Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 21

Chavez

Constitutional Law I
First Semester, 2017
Thursdays, 6:00-9:00pm | Room 407
FEU Institute of Law

Syllabus

Atty. Alain B. Baguisi, LL.M


alainbbaguisi@gmail.com

Course Information

This course offers a comprehensive study of the Philippine constitutional law – its nature, formation
and amendment, operation, construction, and interpretation. The course will be devoted to the
provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution [except the Bill of Rights] and their interplay which
determine the political organization of the state, and how the political relations between the state and
the individuals are regulated. Below are the objectives of the class:

1. Constitutional Text, Doctrine, and History. By the end of the course, you should be familiar
with the Constitution itself (text, structure, etc.) and the doctrine—the rules and principles set
forth by the Supreme Court—in the areas we study. You should also have a sense of how the
doctrine has developed over time.
2. Constitutional Theory. By the end of the course, you should be familiar with and able to
evaluate critically the major theories on how the Constitution should be interpreted and who
should interpret it.
3. Legal Analysis and Argument. This course should improve your ability to read cases, identify
the rules, doctrines and principles they set forth, and situate them in the relevant body of
doctrine. This course should hone your ability to communicate legal arguments clearly,
concisely and persuasively—both orally and in writing.

Course Structure and Requirements

Preparation and participation are basic requirements. We will cultivate an ethos of community and
accountability. We treat each other with respect, even as we encourage debate and critical thinking.

Students are expected to read the assigned cases and other readings in advance of class, attend every
class, and participate actively in section discussions. You will be evaluated on your mastery of the
materials, use of critical thinking skills, active participation, short reflection paper, and midterms and
finals scores. The grading rubric is as follows:

Participation 35%
Discussion Questions 5%
Recitation & Discussion Participation 30%
2 Reflection Papers (2 pages, double space, font size 12) 15%
Pre-Midterms 7.5%
Pre-Finals 7.5%
Midterm Exam 20%
Finals Exam 30%

Discussion Questions

Every week, students must submit TWO open-ended discussion questions that directly concern the
readings due. The deadline is 12 midnight before our class meets. These questions should not be
inquiries for more factual information. One quick way to decide whether you have generated a

1
discussion question is to ask yourself if you could find the answer to your question by searching the
internet. If you could—if you are asking for facts—then it is not a discussion question. All questions
will be graded on a credit/no credit basis, which means as long as you turn in open-ended questions
on time, you will receive full credit. This weekly assignment should take no more than a few minutes
of your time.

In order to keep things organized, kindly send your discussion questions to


BaguisiConstiQs@gmail.com. If you have other questions or want to contact me about anything else,
please use my regular email address: alainbbaguisi@gmail.com.

I ask you to send me your questions because I am interested in what caught your attention, what you
think deserve more attention, or what is puzzling or even confusing you. Generally, I want to reinforce
the idea that we should all be generating questions as we read, rather than just looking for the final
holding of the Supreme Court or the so-called “right” rules, doctrines and principles. Further, it is
actually quite difficult to come up with good questions and learning to do so is a skill. Please take this
opportunity to be creative. Don’t be afraid to ask big questions, but please keep them within the context
of the readings of the day. Always feel free to think beyond the readings and discussions.

The discussion questions can be a helpful resource when you’re trying to figure out a final refection
paper topic. Think through the questions that have been posed (your own or those written by your
colleagues) and see what sparks a possible short paper.

Required Readings

This course uses the book of Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. titled, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines: A Commentary, 2009 Edition along with assigned cases and other supplemental materials
that will be distributed in class. You need not purchase the book.

I have attached here a tentative list of readings/cases. Please note that I will likely make changes as the
semester progresses based on the pace of discussions and other developments. Any changes will be
announced in class.

Class Participation

This class will be very interactive. Although I’ll be calling students randomly every meeting, there is a
chance that you may be called more than once to respond to questions regarding the assigned material.
We will use the Socratic method in order to flesh out how the legal doctrines fit into the larger legal
context and what the practical stakes of the doctrines are. Recitations may also involve more than one
student reciting (e.g., two opposing counsels) because I want the Socratic method to help students
develop the habit of finding the weaknesses of their own arguments. You should be able to answer not
only my questions but the questions of your classmates as well. But more importantly, you should be
able to anticipate the questions as you read the material – a significant lawyerly skill. A major goal of
the Socratic method is to make the teacher unnecessary. For the length of your career, you will do it on
your own, or with the other lawyers who are on your team.

Every student should be able to answer and participate every class meeting. Being prepared is essential.
I do not expect perfect answers but I do expect that you have read the material thoroughly. Volunteers
are also welcome and encouraged. Please notice that, in our discussions, quantity and quality are not
the same thing. A high participation grade isn’t only about speaking a lot. Listening to other students,
doing your best to build into the conversation as opposed to subtracting from it, and being willing to
describe how your thoughts might be changing are all necessary to get the highest scores. Moreover,
listening thoughtfully and respectfully are big components as well.

It is my hope that our course will involve lots of discussion. Please come prepared to share your
thoughts, questions, uncertainties, and enthusiasm. In general, excellent participation in discussion
includes: coming prepared to discuss the cases/readings assigned (i.e. do the homework), listening

2
intently to other students’ thoughts, responding to them, sharing your ideas, being open to change your
mind, and reflect on any changes you might experience.

Attendance

Attendance and participation are mandatory. Once you are called and you are absent, you will
automatically get a FAIL grade. It is your responsibility to inform me of any absences related to official
university business. Also, contact me if you encounter any emergencies (health, family, etc.) that could
affect your attendance. If you are unable to participate or attend class on a particular day, please email
me in advance. I may ask for documentation supporting your request for an excused absence (i.e. a
doctor’s note).

