Guingona
- A bill of local application, such as one asking for the
conversion of a municipality into a city, is deemed to
have originated from the House provided that the bill
of the House was filed prior to the filing of the bill in
the Senate even if, in the end, the Senate approved
its own version.
- The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in
anticipation of its receipt of the bill does not
contravene the constitutional requirement as long as
the Senate does not act thereupon until it receives
the House bill.
Sec. 25:
Garcia vs Mata
- RIDER a provision not related to the appropriation
act (is prohibited)

Demetria vs Alba
- transfer of appropriations prohibited
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- The list of those who may be authorized to transfer
funds is exclusive.
- Case at bar: Congressmen are allowed to
determine the necessity of realignment, but House
Speaker or Senate Pres. will have to approve the
realignment before items are realigned.
- Case at bar: Chief of Staff may not be give authority
to realign appropriations.
Sec. 26:
Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board
- Imposition of tax is sufficiently related to the
regulation of video industry where the title is
comprehensive enough to include such subject
(taxation) related to the general purpose (creation of
Videogram Board)
Phil. Judges Assoc. vs Prado
- Repeal/Withdrawal of franking privilege is germane
to the object of the title, which is to create postal

service system. Hence, the same is embraced in the

title/
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance [Sec. 26 (1)]
- Withdrawing tax exemptions granted before is
embraced in the subject of the title which is to widen
the tax base
Tan vs Del Rosario
- 3 purposes of Sec. 3(1), Art. VI:
(a) to prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling
legislation
(b) to prevent surprise or fraud upon the
legislature by means of provisions which might be
overlooked
(c) to fairly apprise the people of the subjects of
legislation
Tobias vs Abalos
- Provision providing for a separate legislative district
is germane to the subject of the bill creating the City
of Mandaluyong
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance [Sec. 26 (2)]
- IF it is only the printing that is being dispensed by
presidential certification, the time saved would be so
negligible as to be of any use in ensuring immediate

enactment. (Printing and Readings on separate days

both dispensable by pres. certification)
- Where no Senators controverted the reality of the
factual basis of certification, growing budget deficit
may be considered as basis for presidential
certification. Senators, in responding to the call of the
Pres. by voting on the bill, manifested their belief in
the urgent need for certification of the bill.
Sec. 27:
Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance
- It is within the power of a conference committee to
include in its report an entirely new provision not
found in either House Bill or Senate Bill. (Amendment
in the nature of substitution is warranted as long as
amendment is germane to the subject matter of the
bill)
- to disregard the enrolled bill is to disregard the
respect due the other 2 departments.
Gonzales vs Macaraig
- President can veto an item
- Doctrine of inappropriate provisions a provision
that is constitutionally inappropriate may be singled
out for veto if it is not an appropriation or revenue

item. An inappropriate provision in an appropriations

bill is an item in itself.
Bengzon vs Drilon
- President's power to veto an item does not grant
authority to veto part of an item (or provisions).
- President cannot veto a law or repeal a law.
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- Provisions that are germane to the specific
appropriations cannot be vetoed.
- Requirement of Congressional approval for release
of funds for modernization of AFP can be
incorporated in separate bill and hence inappropriate.
It was properly vetoed.
- Executive Impoundment refusal of the President
to spend funds already allocated by Congress for a
specific purpose (the duty to implement the law
includes the duty to desist from implementing it when
implementation would prejudice public interest). The
Court, however, did not rule on this issue, and rather
declared the provision concerning benefits of
CAFGUs as an inappropriate provision.
Sec. 28:

Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pilipinas vs

Tan
- a tax is considered uniform when it operates with
the same force and effect in every place where the
subject may be found.
Province of Abra vs Judge Hernando
Abra Valley College vs Aquino
- Where a lot is not used exclusively for educational
purpose, it may be taxed if the use is not incidental to
the attainment of main purpose.
Tan vs Del Rosario
- Uniformity of taxation means:
(a) standards that are used are substantial and
not arbitrary
(b) categorization is germane to achieve
legislative purpose
(c) law applies, all things being equal, to both
present and future conditions
(d) classification applies equally well to all
those belonging to the same class
Sec. 29:

Pascual vs Sec. of Public Works

- Appropriation for a road owned by a private
individual is invalid because it is not for a public
purpose. Subsequent donation did not validate the
law because validity of a statute depends upon the
power of Congress at the time of its approval and not
upon subsequent events.
Aglipay vs Ruiz
- Appropriation for special stamp issue is valid as it is
not specifically made to benefit a religious
denomination but for a public purpose. The benefit
acquired by the Church is incidental only.
Guingona vs Carague
- The Automatic Reappropriation Law for servicing
foreign debts is valid because the amount is fixed by
the parameters of the law itself which requires the
simple act of looking into the books of Treasure (the
amount is determinable).
- Budgetary process:
(a) budget preparation
(b) legislative authorization
(c) budget execution
(d) budget accountability

Osmena vs Orbos
- Increase of petroleum prices to resolve the Terminal
Fund Balance deficit is valid as it was a valid
exercise of police power.
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- Pork barrel provisions in the annual budget allowing
members of Congress to perform executive function
of spending money appropriated are not in violation
of separation of powers because Congress itself had
specified the uses of the fund and the power given
was merely recommendatory to the President who
could approve or disapprove the recommendation.
Sec. 30:
First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs CA
- B.P. Blg. 129 granting exclusive appellate
jurisdiction to CA over the decisions of quasi-judicial
bodies is not superseded by Omnibus Investments
Code of 1987 providing that decisions of BOI are
appealable to SC because advice and concurrence
of SC was not sought.

affected by a decision of ERB may file a petition with

SC was superseded by the Constitution stating that
jurisdiction of SC cannot be made to increase without
its advice and concurrence.
Sec. 32:
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs COMELEC
- Initiative is entirely the work of electorate; the
process of law-making by the people themselves
- Referendum consists merely of the electorate
approving or rejecting what has been drawn up or
enacted by a legislative body.
- Case at bar: COMELEC erred in implementing a
Resolution when respondents filed petition for
Initiative and not Referendum.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Sec. 1:

Diaz vs CA
- Sec. 10 of EO No. 170 stating a party adversely

Marcos vs Manglapus

- The President has residual powers. The President

is more than the sum of specific powers enumerated
in the Constitution.
- What is not part of the legislative and judicial
departments is deemed part of the executive.
- The 1987 Constitution provided for a limitation of
specific powers of the President, particularly those
relating to the commander-in-chief clause, but not a
diminution of the general grant of executive power.
Soliven vs Makasiar
- The privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the
exercise of Presidential duties free from any
hindrance or distraction considering that being the
Chief Executive demands undivided attention.
- The privilege pertains to the President by virtue of
the office and may be invoked only by the holder of
the office. There is nothing which prohibits the
President to waive this privilege.

