Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 17

SESSION 1

A. Nature of the Constitution

B. Changing the Constitution


Lambino vs COMELEC Revision and Amendment

SESSION 2

A. Role of the Judiciary as interpreter of laws


Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower
courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice 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 the Government.

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:


1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
and habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the
Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) 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.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may
require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of
the judge concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform
for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil
Service Law.

Marbury vs Madison Legislative cant create additional jurisdiction


of the SC only the constitution can do it

Anggara vs EC - SC has jurisdiction when there is a conflict


Between several departments as the final
arbiter
- EC is the sole judge of all contests relating to
election

B. Rules of Interpretation
Francisco vs HOR - Political questions
o Wisdom of the law (not SC)
o Legality of the law (SC)

C. Requisites of Judicial Review

a. Actual case or controversy


Mariano vs COMELEC - Issue must be not hypothetical or presumptive

Montesclaros vs COMELEC - there must be an actual controversy


- Requisites for judicial review:
o Actual controversy
o Personal and substantial interest of the party
raising the constitutional question
o Pleaded at earliest opportunity
o Constitutional question is the lis mota of the
case

b. Facial challenge
Estrada vs Sandiganbayan - Facial challenge

c. Political Question

d. Moot and Academic


Lacson vs Perez - Moot and academic

Defunis vs Odegaard - Moot and academic


e. Exception to the Moot and Academic rule
David vs Arroyo - Moot and academic rule is disregarded when
there is grave violation of the constitution

f. Standing
KMU Labor Center vs Garcia -

IBP vs Zamora - No personal and substantial interest (IBP failed


to show to show any substantial harm to them)

Tanada vs Tuvera - Legal standing as citizen


- Publication is indispensable

Ople vs Torres - Legal standing as a legislator and taxpayer


- Executive orders must be for the sole purpose
of implementing and carrying out the policy of
the law that it harmonizes with
g. Standing as technicality
IT Foundation vs COMELEC - Standing may be brush aside as technicality

Kilosbayan vs Guingona -

h. Earliest Opportunity

Need to notify SolGen


Mirasol vs CA - Needs to notify Solicitor General

Symbolic Decision
Salonga vs Cruz Pano -

D. Effects of Unconstitutionality
Serrano de Agbayani - Political questions

Salazar vs Achacoso -
SESSION 3

A. Philippines as a State

B. Elements of the State

a. Territory
Article 1 - The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands
and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including
its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas.
The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless
of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

Reagan vs CIR - Philippines is independent and sovereign

People vs Gozo - Sovereign power of the Philippines is not


diminished in the RP US agreement

b. People

ARTICLE 2
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the
people and all government authority emanates from them.

Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The
Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof,
all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal,
military or civil service.cr

Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and
instill health consciousness among them.

Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.cr
ARTICLE 3
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as
basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as
may be provided by law.

ARTICLE 7
Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the
people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next
following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years
thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has
succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be
qualified for election to the same office at any time.

No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation
of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the
continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected.

Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-President
shall be held on the second Monday of May.

The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the board
of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to
the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of
the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open all the
certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public
session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution
thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes.

The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case
two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith
be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress,
voting separately.

The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates.

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may
promulgate its rules for the purpose.

ARTICLE 16
Section 2. The Congress may, by law, adopt a new name for the country, a national
anthem, or a national seal, which shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals,
history, and traditions of the people. Such law shall take effect only upon its ratification
by the people in a national referendum.

ARTICLE 18
Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the
Philippines and the United States of America concerning military bases, foreign military
bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty
duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a
majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose,
and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.

c. Government
Section 2 of the Administrative Code

People vs Sandiganbayan - AFP-RSBS is a government entity since it is


created by a law

MIAA vs CA - MIAA is a government instrumentality vested


with corporate power

Constituent vs Ministrant Function


Valmonte vs Belmonte - Right to public document but cant compel an
official to do something not cited as his official
function

Parens Patriae
Cabanas vs Pilapil - Doctrine of Parens Patriae
d. Sovereignty
Macariola vs Asuncion - Judge must be discreet of his private and
business activities

Harvey vs Commissioner - Sovereign power of the Philippines to expel


aliens violating state policies

C. Philippine Citizenship
Lee vs Director of Lands -

Republic vs Chule Lim -

Calilung vs Datumanong -

Republic vs Sagun - Election of Philippine citizenship upon reaching


majority age

In Re: Vicente Ching - 7 years after attaining majority age is


reasonable time to elect Philippine citizenship

Co vs HRET -

Bengson vs HRET -

Frivaldo vs COMELEC -

Nicholas-Lewis vs COMELEC -

Aznar vs COMELEC -

Valles vs COMELEC -

SESSION 4

A. Suits vs the Philippine State


Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.
Republic vs Feliciano Consent of the state to be sued is either
express or implied