Laptop/Mobile Devices

I will be imposing a strict policy against the use of laptops and cell phones during class. Students are
not permitted to use laptops to take notes. I believe we all learn better with fewer distractions. If you
have a special circumstance that makes your laptop necessary for learning, please ask for my
permission first.

Working with Other Students

I highly recommend that each of you choose a class partner or groupmates for this course. You will
better learn the material if you articulate your understanding of the material with peers who will
question, criticize and assist you so as to hone your understanding. There may also be times where we
break into groups during class for this purpose.

Names and Pronouns

Class rosters are provided to the instructor with the student’s legal name. I will gladly honor your
request to address you by an alternate name or gender pronoun. Please advise me of this preference
so that I can make appropriate changes to my records. If your name or gender pronoun changes
during the semester, I am happy to accommodate this as well.

Preliminary Readings:

John Locke, Two Treatises of Government


First Treatise of Government, chs. 1 & 2; &
Second Treatise of Government, chs. 1 & 6
Charles de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, Books I, II, & III.
James Madison, The Federalist No. 47
James Madison, The Federalist No. 48
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78
Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, The Federalist No. 51
Transcript of the “Nominal Voting [explanation of votes] on the Final Draft [1987] Constitution of The
Republic of the Philippines on Third Reading.”

(Week 1)
PART 1: HOW TO READ THE CONSTITUTION

I. Textualism

• CONST. art. VII, § 18


• Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, 177 SCRA 668, Sep. 15, 1989 (majority opinion by Justice Irene
Cortes) (focus on executive power discussion)

3
• Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, 338 SCRA 81, Aug. 15, 2000 (focus on
commander-in-chief powers discussion)
• David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. 171396, 489 SCRA 161, May 3, 2006 (focus on commander-in-chief
powers discussion)
• CONST. art. IX-C, § 1(1)
• Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, 201 SCRA 210, Sep. 3, 1991

II. Structuralism

• Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, 177 SCRA 668, Sep. 15, 1989 (majority opinion by Justice Irene
Cortes) (focus on executive power discussion)
• McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)1 (focus on whether the US Congress had the power to
create a bank)
• De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 191002, Mar. 17, 2010 (focus on midnight appointment
of Chief Justice Renato Corona)

III. Originalism

• Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 415 SCRA 44, Nov. 10, 2003 (focus on use of
Constitutional Commission deliberations in discussing judicial power and the one-year bar in
impeachment)
• De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 191002, Mar. 17, 2010 (focus on use of Constitutional
Commission deliberations in justifying midnight appointment of Chief Justice Renato Corona)
• Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 203766, Apr. 2, 2013 (focus on use of
Constitutional Commission deliberations in determining whether the party-list system is solely for
marginalized sectors)2

PART 2: LINK BETWEEN JUDICIAL REVIEW AND THE POLITICAL QUESTION

I. The legal basis of judicial review in a democracy

• CONST. art. VIII, § 1


• Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936) (focus on the justification for why the Court may
invoke the Constitution to strike down the act of another branch)
• Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)3 (focus on the justification for why the Court may invoke the
Constitution to strike down the act of another branch)
• Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78 4
• ALEXANDER BICKEL, THE LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH, 16-23 (1962)5

II. The expanded certiorari power and the political question

• CONST. art. VIII, § 1


• Tanada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (1957) (focus on the political question)
• Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 415 SCRA 44, Nov. 10, 2003 (focus on
discussion of judicial power and the political question)
• Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, Nov. 8, 2016 (focus on the political question; also read C.J.
Sereno’s dissent that focuses on the political question and expanded judicial review)

1 Available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0017_0316_ZO.html
2 This more recent decision reversed Ang Bagong Bayani v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 147589, 359 SCRA 698,
Jun. 26, 2001.
3 This is the single most important American case in Constitutional Law but extremely difficult to read. A summary

from the Internet may help.


4 Available at http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm.
5 http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/eberman/conlaw/Bickel.pdf

4
(Week 2)
PART 3: THE SPECTRUM OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

I. Judicial activism and judicial restraint

• CONST. art. VIII, § 5(5)


• Reynato Puno, “The View from the Mountaintop”, Keynote Speech delivered at National
Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killing and Enforced Disappearances, Centennial Hall, Manila
Hotel, Jul. 16, 20076
• CONST. art. II, § 16
• Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 224 SCRA 792, Jul. 30, 1993

II. Coordinate constitutional interpretation and popular constitutionalism

• Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 415 SCRA 44, Nov. 10, 2003 (Puno, J., separate
opinion) (focus on coordinacy theory)
• Franklin Drilon, Judging Congress, 79 PHIL. L.J. 35 (2004) 7
• Oscar Franklin Tan, The 2004 Canvass: It is Emphatically the Province and Duty of Congress to Say
What Congress Is, 79 PHIL. L.J. 39, 60-72 (2004)8

PART 4: ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT IN JUDICIAL REVIEW

I. Actual case or controversy requirement

• CONST. art. VIII, § 1


• Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 356-63 (1911) (focus on the definitions of “case” and
“controversy” and the definition of judicial power as “the right to determine actual controversies
arising between adverse litigants”)
• Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 415 SCRA 44, Nov. 10, 2003 (focus on the
section “essential requisites of judicial review” and the Ashwander factors)
• Lozano v. Nograles, G.R. No. 187883, 589 SCRA 356, Jun. 16, 2009 (focus on rationale for the case or
controversy requirement and the standing or locus standi requirement)
• Imbong v. Ochoa, GR No. 204819, April 8, 2014 (read basic facts of the case and J. Leonen’s dissent,
focus on parts I (actual case controversy) and II (on locus standi) only)