Estrada vs Desierto
- A non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity
from suit (immunity is only during the tenure)
- Even a sitting President is not immune from suit for
non-official acts or from wrongdoing. (Public office is

a public trust. The rule is that unlawful acts of public

officials are not acts of the State and the officer who
acts illegally is not acting as such but stands in the
same footing as any other trespasser.)
Sec. 13:
Doromal vs Sandiganbayan
- Sec Sec. 13, Art. VII is applicable in a case where
the accused has not signed any document of any bid
of the family corporation of which he is a member,
submitted to any government department.
- Case at bar: Petitioner has at least an indirect
interest with the transaction with DECS and NMYC.
Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary
- EO No. 284 is unconstitutional insofar it allows a
member of the Cabinet to hold not more than two
positions in the government. (Respondent's
contention that Sec. 7, Art. IX-B is an exception
would defeat the obvious legislative intent which is to
prohibit cabinet members from holding multiple
offices.)
Aytona vs Castillo
- As a rule, once an appointment is issued, it cannot

be reconsidered where the appointee has qualified.

Exception: ad interim appointments issued in the last
hours of an outgoing Chief Executive (midnight
appointments made for buying votes).
In re Valenzuela and Vallarta
- Sec. 15 (President shall not make appointments
within 2 months prior to the next Presidential
election) is applicable to the members of the
Judiciary.
- This sort of appointment is made for partisan
considerations.
De Castro vs. JBC

Sec. 16:
Binamira vs Garrucho
- Appointment or designation involves exercise of
discretion which cannot be delegated. Even if it be
assumed that the power could be exercised by
Minister of Tourism, it could be recalled by the
President.
- Designation is considered only an acting or

temporary appointment, which does not confer

security of tenure.
Sarmiento vs Mison
- 4 groups of officers whom the President shall
appoint:
(a) heads of the executive departments,
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel
or naval captain, and other whose appointments are
vested in him in this Constitution
(b) all other officers of the Government whose
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law
(c) those whom the President may be
authorized by law to appoint
(d) officers lower in rank whose appointments
the Congress may by law vest in the President alone.
- Case at bar: Confirmation of COA is not needed in
appointment of Commissioner of Bureau of Customs
because a bureau head is not among those within
the first group of appointments where consent of
COA is required.
Bautista vs Salonga
- Confirmation of COA is not needed in appointment
of Chairman of Commission of Human Rights
because such appointment is not vested in the

President in the Constitution. The President appoints

Chairman of CHR pursuant to EO 163 (CHR
Chairman is thus within the 3rd group of officers)
Quintos-Deles vs Commission of Appointments
- The appointment of Sectoral Representatives
requires confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments. The seats reserved for sectoral
representatives may be filled by appointment by the
President by express provision of Sec.7, Article XVIII
of the Constitution (hence, sectoral representatives
are within the 1st group of officers)
- Exceptions to those officers within the 1st group: (1)
Ombudsman and his deputies, and (2) members of
the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts.
Calderon vs Carale
- Confirmation by COA is required only for
presidential appointees that are within the 1 st group
of officers as mentioned in Sarmiento vs Mison.
- Congress may not expand the list of appointments
needing confirmation.
- Case at bar: RA 6715, which requires the COA
confirmation in appointments of NLRC Chairman and
Commissioners, transgresses Sec. 16, Art. VII. The
appointments of NLRC Chairman and
Commissioners do not need COA confirmation

because they fall under the 3rd group of officers.

Tarrosa vs Singson
- affirmed the ruling in Calderon vs Carale
- Case at bar: Appointment of Central Bank Governor
does not need COA confirmation.
Flores vs Drilon
- A law which limits the President to only one
appointee is an encroachment to the prerogative of
the President because appointment involves
discretion to choose who to appoint.
Luego vs Civil Service Commission
- CSC is without authority to revoke an appointment
because of its belief that another person was better
qualified, which is an encroachment on the discretion
vested solely in the appointing authority.
- The permanent appointment made by the
appointing authority may not be reversed by CSC
and call it temporary.
Pobre vs Mendieta
- The vacancy in the position of Chairman of the
Professional Regulation Commission cannot be filled
by the Senior Associate Commissioner by operation
of law (or by succession) because it will deprive the

President of the power to appoint the Chairman.

Sec. 17
Drilon vs Lim
- Distinction between power and control:
An officer in control lays down the rules in the
doing of an act. if they are not followed, he may, in
his discretion, order the act undone or re-done by
his subordinate or he may even decide to do it by
himself.
Supervision does not cover such authority. The
supervisor merely sees to it that rules are followed,
but he himself does not lay down such rules, nor
does he have the discretion to modify or replace
them. If the rules are not observed, he may order
the work done or re-done but only to conform to
the prescribed rules. He may not prescribe his own
manner except to see to it that the rules are
followed.
(Note) Power of control pertains to power of an
officer to alter, modify, nullify, or set aside what a
subordinate has done in the performance of his
duties and to substitute his judgment to that of the
former [Mondano vs Silvosa]