PAS vs Lichauco if charge will result to financial liability to the


state, it is a suit against the state and the state
is immune from it

Sayson vs Singson If state gave conditional consent, one must


follow the conditions, otherwise, state is
immune from suit

Republic vs Purisima Consent of the state cannot be given by a


counsel but by the legislature through
enactment of law

PNB vs CIR PNB is a government corporation with distinct


personality

Its charter allows it to sue and be sued

SSS vs CA SSS as a government corporation allows it to


sue and be sued

Rayo vs CFI NAPOCOR is a government corporation which


allows itself to sue and be sued but immunity is
pursuant to performance of governmental
function

Farolan vs CTA Customs commissioner or any other


government official may not be sued in his
performance of governmental functions and
duties

Republic vs Sandiganbyan When state files a complaint, it therefore


waives its immunity from suit

Froilan vs POS When state intervenes for payment, it waives its


immunity from suit
Lim vs Brownell If the state intervenes to resist and not
complain, the state dos not waive its immunity

Santiago vs Republic State cannot promote injustice by invoking


immunity from suit

Amigable vs Cuenca State cannot promote injustice by invoking


immunity from suit (state doesn't abide
donation conditions)

Torio vs Fontanilla LGU can have governmental or proprietary


functions (can be sued or tort even in
performance of governmental function)

Can be sued if in performance of proprietary


function

B. Suits against Foreign States


USA vs Ruiz Governmental function performance makes
state immune from suit

Holy See vs Rosario Not business transaction therefore Holy See is


immune

Minucher vs CA Function according to the host state is immune


Rep. of Indonesia vs Vinzon Governmental function therefore immune

WHO vs Aquino Political question therefore SC can't move


since it's an executive determination

DFA vs NLRC DFA as the determining agency to whom is


immune from suit, has the capacity to sue and
be sued

C. Suits against Public officers


Animos vs PVAO Suit against government official is a suit
against the state except in cases of grave
discretion which is against the person itself

USA vs Reyes Suit against an official f a foreign state for


negligence is not a suit against the state

Sharuf vs CA Act in excess of authority cannot hide behind


by invoking the state immunity from suit

D. Execution of the State


Nessia vs Fermin No money shall go out of the treasury or
garnished without an appropriation (unless
mandamus to compel the government to
appropriate

Caloocan City vs Allarde When appropriated, government money may


be garnished

SESSION 5

A. Preamble
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a
just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and
aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and
secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy
under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace,
do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

B. Principles and Policies of the State


Ocampo vs HRET 2nd placer is not a winner in the election

People elected a candidate having the


knowledge that he is qualified and those votes
can't be commissioned to the 2nd placer in
case the winner is disqualified
Villavicencio vs Lukban Habeas Corpus may be filed even if the
persons are not detained in custody of a
defendant if there is a forceful and unwilling
detention

Agustin vs Edu Police power is the inherent power of the state


to promote general / public safety or health
that may interfere personal liberty or property

Philippines adopt international law as part of


the law of the land

Ichong vs Hernandez - Alien control and predominance in retail trade


is sufficient to justify the exercise of police powe
for the interest of the Filipinos

In Re: Garcia -

People vs Lagman & Sosa The state may call upon the citizens to render
military or civil services to defend the state

Estrada vs Escritor Compelling State Interest Test

*whether the respondents right has been burdened by the statute or government action
*ascertain the respondents sincerity in her religious belief
*sufficient compelling state interest to justify the infringement or the liberty

Bayan vs Executive Secretary - Constitution doesnt allow foreign armed forces


to engage in offensive war within the territory
(SC is not a trier of facts)
Pamatong vs COMELEC Right to public office is not an absolute and
enforceable right

Constitutional provisions are not self-executing


and needs supplemental legislation

Maquera vs Borja - Law requiring posting of bond is imposing a


property requirement (unconstitutional)

Calalang vs Williams - Social Justice

APCD vs PCA - Philippines having a free market is still subject to


States duty to promote distributive justice

Simon vs CHR CHR only has investigatory power and only


courts can issue preliminary injunction

Pasei vs Drilon Constitution does not commit perfect identity


for rights of men and women and it admits
classification

o Such classification rests on substantial distinctions


o That they are germane to the purpose of the law
o They are not confined to existing conditions
o They apply equally to al members of the same class