II. Ripeness versus prematurity

• CONST. art. VIII, § 1


• Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 415 SCRA 44, Nov. 10, 2003 (focus on the
section “ripeness and prematurity”)
• Philconsa v. Philippine Government, G.R. No. 218406, Nov. 29, 2016 (focus on prematurity)

III. Moot and academic principle

• CONST. art. VIII, § 1


• Lacson v. Perez, G.R. No. 147780, 357 SCRA 757, May 10, 2001 (focus on whether or not the Court
ruled whether the state of rebellion after EDSA III was valid and the effect of the lifting of the state of
rebellion)

6 http://pcij.org/blog/2007/07/17/no-room-for-neutrality-in-protecting-human-rights-puno#more-1834
7 copy to be emailed to class beadle
8 copy to be emailed to class beadle

5
• Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, 421 SCRA 656, Feb. 3, 2004 (focus on whether or not
the Court ruled whether the state of rebellion after the Oakwood mutiny was valid and the effect of the
lifting of the state of rebellion)
• David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. 171396, 489 SCRA 161, May 3, 2006 (focus on the section “moot and
academic principle” in relation to the state of national emergency and the effect of the lifting of the state
of national emergency)
• Fortun v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 190293, Mar. 20, 2012 (focus on whether or not the Court ruled
whether the declaration of martial law in Maguindanao after the Ampatuan massacre was valid and
the effect of the lifting of martial law)
• Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on
Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591, Oct. 14, 2008 (focus on the section “mootness” in relation to the
first Memorandum of Agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the effect of the
government’s declaration that it no longer intended to sign the MOA-AD)

IV. Lis mota

• CONST. art. VIII, § 1


• General v. Urro, G.R. No. 191560, Mar. 29, 2011 (focus on the discussion of lis mota and the section
“An acting appointee has no cause of action for quo warranto against the new appointee”; ignore the
discussion distinguishing a regular and an acting appointment)

(Week 3)
PART 4: ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT IN JUDICIAL REVIEW
(continued)

V. Standing

• CONST. art. VIII, § 1


• CONST. art. VII, § 18, ¶ 3
• Lozano v. Nograles, G.R. No. 187883, 589 SCRA 356, Jun. 16, 2009 (focus on rationale for the standing
or locus standi requirement)

[for the following cases, focus on the standing issues on (a) why must a party have the proper standing
before being allowed to raise a constitutional issue in court? and (b) what kind of injury, generally,
must a party prove to establish standing?]
• Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 415 SCRA 44, Nov. 10, 2003 (focus on
standing issues specified above; read footnote 15)
• Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, 421 SCRA 656, Feb. 3, 2004 (focus on standing issues
specified above)
• David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. 171396, 489 SCRA 161, May 3, 2006 (focus on standing issues
specified above and distinguish how the standing of a people’s organization was recognized from how
such standing was treated in Sanlakas)
• Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on
Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591, Oct. 14, 2008 (focus on standing issues and distinguish the taxpayer
standing claim of Senators Ernesto Maceda and Franklin Drilon)
• Fortun v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 120293, Mar. 20, 2012 (focus on standing issues in the context
of a declaration of martial law, and distinguish the standing of “any citizen” from all other invocations
of citizen standing in all other cases)

VI. Raise a constitutional issue at the earliest possible opportunity

• CONST. art. VIII, § 1


• Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 191618, 635 SCRA 783, Nov. 23, 2010 (focus on
when Atty. Romulo Macalintal raised the constitutional issue; ignore the other issues)
• CONST. art. XIII, § 4

6
• Hacienda Luisita Inc. v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, G.R. No. 171101, 653 SCRA 154, Jul.
5, 2011 (focus on when the constitutional issue was raised; ignore the other issues)

VII. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts

• CONST. art. VIII, § 1


• CONST. art. XVIII, § 25
• Lim v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 151445, 380 SCRA 739, Apr. 11, 2002 (read the majority opinion
and Justice Kapunan’s dissent; focus on the issue of whether American troops are involved in active
combat operations in the Philippines; ignore the analysis of the Visiting Forces Agreement)

VIII. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction over all matters

• CONST. art. VIII, §§ 1, 5(1), 5(2)


• Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) (focus on whether the US Supreme Court had jurisdiction over
a petition for mandamus)
• RULES OF COURT, Rule 63, § 1
• Lacson v. Perez, G.R. No. 147780, 357 SCRA 757, May 10, 2001 (focus on the section “G.R. No. 147810”)

(Week 4)
PART 4: ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT IN JUDICIAL REVIEW
(continued)

IX. Transcendental importance doctrine

• CONST. art. VIII, § 1


• CONST. art. II, § 16
• Kilosbayan v. Guingona, G.R. No. 113375, 232 SCRA 110, May 5, 1994 (read the majority opinion,
Justice Feliciano’s concurring opinion and Justice Puno’s dissent; focus on discussion on standing and
transcendental importance; ignore the discussion about the contract being assailed)
• Kilosbayan v. Morato, G.R. No. 118910, 250 SCRA 130, Nov. 16, 1995 (focus on discussion on standing
and transcendental importance; ignore the discussion about the contract being assailed)
• Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 415 SCRA 44, Nov. 10, 2003 (focus on
discussion on standing and transcendental importance)
• David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. 171396, 489 SCRA 161, May 3, 2006 (focus on discussion on
standing and transcendental importance)
X. Non self executing provisions