Villena vs Secretary of the Interior

- Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency (alter ego
principle) -acts of the Secretaries of Executive
Departments, when performed and promulgated in
the regular course of business or unless disapproved
or reprobated by the Chief Executive, are
presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive
- Case at bar: Secretary of the Interior is invested
with the authority to order the investigation of the
charges against the petitioner and to appoint a
special investigator for that purpose.
Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. vs Pano
- Department heads are President's men of
confidence. His is the power to appoint them; his,
too, is the privilege to dismiss them at pleasure.
Normally, he controls and directs their acts. Implicit
then is his authority to go over, confirm, modify or
reverse the action taken by his department
secretaries.
- Case at bar: The President, through his Executive
Secretary, may undo an act of the Director of Lands
City of Iligan vs Director of Lands
- The President has the power to grant portions of
public domain to any government entity like the City
of Iligan because he has control over the Director of

Lands, who has direct executive control in the lease,

sale or any form of concession or disposition of the
land of public domain.
Gascon vs Arroyo
- Case at bar: Executive Secretary has the power
and authority to enter into the Agreement to Arbitrate
with the ABS CBN as he acted for and in behalf of
the President when he signed it.
Kilusan Bayan vs Dominguez
- An administrative officer has only such powers as
are expressly granted to him and those necessarily
implied in the exercise thereof. These powers should
not be extended by implication beyond what may be
necessary for their just and reasonable execution.
Angangco vs Castillo
- The power to remove is inherent in the power to
appoint, but not with regard to those officers or
employees who belong to the classified service for as
to them the inherent power cannot be exercised
NAMARCO vs Arca
- Executive power of control extends to governmentowned corporations.

Sec. 18:
Guazon vs De Villa
- The President has the power to ordain saturation
drives. There is nothing in the Constitution which
denies the authority of the Chief Exec. to order police
actions to stop unabated criminality, rising
lawlessness, and alarming communist activities.
Ruffy vs Chief of Staff
- Courts martial are simply instrumentalities of the
executive power, provided by the Congress for the
President as Commander in chief to aid him in
properly commanding the army and navy and
enforcing discipline therein and utilize under his order
those of his authorized military representatives.
Olaguer vs Military Commission No. 34
- Due process of law demands that in all criminal
prosecutions the accused be entitled to a trial. The
trial contemplated by the due process clause is trial
by judicial process. Military Commissions are not
courts within the Philippine judicial system. Judicial
power is vested only in the courts. Military
commissions pertain to the executive department
and are instrumentalities of the President as

commander-in-chief to aid him in enforcing discipline

in the armed forces.
Quilona vs General Court Martial
Gudani vs Senga
- The President has constitutional authority to
prevent a member of the armed forces from testifying
before a legislative inquiry, by virtue of her power as
commander-in-chief, and that as a consequence, a
military officer who defies such injunction is liable
under military justice. At the same time, the Court
also holds that any chamber of Congress which
seeks the appearance befoe it of a military officer
against the consent of the President has adequate
remedies under law to compel such attendance. Any
military officer whom the Congress summons to
testify before it may be compelled to do so by the
President. If the President is not so inclined, the
President may be commanded by judicial order to
compel the attendance of the military officer. Final
judicial orders have the force of the law of the land
which the President has the duty to faithfully execute.
Sec. 19:

Torres vs Gonzales
- A judicial pronouncement is not necessary in
determining whether the conditions in the pardon are
violated. The determination of whether there is a
violations of the conditions rests exclusively in the
sound judgment of the President.
Monsanto vs Factoran
- Pardon implies guilt. While it relieves the party
pardoned from all punitive consequences of his
criminal act, it relieves him from nothing more. It
does not, therefore, restore a convicted felon to
public office forfeited by reason of conviction.
People vs Salle, Jr.
- Pardon may be granted only by final judgment.
Where the judgment of conviction is still pending
appeal, executive clemency may not yet be granted.
Before an appellant may be granted pardon, he must
first ask for the withdrawal of his appeal.
Garcia vs COA
- President's grant of executive clemency to a person
dismissed from his office pursuant to an
administrative case (but where the latter has been
acquitted in a criminal case based on the same facts
alleged in the criminal case) entitles the latter to

automatic reinstatement and backwages.

Sabello vs DECS
- Pardon (in a criminal case) frees the individual from
all the penalties and disabilities and restores him to
all his civil rights. Although such pardon may restore
a person's eligibility to public office, it does not entitle
him to automatic reinstatement. He should apply for
reappointment to said office.
- [Compare with Garcia vs COA]
Llamas vs Orbos
- In granting the power of executive clemency, the
Constitution does not distinguish between criminal
and administrative cases.
Sec. 18:
Constantino, Jr. vs Cuisia
- The debt-relief contracts, providing for buy-back
and bond-conversion schemes, entered into pursuant
to Financing Program are not beyond the powers
granted to the President under Sec. 20, Art. VII. The
only restriction that the Constitution provides, aside
from the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, is
that loans must be subject to limitations provided by

law. Accordingly, the contention that buy-back and

bond-conversion schemes are neither loans nor
guarantees, and hence beyond the Presidents
power to execute, are without merit.
Sec. 21:
Commissioner of Customs vs Eastern Sea
Trading (1961)
- The concurrence of the House of Congress is
required by our fundamental law in the making of
treaties which are however distinct and different from
executive agreements which may be validly entered
without such concurrence.
Pimentel, Jr. vs Exec. Sec.
- The power to ratify is vested in the President,
subject to concurrence of the Senate. The role of the
Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its
consent or concurrence to the ratification. Hence, it is
within the authority of the President to refuse to
submit a treaty to the Senate or having secured its
consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. This
discretion to ratify lies within the President's
competence alone.
- 4 steps in treaty-making process:

(a) negotiation
(b) signing of the treaty (simply a means of
authenticating the instrument and a symbol of good
faith)
(c) ratification (formal act by which a statute
confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty)
(d) exchange of instruments of ratification
- In the case at bar, the treaty was merely signed.

conferred upon it that now covers, in proper

cases, even the political question.
- That where serious constitutional questions
are involved, "the transcendental importance to
the public of these cases demands that they be
settled promptly and definitely brushing aside, if
we must, technicalities of procedure."
Mantruste Systems v Court of Appeals