UP BOR vs CA

Camacho vs Coresis -

SSS Employees Assn. vs CA -


Roe vs Wade -

Tanada vs Angara -

SESSION 6

A. Exercise of Government Power


In Re: Laureta and Maravilla - No branch can review the decision of the SC

- To look for another forum to review the SCs


decision is a violation of the separation of
power

INS vs Chadha - One house veto violates the bicameralism and


presentment clause (bills must be in identical
form in both houses and signed by the president

- convenience and efficiency is not the primary


objectives of a democratic government

Arnault vs Balagtas - Investigation is an executive function while


whether or not guilty or liable is a judicial
function

- SC cant review the decision of the Senate as


long as there is no violation of the constitution

- SC avoids encroachment of legislative powers

Goldwater vs Exec. Sec - The congress may delegate its power under
such limits and restrictions to the president as
may be authorize by law as stated in the
constitution when it comes to tariffs
US vs Tang Ho - Legislative power cant be delegated, the filling
in of the details may be delegated such as IRR

Conference vs POEA - Formulation of rules and regulations is


authorized through a valid administrative power

Palaez vs Auditor General - Power to create municipalities are legislative


Powers

People vs Judge Dacuycuy - The duration of the penalty being solely left to
the discretion of the court is void and undue
delegation of legislative power

B. Legislative Branch
Article 6 of the Constitution

Powell vs McCormack - US SC: Congress has no power to remove a


member-elect who meets the membership
requirement and only way to remove him is in
accordance with the constitution

Macias et al vs COMELEC - Apportionment of the Congress must be filed 3


years after the consensus and must equally
apportioned to the district proportioned to its
respective inhabitants

Tan vs COMELEC - Legislature can create another province


subject to ratification to the people who will be
affected (public who will be dismembered and
created upon the creation)

Banat vs COMELEC - 2% earns one seat, maximum of 3 seats per 2%


Ang LADLAD vs COMELEC - 3 types of partylist (National, Regional, and
Sectoral)

Walden Bello vs COMELEC - Electoral tribunal has jurisdiction when an


official already wins the office

- Mandamus violates the rule of exhaustion of


judicial remedies (petitioner may actually file a
disqualification case) ; court cannot take
cognizance of premature cases

Atong Paglaum vs COMELEC - Major political parties may join the partylist
system provided they join through their sectoral
wing

Aquino vs COMELEC - Domicile same as residence in election laws

SESSION 7

B. Legislative Branch

Marcos vs COMELEC - Domicile implies to permanency and intention


to return (residency requirement in election law)

Dumpit Michelena vs Boado - Residence means domicile in election laws

- To prove a change in domicile, one must prove


an intent to stay and not to return in the former
domicile
Article 6, Section 8 - Election for Senators and Members of HOR shall
commence every 2nd Monday of May

Article 6, Section 9 - In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House


of Representatives, a special election may be
called to fill such vacancy in the manner
prescribed by law, but the Senator or Member
of the House of Representatives thus elected
shall serve only for the unexpired term.

Article 6, Section 16 (1) - The Senate shall elect its President and the HOR,
its Speaker, by a majority votes of all its
respective Members.

Santiago vs Guingona - The Courts cannot dictate upon the said co-
equal body and the manner of electing the said
officers is entirely within its discretion

Article 6, Section 16 (2) - A majority of each House shall constitute a


quorum to do business, but a smaller number
may adjourn from day to day and may compel
the attendance of absent Members in such
manner, and under such penalties, as such
House may provide

Avelino vs Cuenco - The Court has no jurisdiction to rule upon the


validity of the election of a new Senate
President. Election of its officers are entirely
within the prerogative of the Members of the
Senate

Article 6, Section 16 (3) - Each house may determine the rules of its
proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly
behavior, and, with the concurrence of two
thirds of all its members, suspend or expel a
member. A penalty of suspension, when
imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.
Pacete vs COA - CAs own interpretation of its rules of procedure
must be respected unless there is a showing of
arbitrary or improvident use of power, in which
case judicial intervention is justified

Alejandrino vs Quezon - The courts cannot compel the Senate to take a


specific action, specially when it comes to the
discipline of its members

Osmena vs Pendatun - The house has the power to discipline one of its
members and the court cannot interfere in the
exercise of that power

Santiago vs Sandiganbayan - The right of Congress to discipline itself does not


preclude the Sandiganbayan from suspending
a member in accordance with law

Philconsa vs Mathay - The Constitution provides that laws increasing


salaries of the Congress can only take effect
after the expiration of the full term of Senators
and Members of the House who approved it.
The intention was to treat the term as a single
unit without distinction between them. Hence, it
can only take effect after the expiration of the
full term of the Senators.

Ligot vs Mathay -

Вам также может понравиться