• CONST. art. VIII, § 1


• CONST. art. II, § 16
• Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 224 SCRA 792, Jul. 30, 1993 (Feliciano, J., concurring) (focus on
the distinction between a policy and a legal right)
• CONST. art. II, § 19
• CONST. art. XII, §§ 10, 12
• CONST. art. XII, §§ 1, 13
• Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 122156, 267 SCRA 408, 431,
Feb. 3, 1997 (read the majority opinion and the dissents of Justices Puno and Panganiban; focus on the
implementation of the “Filipino First” policy and whether a Filipino bidder was allowed to match a
foreign bidder)
• Tanada v. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, 272 SCRA 18, 54, May 2, 1997 (focus on the sections “Declaration
of Principles Not Self-Executing” and “Economic Nationalism Should Be Read with Other
Constitutional Mandates to Attain Balanced Development of Economy”)
• CONST. art. XII, § 3

7
• Duncan Ass’n of Detailman-PTGWO v. Glaxo-Wellcome Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 162994, 438 SCRA
343, Sep. 17, 2004 (focus on the discussion of Glaxo having a right to guard its trade secrets and a right
to reasonable returns on investments; ignore the discussion on the right to marry)
• CONST. art. XIII, § 4
• Hacienda Luisita Inc. v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, G.R. No. 171101, 653 SCRA 154, Jul.
5, 2011 (Corona, C.J., concurring and dissenting) (focus on the section “Court’s duty to confront
constitutional question and compare the discussion of whether the constitutional provision on land
reform is self executing with the discussion in the majority opinion)

(Week 5)
PART 4: ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT IN JUDICIAL REVIEW
(continued)

XI. Intergenerational responsibility

• CONST. art. VIII, § 1


• CONST. art. II, § 16
• A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule 2, §§ 4-5, Apr. 29, 2010 (Supreme Court Rules of Procedure in Environmental
Cases)
• Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 224 SCRA 792, Jul. 30, 1993

XII. The rulemaking power

• CONST. art. VIII, §§ 1, 5 (5)


• Rep. Act. No. 9745, §10 (2009) (Anti-Torture Act of 2009)
• Reynato Puno, “The View from the Mountaintop”, Keynote Speech delivered at National
Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killing and Enforced Disappearances, Centennial Hall, Manila
Hotel, Jul. 16, 2007, supra (focus on the legal basis of the amparo rules)
• Secretary of Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, 568 SCRA 1, Oct. 7, 2008 (focus on the legal basis of
the amparo rules)
• Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, 301 SCRA 96, Jan. 19, 1999 (focus on the one
paragraph where Justice Puno discusses art. VIII, § 5 (5) before he became Chief Justice)

XIII. The expansion of judicial power’s scope under the 1987 Constitution

• CONST. art. VIII, §§1, 5 (5)


• In re Matter of Impeachment of Renato C. Corona, Verified Complaint for Impeachment, art. VII, Dec.
12, 20119

XIV. After judicial review: Control over implementation of decisions

• Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, 301 SCRA 96, Jan. 19, 1999 (focus on the Court’s
control over the execution of a judgment)
• Metro Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. No. 171947, Feb.
15, 2011 (focus on the Court’s control over the execution of a judgment contrasted with encroachment
on executive power)

XV. After judicial review: Operative fact doctrine

• League of Cities of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 176951, Aug. 24, 2010 (note
the date of the decision; focus on the section “Operative Fact Doctrine”)

9Available at http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2011/12/12/articles-of-impeachment-against-chief-justice-renato-
c-corona-december-12-2011/

8
• Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 202242, Jul. 17, 2012 (focus on the discussion of the
operative fact doctrine at the end of the decision)
• Belgica v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013 (focus on the discussion of the
operative fact doctrine at the end of the decision)
• Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014 (focus on the discussion of the operative fact doctrine)

PART 5: THE SUPREME COURT AND THE JUDICIARY

I. “One Supreme Court”

• CONST. art. VIII, § 1


• Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 191618, 635 SCRA 783, Nov. 23, 2010 (focus on
whether the Presidential Electoral Tribunal is different from the Supreme Court)
• Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710, 356 SCRA 108, Apr. 3, 2001 (motion for reconsideration) (focus
on the section “VI. Recusation”)
• Vargas v. Rilloraza, 80 Phil. 297 (1948) (focus on whether Supreme Court Justices may be disqualified
by the law discussed in the case and other judges may be designated to the Supreme Court)

(Week 6)
PART 5: THE SUPREME COURT AND THE JUDICIARY
(continued)

II. Quorum and the logistics of deciding cases

• CONST. art. VIII, §§ 4, 13, 14, 15


• Fortich v. Corona, G.R. No. 131457, Aug. 19, 1999
• RULES OF COURT, Rule 56, § 7
• League of Cities of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 176951, Dec. 21, 2009 (note
the date of this decision; read the majority opinion and Justice Carpio’s dissent; focus on what happens
to a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s decision if the voting is tied and ignore the substantive
issues regarding the cities)
• RULES OF COURT, Rule 36, § 1
• Agoy v. Araneta Center, Inc. G.R. No. 196358, Mar. 21, 2012
• Nicos Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals, Evangelista, et al, G.R. No. 88709, Feb. 11, 1992
(focus on the questioned order and whether it met the constitutional requirement)
• In re Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan, A. M. No. 00-8- 05-SC, 370 SCRA 658,
Nov. 28, 2001 (focus on the Sandiganbayan’s compliance with the constitutional period to decide cases)