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Sec. 1:
Santiago vs Bautista
- The courts may not exercise judicial power
when there is no applicable law.
- Case at bar: An award of honors to a student
by a board of teachers may not be reversed by
a court where the awards are governed by no
applicable law.
Daza v Singson
- Even if the issue presented was political in
nature, the Court is still not be precluded from
resolving it under the expanded jurisdiction

- There can be no justification for judicial

interference in the business of an
administrative agency, except when it violates a
citizen's constitutional rights, or commits a
grave abuse of discretion, or acts in excess of,
or without jurisdiction.
- Courts may not substitute their judgment for
that of the Asset Privatization Trust
(administrative body), nor block, by an
injunction, the discharge of its functions and the
implementation of its decisions in connection
with the acquisition, sale or disposition of
assets transferred to it.
Malaga v Penachos, Jr.

- It was previously declared the prohibition

pertained to the issuance of injunctions or
restraining orders by courts against
administrative acts in controversies involving
facts or the exercise of discretion in technical
cases. The Court observed that to allow the
courts to judge these matters would disturb the
smooth functioning of the administrative
machinery. On issues definitely outside of this
dimension and involving questions of law,
courts could not be prevented by any law (in
this case, P.D. No. 605) from exercising their
power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts.
PACU v Secretary of Education
- Judicial power is limited to the decision of
actual cases and controversies.
(Mere apprehension that the Secretary of
Education might under the law withdraw the
permit of one of petitioners does not constitute
a justiciable controversy.)
- Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic
questions to satisfy scholarly interest therein
however intellectually solid the problem may

be. This is especially true where the issues

"reach constitutional dimensions, for then there
comes into play regard for the court's duty to
avoid decision of constitutional issues unless
avoidance becomes evasion.
Mariano, Jr. v COMELEC
- Considering that those contingencies
mentioned by the petitioners may or may not
happen, petitioners merely pose a hypothetical
issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case
or controversy. Petitioners who are residents of
Taguig (except Mariano) are not also the proper
parties to raise this abstract issue (city of
Makati is involved). Worse, they raise this
futuristic issue in a petition for declaratory relief
over which this Court has no jurisdiction.
Macasiano v National Housing Authority
-It is a rule firmly entrenched in our
jurisprudence that the constitutionality of an act
of the legislature will not be determined by the
courts unless that question is properly raised
and presented in appropriate cases and is

necessary to a determination of the case.

which may be enjoined at the request of a

taxpayer.

J. Joya v PCGG
Legaspi v Civil Service Commission
- The rule is settled that no question involving
the constitutionality or validity of a law or
governmental act may be heard and decided
by the court unless there is compliance with the
legal requisites for judicial inquiry, namely: that
the question must be raised by the proper
party; that there must be an actual case or
controversy; that the question must be raised at
the earliest possible opportunity; and, that the
decision on the constitutional or legal question
must be necessary to the determination of the
case itself. But the most important are the first
two (2) requisites.
- Not every action filed by a taxpayer can
qualify to challenge the legality of official acts
done by the government. A taxpayer's suit can
prosper only if the governmental acts being
questioned involve disbursement of public
funds upon the theory that the expenditure of
public funds by an officer of the state for the
purpose of administering an unconstitutional
act constitutes a misapplication of such funds,

- It becomes apparent that when a Mandamus

proceeding involves the assertion of a public
right, the requirement of personal interest is
satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a
citizen, and therefore, part of the general
"public" which possesses the right.
-"Public" is a comprehensive, all-inclusive term.
Properly construed, it embraces every person.
Dumlao v COMELEC
- For one, there is a misjoinder of parties and
actions. One petitioner does not join other
petitioners in the burden of their complaint, nor
do the latter join the former in his. They,
respectively, contest completely different
statutory provisions.
- For another, there are standards that have to
be followed in the exercise of the function of
judicial review, namely: (1) the existence of an

appropriate case; (2) an interest personal and

substantial by the party raising the
constitutional question; (3) the plea that the
function be exercised at the earliest
opportunity; and (4) the necessity that the
constitutional question be passed upon in order
to decide the case.
Bugnay Const. and Devt. Corp. v Laron
- The doctrine holds that only when the act
complained of directly involves an illegal
disbursement of public funds raised by taxation
will the taxpayer's suit be allowed. The essence
of a taxpayer's right to institute such an action
hinges on the existence of that requisite
pecuniary or monetary interest.
- It is not enough that the taxpayer-plaintiff
sufficiently show that he would be benefited or
injured by the judgment or entitled to the avails
of the suit as a real party in interest.
Kilosbayan v Guingona, Jr.
- A party's standing before this Court is a

procedural technicality which it may, in the

exercise of its discretion, set aside in view of
the importance of the issues raised.
- In line with the liberal policy of this Court on
locus standi, ordinary taxpayers, members of
Congress, and even association of planters,
and non-profit civic organizations were allowed
to initiate and prosecute actions before this
Court to question the constitutionality or validity
of laws, acts, decisions, rulings, or orders of
various government agencies or
instrumentalities.
PHILCONSA v Enriquez
- The Senators have legal standing to question
the validity of the veto. When a veto was made
in excess of the authority of the President, it
impermissibily intrudes into the domain of the
Legislature. A member of Congress can
question an act of the Executive which injures
Congress as an institution.
Tatad v Garcia, Jr.
-The prevailing doctrines in taxpayer's suits are

to allow taxpayers to question contracts

entered into by the national government or
government-owned or controlled corporations
allegedly in contravention of the law and to
disallow the same when only municipal
contracts are involved (just like in Bugnay case
since no public money was involved).

balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little

differently, the minors` assertion of their right to
a sound environment constitutes, at the same
time, the performance of their obligation to
ensure the protection of that right for the
generations to come.
Lozada v COMELEC

Oposa v Factoran, Jr.