III. Judicial independence, fiscal autonomy and jurisdiction

• CONST. art. VIII, §§ 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12


• CONST. art. VII, § 18
• Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 7810 (focus on the characteristics the judiciary was proposed
to have to ensure its independence from politics)
• CONST. art. IX-D, § 2 (1)
• In re COA Opinion on the Computation of the Appraised Value of the Properties Purchased by the
Retired Chief/Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC, July 31, 2012
• Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 78780, 152 SCRA 284, Jul. 23, 1987 (focus on
whether applying income tax to judges violates judicial independence)
• Diaz v. Court of Appeals, Energy Regulatory Board, et al, G.R. No. 109698, Dec. 5, 1994 (focus on
whether the Court’s appellate jurisdiction may be expanded without its consent)
• CONST. art. VI, § 30

10 Available at http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm.

9
• In re Matter of Impeachment of Renato C. Corona, Verified Complaint for Impeachment, art. VIII,
Dec. 12, 2011
• Metro Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. No. 171947, Feb.
15, 2011 (Carpio, J., dissenting) (focus on the argument that the Court was improperly performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions)
• Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 191618, 635 SCRA 783, Nov. 23, 2010 (focus on
whether the Justices as members of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal were improperly performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions)

IV. Power over procedural rules

• CONST. art. VIII, § 5 (5)


• Baguio Market Vendors Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Cabato-Cortes, G.R. No. 165922, Feb. 26, 2010
• People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 147678, 433 SCRA 640, Jul. 7, 2004 (focus on the creation of intermediate
review only and ignore the facts of the case)
• In Re Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534 (1954) (focus on the Court’s power over admission to the practice of law
and ignore the lengthy discussion of American cases; this case is being assigned primarily for comic
relief)

V. Appointments to the Supreme Court and the judiciary

• CONST. art. VIII, §§ 7-9


• Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, 201 SCRA 210, Sep. 3, 1991
• Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 202242, Jul. 17, 2012 (focus on how many representatives
of Congress may be in the JBC)
• De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 191002, Mar. 17, 2010 (focus on parts III and IV only)
• Villanueva v. JBC, G.R. No. 211833, April 7, 2015 (focus only on the five-year service requirement
issue)

(Week 7)
PART 6: EXECUTIVE POWER

I. The nature and scope of executive power

• CONST. art. VII, § 1


• Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, 177 SCRA 668, Sep. 15, 1989 (majority opinion by Justice Irene
Cortes) (focus on executive power discussion)
• Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (a.k.a. The Steel Seizure Case), 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (Jackson,
J., concurring) (focus on Justice Robert Jackson’s three categorizations of presidential power and his
famous “zone of twilight”)

II. The power of control and the doctrine of qualified political agency

• CONST. art. VII, § 17


• Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, 293 SCRA 141, Jul. 23, 1998 (ignore discussion on the right to privacy;
focus on whether the President could create the computerized identification system discussed using
his own power)
• Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Director General of the National Economic Development Authority, G.R. No.
167798, 487 SCRA 623, Apr. 19, 2006 (ignore discussion on the right to privacy; focus on whether the
President could create the multi-purpose ID system discussed using her own power)
• Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. No. 192935, 637 SCRA 78, Dec. 7, 2010 (focus
on the section “Power of the President to Create the Truth Commission”; ignore discussion of equal
protection clause)

10
• Angeles v. Gaite, G.R. No. 176596, Mar. 23, 2011 (focus on the application of the doctrine of qualified
political agency to the libel case being discussed and its review by the Department of Justice and the
Office of the President; the full background facts of this case are in the original 2009 decision)
• CONST. art. X, §§ 2, 4
• CONST. art. II, § 25
• Drilon v. Lim, G.R. No. 112497, 235 SCRA 135, Aug. 4, 1994 (focus on the difference between the
exercise of supervision versus control with respect to a local government unit)

III. The commander-in-chief power

• CONST. art. VII, § 18


• CONST. art. XVI, § 6
• CONST. art. III, § 13
• Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, 338 SCRA 81, Aug. 15, 2000 (focus on
commander-in-chief powers discussion)
• Lacson v. Perez, G.R. No. 147780, 357 SCRA 757, May 10, 2001 (focus on commander-in-chief powers
discussion)
• Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, 421 SCRA 656, Feb. 3, 2004 (focus on commander-
in-chief powers discussion, including the history of how the power was transplanted from the United
States)
• David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. 171396, 489 SCRA 161, May 3, 2006 (focus on commander-in-chief
powers discussion)
• Fortun v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 120293, Mar. 20, 2012 (read the majority decision and Senior
Associate Justice Antonio Carpio’s dissent; focus on commander-in-chief powers discussion)
• Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on
Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591, Oct. 14, 2008 (focus on commander-in-chief powers discussion and
ignore the discussion of the content of the MOA-AD)
• Lagman v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 231658, July 4, 2017 (focus on commander-in-chief powers
discussion)

IV. Emergency powers and the power to take over

• CONST. art. VI, § 23(2)


• CONST. art. XII, § 17
• David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. 171396, 489 SCRA 161, May 3, 2006 (focus on the section “Third
Provision: Power to Take Over”)

V. Sole organ and authority in foreign affairs

• CONST. art. VII, §§ 20-21


• Bayan Muna v. Romulo, G.R. No. 159618, 641 SCRA 244, Feb. 1, 2011 (focus on the president’s power
over foreign affairs and agreements with other states and the section “No grave abuse of discretion”;
focus also on Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio’s argument that the executive agreement
involved could not run counter to law)
• Saguisag v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 212426, 212444, January 12, 2016 (Focus on the part on the
‘Broad Constitutional Context of the President: Defense, Foreign Relations, and EDCA. Also focus on
the discussion on executive agreements)

(Week 8)
PART 6: EXECUTIVE POWER
(continued)

VI. Power to appoint

• CONST. art. VII, § 16

11
• CONST. art. XVI, § 6
• CONST. art. VI, § 18
• Calderon v. Carale, G.R. No. 91636, 208 SCRA 254, Apr. 23, 1992 (quoting the landmark decision
Sarmiento v. Mison, G.R. No. 79974, 156 SCRA 549, Dec. 17, 1987)
• Rufino v. Endriga, G.R. No. 139554, 496 SCRA 13, Jul. 21, 2006
• Luego v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 69137, 143 SCRA 327, Aug. 5, 1986 (ignore the facts and
focus on the doctrine regarding the nature of appointment as an essentially discretionary power and
how the Commission on Appointments and Civil Service Commission restrict the President’s power of
appointment)
• CONST. art. VII, §§ 13-15
• De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 191002, Mar. 17, 2010 (focus on the discussion of the
restrictions on the President’s power of appointment and how these restrictions apply to the judiciary)
• Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, 380 SCRA 49, Apr. 2, 2002 (focus on the validity of the ad
interim appointments involved)
• Pimentel v. Ermita, G.R. No. 164978, 472 SCRA 587, Oct. 13, 2005
• Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 203372, June 16, 2015 (focus on discussion of
why Arroyo’s midnight appointments were not valid)

VII. Power to pardon and to grant amnesty

• CONST. art. VII, § 19


• Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, 82 Phil. 642 (1949)
• Monsanto v. Factoran, G.R. No. 78239, 170 SCRA 190, Feb. 9, 1989 (focus on the present doctrine
regarding the scope and effects of a pardon; note that some portions extensively discuss old doctrine)
• In re Petition for Habeas Corpus of Torres, G.R. No. 122338, Dec. 29, 1995
• People v. Salle, G.R. No. 103567, 250 SCRA 581, Dec. 4, 1995 (focus on whether a pardon may be
granted to a person still appealing his conviction)

VIII. Power to veto

• CONST. art. VI, § 27


• Bengzon v. Drilon, G.R. No. 103524, 208 SCRA 133, Apr. 15, 1992
• Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals and Manila Golf & Country Club, Inc.,
G.R. No. 47421, May 14, 1990

PART 7: THE PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

I. Qualifications, disqualifications and selection

• CONST. art. VII, §§ 2-5, 13


• CONST. art. IX-B, §§ 6-8
• Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 83896, 194 SCRA 317, Feb. 22, 1991

II. Succession

• CONST. art. VII, §§ 7-12


• Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710, 356 SCRA 108, Mar. 2, 2001

III. Presidential immunity from suit

• Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710, 356 SCRA 108, Mar. 2, 2001 (focus on the section “Whether or
not the petitioner enjoys immunity from suit”)

IV. Executive privilege versus legislative inquiry

12
• CONST. art. VI, §§ 21, 22
• Exec. Order No. 464 (2005)
• Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, 488 SCRA 1, Apr. 20, 2006 (ignore the discussion of the right to
information)
• Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, G.R. No. 180643,
Mar. 25, 2008 (read the majority opinion and the dissent of Chief Justice Reynato Puno)

(Week 9)
PART 8: LAWMAKING

I. Legislative procedure and restrictions

• CONST. art. VI, §§ 16(4), 24, 26, 27


• Abas Kida v. Senate, G.R. No. 196271, Oct. 18, 2011 (focus on the section “The President’s Certification
on the Urgency of RA No. 10153”)
• Abakada Guro Party List v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 168056, 469 SCRA 1, Sep. 1, 2005 (focus on
the section “Procedural Issue” in the majority opinion and the second and third points of Justice
Reynato Puno’s separate opinion regarding the enrolled bill doctrine and bicameral conference
committee)
• Arroyo v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, 277 SCRA 268, Aug. 14, 1997 (focus on discussion of enrolled
bill and journal entry doctrines)

II. The form and substance of bills (including taxation)

• CONST. art. VI, §§ 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29


• CONST. art. XIV, § 4(3)
• CONST. art. XIV, § 5(5)
• De Guzman v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 129118, 336 SCRA 188, Jul. 19, 2000 (focus on the
discussion of art. VI, § 26 of the Constitution)
• Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. 115455, 235 SCRA 630, Aug. 25, 1994 (focus on the discussion
of art. VI, § 24 of the Constitution)
• Lambino v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 174153, 505 SCRA 160, Oct. 25, 2006 (focus solely on
the discussion of logrolling legislation)
• Philippine Constitutional Association v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, 235 SCRA 506, Aug. 19, 1994
• Guingona v. Carague, G.R. No. 94571, 196 SCRA 221, Apr. 22, 1991
• Lung Center of the Philippines v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 144104, 433 SCRA 119, Jun. 29, 2004 (focus
on the discussion of art. VI, § 28(3) of Constitution)

III. Congressional oversight, legislative inquiries and the legislative veto

• CONST. art. VI, §§ 21, 22


• Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, 488 SCRA 1, Apr. 20, 2006 (focus on the discussion of legislative
inquiries)
• Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, G.R. No. 180643,
Mar. 25, 2008 (focus on the discussion of legislative inquiries)
• Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, 562 SCRA 251, Aug. 14, 2008 (focus on
discussion of legislative veto and congressional oversight)
• Belgica v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013 (focus on discussion of
congressional oversight and the PDAF)