- CLASS SUIT: The subject matter of the
complaint is of common and general interest
not just to several, but to all citizens of the
Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are
so numerous, it becomes impracticable, if not
totally impossible, to bring all of them before
the court.
- Their personality to sue in behalf of the
succeeding generations can only be based on
the concept of intergenerational responsibility
insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is concerned.
- Needless to say, every generation has a
responsibility to the next to preserve that
rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a

- As taxpayers, petitioners may not file the

instant petition, for nowhere therein is it alleged
that tax money is being illegally spent. It is only
when an act complained of, which may include
a legislative enactment or statute, involves the
illegal expenditure of public money that the socalled taxpayer suit may be allowed.
- The unchallenged rule is that the person who
impugns the validity of a statute must have a
personal and substantial interest in the case
such that he has sustained, or will sustain,
direct injury as a result of its enforcement.
Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened,
is that indispensable element of a dispute
which serves in part to cast it in a form
traditionally capable of judicial resolution.
When the asserted harm is a "generalized
grievance" shared in substantially equal

measure by all or a large class of citizens, that

harm alone normally does not warrant exercise
of jurisdiction.

Kilosbayan v Morato
- The voting on petitioners' standing in the
previous case was a narrow one, seven (7)
members sustaining petitioners' standing and
six (6) denying petitioners' right to bring the
suit. The majority was thus a tenuous one that
is not likely to be maintained in any subsequent
litigation. In addition, there have been charges
in the membership of the Court, with the
retirement of Justice Cruz and Bidin and the
appointment of the writer of this opinion and
Justice Francisco. Given this fact it is hardly
tenable to insist on the maintenance of the
ruling as to petitioners' standing.
SECTION 3
Bengzon v Lim
- What is fiscal autonomy? It contemplates a

guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and utilize

their resources with the wisdom and dispatch
that their needs require. It recognizes the
power and authority to levy, assess and collect
fees, fix rates of compensation not exceeding
the highest rates authorized by law for
compensation and play plans of the
government and allocate and disburse such
sums as may be provided by law or prescribed
by them in the course of the discharge of their
functions. Fiscal autonomy means freedom
from outside control.
- The Judiciary, the Constitutional
Commissions, and the Ombudsman must have
the independence and flexibility needed in the
discharge of their constitutional duties. The
imposition of restrictions and constraints on the
manner the independent constitutional offices
allocate and utilize the funds appropriated for
their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy
and violative not only of the express mandate
of the Constitution but especially as regards the
Supreme Court, of the independence and
separation of powers upon which the entire
fabric of our constitutional system is based

SECTION 4
Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. v Court of Appeals,
et.al.
- Reorganization is purely an internal matter of
the Court to which petitioner certainly has no
business at all.
- The Court with its new membership is not
obliged to follow blindly a decision upholding a
party's case when, after its re-examination, the
same calls for a rectification.
SECTION 5

- In the exercise of this jurisdiction, lower courts

are advised to act with the utmost
circumspection, bearing in mind the
consequences of a declaration of
unconstitutionality upon the stability of laws, no
less than on the doctrine of separation of
powers. As the questioned act is usually the
handiwork of the legislative or the executive
departments, or both, it will be prudent for such
courts, if only out of a becoming modesty, to
defer to the higher judgment of this Court in the
consideration of its validity, which is better
determined after a thorough deliberation by a
collegiate body and with the concurrence of the
majority of those who participated in its
discussion.

Drilon v Lim
Larranaga v Court of Appeals
- The Constitution vests in the Supreme Court
appellate jurisdiction over final judgments and
orders of lower courts in all cases in which the
constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.

(Transfer the venue of the preliminary

investigation from Cebu City to Manila because
of the extensive coverage of the proceedings
by the Cebu media which allegedly influenced
the people's perception of petitioner's character
and guilt.)
- The Court recognizes that pervasive and

prejudicial publicity under certain

circumstances can deprive an accused of his
due process right to fair trial. It was previously
held that to warrant a finding of prejudicial
publicity there must be allegation and proof that
the judges have been unduly influenced, not
simply that they might be, by the barrage in
publicity.
- In the case at bar, nothing in the records
shows that the tone and content of the publicity
that attended the investigation of petitioners
fatally infected the fairness and impartiality of
the DOJ Panel.
First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v Court of Appeals
- It is intended to give the Supreme Court a
measure of control over cases paced under its
appellate jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate
enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate
jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate enactment of
legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction
can unnecessarily burden the Court and
thereby undermine its essential function of
expounding the law in its most profound
national aspects.

Aruelo v Court of Appeals

- Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC can
not adopt a rule prohibiting the filing of certain
pleadings in the regular courts. The power to
promulgate rules concerning pleadings,
practice and procedure in all courts is vested
on the Supreme Court.
Javellana v DILG
(Section 90 of the Local Government Code of
1991 and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 9081 does not violate Article VIII. Section 5 of the
Constitution. Neither the statute nor the circular
trenches upon the Supreme Court's power and
authority to prescribe rules on the practice of
law.)
- The Local Government Code and DLG
Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simply
prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to
avoid conflicts of interest between the
discharge of their public duties and the private
practice of their profession, in those instances
where the law allows it.

SECTION 6
Maceda v Vasquez
- In the absence of any administrative action
taken against a person by the Court with regard
to his certificates of service, the investigation
being conducted by the Ombudsman
encroaches into the Court's power of
administrative supervision over all courts and
its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of
separation of powers.
- Where a criminal complaint against a Judge
or other court employee arises from their
administrative duties, the Ombudsman must
defer action on said complaint and refer the
same to the Court for determination whether
said Judge or court employee had acted within
the scope of their administrative duties.
Raquiza v Judge Castaneda, Jr.
- The rules even in an administrative case
demands that if the respondent Judge should
be disciplined for grave misconduct or any
graver offense, the evidence presented against

him should be competent and derived from

direct knowledge. The judiciary, to which
respondent belongs, no less demands that
before its member could be faulted, it should be
only after due investigation and based on
competent proofs, no less. This is all the more
so when as in this case the charges are penal
in nature.
('Misconduct' also implies 'a wrongful intention
and not a mere error of judgment. It results that
even if respondent were not correct in his legal
conclusions, his judicial actuations cannot be
regarded as grave misconduct, unless the
contrary sufficiently appears.)
SECTION 10
Nitafan v Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- The clear intent of the Constitutional
Commission was to delete the proposed
express grant of exemption from payment of
income tax to members of the Judiciary, so as
to "give substance to equality among the three
branches of Government.

SECTION 11
De La Llana v Alba
-Judiciary Act does not violate judicial security
of tenure. This Court is empowered "to
discipline judges of inferior courts and, by a
vote of at least eight members, order their
dismissal." Thus, it possesses the competence
to remove judges. Under the Judiciary Act, it
was the President who was vested with such
power. Removal is, of course, to be
distinguished from termination by virtue of the
abolition of the office. There can be no tenure
to a non-existent office. After the abolition,
there is in law no occupant. In case of removal,
there is an office with an occupant who would
thereby lose his position. It is in that sense that
from the standpoint of strict law, the question of
any impairment of security of tenure does not
arise. Nonetheless, for the incumbents of
inferior courts abolished, the effect is one of
separation. As to its effect, no distinction exists
between removal and the abolition of the office.
Realistically, it is devoid of significance. He
ceases to be a member of the judiciary.

People v Gacott, Jr.

- To require the entire Court to deliberate upon
and participate in all administrative matters or
cases regardless of the sanctions, imposable
or imposed, would result in a congested docket
and undue delay in the adjudication of cases in
the Court, especially in administrative matters,
since even cases involving the penalty of
reprimand would require action by the Court en
banc.
- Yet, although as thus demonstrated, only
cases involving dismissal of judges of lower
courts are specifically required to be decided
by the Court en banc, in cognizance of the
need for a thorough and judicious evaluation of
serious charges against members of the
judiciary, it is only when the penalty imposed
does not exceed suspension of more than one
year or a fine of P10,000.00, or both, that the
administrative matter may be decided in
division.
SECTION 12
In Re: Manzano

- As incumbent RTC Judges, they form part of

the structure of government. Their integrity and
performance in the adjudication of cases
contribute to the solidity of such structure. As
public officials, they are trustees of an orderly
society. Even as non-members of
Provincial/City Committees on Justice, RTC
judges should render assistance to said
Committees to help promote the landable
purposes for which they exist, but only when
such assistance may be reasonably incidental
to the fulfillment of their judicial duties.
SECTION 14

decision clearly and distinctly stating therein

the facts and the law on which it is based.
Mendoza v CFI
- What is expected of the judiciary "is that the
decision rendered makes clear why either party
prevailed under the applicable law to the facts
as established. Nor is there any regid formula
as to the language to be employed to satisfy
the requirement of clarity and distinctness. The
discretion of the particular judge in this respect,
while not unlimited, is necessarily broad. There
is no sacramental form of words which he must
use upon pain of being considered as having
failed to abide by what the Constitution directs."

Nicos Industrial Corp v Court of Appeals

- The Court is not duty bound to render signed
decisions all the time. It has ample discretion to
formulate decisions and/or minute resolutions,
provided a legal basis is given, depending on
its evaluation of a case.
- As it is settled that an order dismissing a case
for insufficient evidence is a judgment on the
merits, it is imperative that it be a reasoned

- The provision has been held to refer only to

decisions of the merits and not to orders of the
trial court resolving incidental matters such as
the one at bar. (content of the resolution:
incident in the prosecution of petitioner)
Borromeo v Court of Appeals
- The Court reminds all lower courts, lawyers,

and litigants that it disposes of the bulk of its

cases by minute resolutions and decrees them
as final and executory, as where a case is
patently without merit, where the issues raised
are factual in nature, where the decision
appealed from is supported by substantial
evidence and is in accord with the facts of the
case and the applicable laws, where it is clear
from the records that the petition is filed merely
to forestall the early execution of judgment and
for non-compliance with the rules. The
resolution denying due course or dismissing
the petition always gives the legal basis.
- When the Court, after deliberating on a
petition and any subsequent pleadings,
manifestations, comments, or motions decides
to deny due course to the petition and states
that the questions raised are factual or no
reversible error in the respondent court's
decision is shown or for some other legal basis
stated in the resolution, there is sufficient
compliance with the constitutional requirement.
- Minute resolutions need not be signed by the
members of the Court who took part in the
deliberations of a case nor do they require the

certification of the Chief Justice.

Komatsu Industries (Phils.) Inc v Court of
Appeals
- It has long been settled that this Court has
discretion to decide whether a "minute
resolution" should be used in lieu of a fullblown decision in any particular case and that a
minute Resolution of dismissal of a Petition for
Review on Certiorari constitutes an
adjudication on the merits of the controversy or
subject matter of the Petition. It has been
stressed by the Court that the grant of due
course to a Petition for Review is "not a matter
of right, but of sound judicial discretion; and so
there is no need to fully explain the Court's
denial. For one thing, the facts and law are
already mentioned in the Court of Appeals'
opinion."
Prudential Bank v Castro
- The Constitutional mandate that "no . . .
motion for reconsideration of a decision of the
court shall be . . . denied without stating the

legal basis therefor" is inapplicable in

administrative cases. And even if it were, said
Resolution stated the legal basis for the denial
and, therefore, adhered faithfully to the
Constitutional requirement. "Lack of merit,"
which was one of the grounds for denial, is a
legal basis.
-(certification issue) The requirement of a
certification refers to decisions to judicial cases
and not to administrative cases. Besides, since
the decision was a per curiam decision, a
formal certification is not required.