PART 9: CONGRESS AND ITS STRUCTURE

I. Composition

13
• CONST. art. VI, §§ 1-8
• Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 202242, Jul. 17, 2012 (focus on the discussion of Congress’
bicameral structure)
• Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No. 157870, 570 SCRA 411, Nov. 3, 2008 (focus
on the Pimentel petition)
• Sema v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 177597, 558 SCRA 700, Jul. 16, 2008 (focus on discussion
of creation and reapportionment of congressional districts)
• Aquino v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189793, 617 SCRA 623, Apr. 7, 2010 (focus on discussion
of creation of congressional districts)

(Week 10)
PART 9: CONGRESS AND ITS STRUCTURE
(continued)

II. The Party List System

• CONST. art. VI, § 5


• Rep. Act. No. 7941, § 2 (1995)
• Abayon v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 189466, 612 SCRA 375, Feb. 11, 2010
(focus on nature of party list representative and how his qualification is contested)
• Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency v. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 179271, Apr. 21 & Jul. 8, 2009 (focus on the computation of party-list seat allocations)
• Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 203766, Apr. 2, 2013 (focus on discussion
of the concept of marginalized and whether the party-list system is solely for the marginalized)

III. Vacancies, suspensions and replacement; parliamentary immunity

• CONST. art. VI, §§ 9, 16(3)


• REV. PEN. CODE, art. 143-45
• Tolentino v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 148334, 420 SCRA 438, Jan. 21, 2004 (focus on the
validity of the special election held)
• Defensor Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055, 356 SCRA 636, Apr. 18, 2001 (focus on the
nature of the power of Congress to suspend a legislator under the Constitution and the power to
suspend under a law)
• Osmeña v. Pendatun, 109 Phil. 863 (1960)
• Pobre v. Defensor Santiago, A.C. No. 7399, Aug. 25, 2009 (focus on whether a legislator may be
disbarred for statements on the floor; ignore the legal ethics discussions)
• People v. Jalosjos, G.R. No. 132875, Feb. 3, 2000 (focus on whether a legislator in custody may be freed
to attend sessions of Congress)

IV. Restrictions

• CONST. art. VI, §§ 10, 12-14, 20


• Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. v. Mathay, G.R. No. 25554, 18 SCRA 300, Oct. 4, 1966 (focus
on the length of time before an increase of legislators’ salaries takes effect)
• Liban v. Gordon, G.R. No. 175352, 593 SCRA 68, Jul. 15, 2009 (focus on the disqualification of a
legislator from holding another office)
• Puyat v. de Guzman, G.R. No. 51122, 113 SCRA 32, Mar. 25, 1982

V. Internal matters and quorum

• CONST. art. VI, § 16


• Defensor Santiago v. Guingona, G.R. No. 134577, 298 SCRA 756, Nov. 18, 1998 (focus on judicial
review of election of congressional officers)

14
• Pimentel v. Senate Committee of the Whole, G.R. No. 187714, Mar. 8, 2011 (focus on definition of a
quorum and when internal rules must be published)
• Garcillano v. House Committee on Public Information, G.R. No. 170338, 575, SCRA 170, Dec. 23, 2008
(focus on requirement for publication of internal rules for legislative inquiries)

VI. Sessions and voting

• CONST. art. VI, §§ 10, 11, 15, 16


• CONST. art. VI, § 23(1)
• CONST. art. VII, § 11
• CONST. art. XVII, § 1(1)
• CONST. art. VII, §§ 18, 19
• Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, G.R. No. 180643,
Mar. 25, 2008 (focus on “The Senate is a continuing body”)

(Week 11)
PART 8: IMPEACHMENT

• CONST. art. XI, §§ 1-3


• In re Plagiarism, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, Feb. 8, 2011 (Carpio-Morales, J., dissenting) (focus on
disbarment of impeachable officers)
• Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 415 SCRA 44, Nov. 10, 2003 (focus on
“Constitutionality of the Rules of Procedure” and the impeachment process)
• Gutierrez v. House Committee on Justice, G.R. No.193459, 643 SCRA 199, Feb. 15, 2011 (focus on
discussion of the impeachment process and the one year bar)
• Corona v. Senate, G.R. No. 200242, Jul. 17, 2012 (focus on “impeachment and judicial review”)
• Gil Cabacungan, House divided on impeaching 8 justices who blocked opening of Corona dollar
accounts, PHIL. DAILY INQUIRER, Feb. 10, 2012
• Maila Agar, Senate needs to assert supremacy as impeachment court, PHIL. DAILY INQUIRER, Feb.
28, 2012

PART 9: INDEPENDENT CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND OTHER OFFICES

I. Common provisions

• CONST. art. IX-A, §§ 1-8


• CONST. art. IX-B, § 1
• CONST. art. IX-C, § 1
• CONST. art. IX-D, § 1
• Engaño v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156959, 493 SCRA 323, Jun. 27, 2006 (focus on whether public
office is a vested right)
• Gaminde v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 140335, 347 SCRA 655, Dec. 13, 2000 (focus on the
rotation in commissioners’ terms)
• Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, 380 SCRA 49, Apr. 2, 2002 (focus on acting and ad interim
appointments in constitutional commissions)
• Funa v. Chairman of the Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 192791, Apr. 24, 2012 (focus on validity of
promoting a commissioner to chairman of an independent commission and the summary rules at the
end of the decision)

II. Commission on Elections

• CONST. art. IX-C, §§ 2-11


• Bulilis v. Nuez, G.R. No. 195953, Aug. 9, 2011 (focus on certiorari power of Commission on Elections)