Valdez v Court of Appeals

- The (lower) court statement in the decision
that a party has proven his case while the other
has not, is not the findings of facts
contemplated by the Constitution and the rules
to be clearly and distinctly stated.
- This Court has said again and again that it is
not a trier of facts and that it relies, on the
factual findings of the lower court and the
appellate court which are conclusive.
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

Oil and Natural Gas Commission v Court of

Appeals
- The constitutional mandate that no decision
shall be rendered by any court without
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the
facts and the law on which it is based does not
preclude the validity of "memorandum
decisions" which adopt by reference the
findings of fact and conclusions of law
contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals.
SECTION 14 (not 16)

A. COMMON PROVISIONS
Aruelo v. CA
The rule of the Commission should prevail if
the proceeding is before a Commission. But if
the proceeding is before a court, the Rules of
Court prevails. (Sec. 6)
Cua v. Comelec
The 2-1 decision rendered by the First Division

was a valid decision under Article IX-A, Section

7 of the Constitution. (Sec.7)
Vital-Gozon v. CA
Execution of the Civil Service Commission's
decision should have been ordered and
effected by the Commission itself, when de la
Fuente filed a motion therefor. It declined to do
so, however, on the alleged ground, as de la
Fuente claims he was told, that it "had no
coercive powers unlike a court to enforce
its final decisions/resolutions." That
proposition, communicated to de la Fuente, of
the Commission's supposed lack of coercive
power to enforce its final judgments, is
incorrect. It is inconsistent with previous acts of
the Commission of actually directing execution
of its decisions and resolutions, which this
Court has sanctioned in several cases; and it is
not in truth a correct assessment of its powers
under the Constitution and the relevant laws

While it may be true that the lower court has

the jurisdiction over controversies dealing with
the COMELEC's award of contracts, the same
being purely administrative and civil in nature,
nevertheless, herein petitioner has no cause of
action on the basis of the allegations of its
complaint.
"The Commission on Elections shall have
exclusive charge of the enforcement and
administration of all laws relative to the conduct
of elections and shall exercise all other
functions which may be conferred upon it by
law. It shall decide, save those involving the
right to vote, all administrative questions
affecting elections, including the determination
of the number of location of polling places, and
the appointment of election inspectors and of
other election officials . . . The decisions,
orders and rulings of the Commission shall be
subject to review by the Supreme Court."
Mateo v. CA

Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v. Ferrer

The hiring and firing of employees of

government-owned and controlled corporations
are governed by the provisions of the Civil

Service Law and Rules and Regulations.

SC Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95.
Final resolutions of the Civil Service
Commission shall be appealable to the Court of
Appeals. In any event, whether under the old
rule or the present rule, Regional Trial Courts
have no jurisdiction to entertain cases involving
dismissal of officers and employees covered by
the Civil Service Law.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Section 2
TUPAS v. NHC
Civil service now covers only governmentowned or controlled corporations with original
or legislative charters, that is those created by
an act of Congress or by special law, and not
those incorporated under and pursuant to a
general legislation.
NHC is not covered by civil service so its
employees undoubtedly have the right to form
unions or employees' organizations. The right
to unionize or to form organizations is now
explicitly recognized and granted to employees

in both the governmental and the private

sectors.
De los Santos v. Mallare
The office of city engineer is neither primarily
confidential, policy-determining, nor highly
technical. These positions mentioned are
excluded from the merit system and dismissal
at pleasure of officers and employees
appointed therein is allowed by the
Constitution. Thus, the city engineer cannot be
removed without just cause.
Salazar v. Mathay
The tenure of officials holding primarily
confidential positions ends upon loss of
confidence because their term of office lasts
only as long as confidence in them endures.
Corpus v. Cuaderno
Highly technical employees cannot be removed
by reason of lack or loss of confidence by the
one making the appointment.

Luego v. Civil Service Commission

The CSC has no authority to disapprove or
revoke a permanent appointment on the
ground that another person is better qualified
than the appointee. The CSC is not
empowered to determine the kind or nature of
the appointment extended by the appointing
officer, its authority being limited to approving
or reviewing the appointment in the light of the
requirements of the Civil Service Law. Approval
is more appropriately called an attestation, that
is, of the fact that the appointee is qualified for
the position to which he has been named.
Province of Camarines Sur v. CA
Lack of civil service eligibility makes an
appointment temporary; thus, the appointment
is revocable at any time (without a fixed and
definite term) or dependent upon the pleasure
of the appointing power. Obtaining the civil
service legibility later on does not ipso facto
convert a temporary appointment into a
permanent one.
SSS Employees Association v. CA

The right of government employees to organize

does not include the right to strike.
Section 7
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary
While all other appointive officials in the civil
service are allowed to hold other office or
employment in the government during their
tenure when such is allowed by tlaw and the
primary function of their office, Cabinet
members, their deputies, and assistants may
only do so when expressly authorized by the
Constitution itself.
Flores v. Drilon
The proviso which states, Provided, however,
that for the first year of its operations from the
effectivity of this Act, the mayor of the City of
Olongapo shall be appointed as the chairman
and chief executive officer of the Subic
Authority, violates the constitutional prohibition
against appointment or designation of elective
officials to other government posts.

Section 8
Quimson v. Ozaeta
The employment of a person as an agent
collector is not itself unlawful because there is
no incompatibility between aid appointment and
his employment as Deputy Provincial Treasurer
and Municipal Treasurer. There is no legal
objection to government official occupying two
government offices and performing functions to
both as long as there is no incompatibility. The
Constitutional prohibition refers to double
appointments and performance of functions of
more than one office.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Section 1
Cayetano v. Monsod
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of
court, which requires the application of law,
legal procedure, knowledge, training and

experience. To engage in the practice of law is

to perform those acts which are characteristics
of the profession. Generally, to practice law is
to give notice or render any kind of service
which device or service requires the use in any
degree of legal knowledge or skill.
Brillantes v. Yorac
The President has no authority to make
designation of a Comelec Chairman in an
Acting Capacity. The choice of temporary
Chairman in the absence of the regular
chairman comes under the discretion of the
Comelec. It cannot be exercised by the
President. A designation As Acting Chairman is
by its very terms essentially temporary and
therefore revocable at will. No cause need be
established to justify its revocation.
Lindo v. Comelec
Comelecs statement that fake and spurious
ballots may have been introduced to increase
the votes of protestant cannot be made a basis
for denying the execution pending appeal.

Section 3
Sarmiento vs. Comelec
Pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. 7166, it
provides:
"All pre-proclamation cases pending before the
Commission shall be deemed terminated at the
beginning of the term of the office involved and
the rulings of the boards of canvassers
concerned shall be deemed affirmed, without
prejudice to the filing of a regular election
protest by the aggrieved party. However,
proceedings may continue when on the basis
of the evidence thus far presented, the
Commission determines that the petition
appears meritorious and accordingly issues an
order for the proceeding to continue or when an
appropriate order has been issued by the
Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari."

controversies, must be decided by the

COMELEC in division. Should a party be
dissatisfied with the decision, he may file a
motion for reconsideration before the
COMELEC en banc. It is, therefore, the
decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC en
banc that, in accordance with Art. IX, A, Section
7, "may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari."
Section 4
National Press Club vs. Comelec
The Comelec has also been granted the right
to supervise and regulate the exercise by
media practitioners themselves of their right to
expression during plebiscite periods. Media
practitioners exercising their freedom of
expression during plebiscite periods are neither
the franchise holders nor the candidates. In
fact, there are no candidates involved in a
plebiscite.

Reyes vs. RTC of Oriental Mindoro

All election cases, including pre-proclamation

Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the

Philippines vs GMA

It is argued that the power to supervise or

regulate given to the COMELEC under Art. IXC, Section 4 of the Constitution does not
include the power to prohibit. In the first place,
what the COMELEC is authorized to supervise
or regulate by Art. IX-C, Section 4 of the
Constitution, among other things, is the use by
media of information of their franchises or
permits, while what Congress (not the
COMELEC) prohibits is the sale or donation of
print space or air time for political ads. In other
words, the object of supervision or regulation is
different from the object of the prohibition. It is
another fallacy for petitioners to contend that
the power to regulate does not include the
power to prohibit. This may have force if the
object of the power were the same.
Adiong vs. COMELEC
The posting of decals and stickers on cars,
calesas, tricycles, pedicabs and other moving
vehicles needs the consent of the owner of the
vehicle. Hence, the preference of the citizen
becomes crucial in this kind of election
propaganda not the financial resources of the

candidate. Whether the candidate is rich and,

therefore, can afford to doleout more decals
and stickers or poor and without the means to
spread out the number of decals and stickers is
not as important as the right of the owner to
freely express his choice and exercise his right
of free speech. The owner can even prepare
his own decals or stickers for posting on his
personal property. To strike down this right and
enjoin it is impermissible encroachment of his
liberties.
Sanidad vs. COMELEC
Comelec spaces and Comelec radio time may
provide a forum for expression but they do not
guarantee full dissemination of information to
the public concerned because they are limited
to either specific portions in newspapers or to
specific radio or television times.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
SECTION 2
GUEVARA VS GIMENEZ

The Auditor-General has no madate to

disapprove expenditures which in his opinion
are excessive and extravagant. His authority
is limited to the auditing in expenditures of
funds and properties. such function is limited
to a determination of whether there is a law
appropriating funds for a given purpose;
whether a contract entered made by the proper
officer has been entered in conformity with the
said appropriation law; whether the goods and
services covered by the said contract have
been delivered or rendered in pursuance
thereof, as attested by the proper officer; and
whether payment therefore has been
authorized by the officials of the corresponding
department or bureau. If these requirements
have been fulfilled, it is the ministerial duty of
the Auditor General to approve and pass in
audit the voucher and treasury warrant for said
payment. No discretion to disapprove said
payment on the ground that contract was
unwise or unreasonable.
OROCIO VS COA
To determine whether an expenditure of a

government agency or instrumentality is

irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant
and unconscionable, the COA should not be
bound by the opinion of the legal counsel of a
particular agency. Legal counsel can only offer
legal advice.
OSMENA VS COA
A compromise agreement between a municipal
corporation (Cebu City) and the parents of
victim (Spouses dela Cerna) was constitutional.
The participation of the city in an amicable
settlement and eventual execution of a
compromise is indubitable within the power and
authority of a municipal corporation. Notably,
the compromise agreement was submitted to
its legislative council, which approved it
conformably with its established rules and
procedure.
SAMBELI VS PROVINCE OF ISABELA
COA has the regulatory power to ensure that
government funds and properties are fully
protected and conserved and that irregular

unnecessary, excessive, or extravagant

expenditures or uses of funds owned by, or
pertaining to the Government or any of its
subdivisions, agencies of instrumentalities are
prevented.
BUSTAMANTE VS COA
Discretion exercised by COA in the denial of
the appeal (on the decision of a Regional
Auditor) is within its power. Also, conclusions
of a Board of Directors of a government-owned
and controlled corporation in safeguarding the
proper use of the governments and peoples
property cannot prevail over the constitutional
mandate on COA.
SALIGUMBA VS COA
Supreme Courts power to review COA
decisions refers to money matters and not to
administrative cases (rape case vs. auditing
examiner-respondent) involving the discipline
of its personnel.
SECTION 3
PHIL AIRLINES VS COA (more on section 2)

COA has the exclusive authority, subject to

limitations, to define the scope of its audit and
examination, establish the techniques and
methods required therefore. COA can adopt as
its own, simply by reiteration or by reference,
without the necessity of repromulgation,
already existing rules and regulations. It may
also expand the coverage thereof to agencies
or instrumentalities under its audit jurisdiction.
COA can advised PAL to desist from bidding
the its fuel upon expiration of contracts
BAGATSING VS COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION
COA, the agency that adopted the rules on
bidding procedure to be followed by
government offices and corporations, upheld
the legality of bidding although there is only
one offeror (2 were disqualified- bid below floor
price and technical reasons) since the COA
Circular does not speak of accepted bids but of
offerors, without distinction as to whether they
were disqualified. The interpretation of an
agency of its own rules should be given more
weight than the interpretation by the agency of
the law it is merely tasked to administer.