15
• Jaramilla v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 155717, 414 SCRA 337, Oct. 23, 2003 (focus on how
Commission on Elections decides quasi-judicial versus administrative issues; ignore the merits of the
case)
• Cayetano v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 193846, Apr. 12, 2011
• Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 203766, Apr. 2, 2013 (focus on
interpretation of art. IX-C, § 7)
• Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 119976, 248 SCRA 300, Sep. 18, 1995 (Puno,
J., concurring) (focus on interpretation of art. IX-C, § 10)
• Rep. Act No. 9006, §§ 2, 10 (the Fair Election Act) (2001)
• Commission on Elections Resolution No. 9615, § 14 (Implementing the Fair Election Act) (2013)
• National Press Club v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 102653, Mar. 5, 1992 (focus on the authority
of the Commission on Elections to enforce a right of reply)

III. Commission on Audit

• CONST. art. IX-C, §§ 2-4


• Development Bank of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 88435, Jan. 16, 2002 (focus
on “First Issue: Power of COA to Audit under the Constitution”)
• Veloso v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 193677, 656 SCRA 767, Sep. 6, 2011 (focus on Commission
on Audit authority over local governments and on what basis the Supreme Court strikes down its
decisions)
• In re COA Opinion on the Computation of the Appraised Value of the Properties Purchased by the
Retired Chief/Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC, July 31, 2012

IV. Civil Service Commission

• CONST. art. IX-B, §§ 2-8


• Department of Health v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 113212, 251 SCRA 700, Dec.
29, 1995
• Luego v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 69137, 143 SCRA, 327, Aug. 5, 1986
• Jomar Canlas, Chief Justice violated Constitution – Carpio, MANILA TIMES, Feb. 11, 2013

V. Sandiganbayan and the Ombudsman

• CONST. art. XI, §§ 4-18


• Lacson v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096, 301 SCRA 298, Jan. 20, 1999 (focus on the
Sandiganbayan’s history and jurisdiction; ignore the constitutional arguments raised against the
Sandiganbayan law)
• Uy v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105965, Mar. 20, 2001 (focus on the history and powers of the
Ombudsman)

VI. Commission on Human Rights

• CONST. art. XIII, §§ 17-19


• Commission on Human Rights Employees Association v. Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No.
155336, 496 SCRA 226, Jul. 21, 2006 (focus on the Commission on Human Right’s history and status as
constitutional body)
• Simon v. Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No. 100150, 229 SCRA 117, Jan. 5, 1994

VII. House and Senate Electoral Tribunals

• CONST. art. VI, §§ 14, 17, 19


• Abbas v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 83767, 166 SCRA 651, Oct. 27, 1988
• Barbers v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 165691, 460 SCRA 569, Jun. 22, 2005 (focus on
jurisdiction of Senate Electoral Tribunal)

16
• Pimentel v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 141489, Nov. 29, 2002 (focus on
whether an electoral tribunal must have party-list congressmen as members)
• Bondoc v. Pineda, G.R. No. 97710, 201 SCRA 792, Sep. 26, 1991 (focus on independence and security
of tenure associated with electoral tribunal)

VIII. Commission on Appointments

• CONST. art. VI, §§ 18, 19


• CONST. art. VII, §§ 16
• Daza v. Singson, G.R. No. 86344, 180 SCRA 496, Dec. 21, 1989 (focus on proportionality of
Commission on Appointments membership)
• Coseteng v. Mitra, G.R. No. 86649, 187 SCRA 377, Jul. 12, 1990 (focus on computation of
proportionality)
• Guingona v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 106971, 214 SCRA 789, Oct. 20, 1992 (focus on fractions in
computations for Commission on Appointments)

PART 10: CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION

I. Constitutional Amendments

• CONST. art. XVII, §§ 1-4


• Lambino v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 174153, 505 SCRA 160, Oct. 25, 2006 (please read the
case carefully as it outlines the entire topic)
• Tolentino v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 34150, 41 SCRA 702, Oct. 16, 1971 (focus on whether
changes made by a constitutional convention may be made one at a time)
• CONST. art. XVIII, §§ 27 (date: February 2, 1987)

II. Revolution and other changes of constitutional regime

• Proclamation No. 1, s.1986, available at http://www.gov.ph/1986/02/25/proclamation-no-1-2


• In re Bermudez, G.R. No. 76180, 145 SCRA 160, Oct. 24, 1986 (focus on whether the legality of the
Aquino government is justiciable)
• Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710, 356 SCRA 108, Mar. 2, 2001 (focus on the comparison of the
change of administration in Edsa I and Edsa II)
• Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh, 75 Phil. 113 (1945) (focus on the issues in the questions below and
pick out the main ideas from the lengthy discussion in the case)

(Week 12)
PART 11: PUTTING IT TOGETHER: THE BROADER CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME

I. Separation of powers and checks and balances

• Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, The Federalist No. 51, INDEPENDENT JOURNAL, Feb. 6,
1788
• Macalintal v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 157013, 505 SCRA 160, Jul. 10, 2003 (Puno, J.,
concurring and dissenting) (focus on section “separation of powers and checks and balances”)

II. Definition of a state and the Philippine territory

• CONST. art. I
• CONST. art. XII, § 2(2)
• Collector of Internal Revenue v. Campos Rueda, G.R. No. 13250, 42 SCRA 23, Oct. 29, 1971 (focus on
definition of a state)

17
• Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on
Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591, Oct. 14, 2008 (focus on “Second Substantive Issue”)

III. Sovereign immunity

• CONST. art. XVI, § 3


• Air Transportation Office v. Ramos, G.R. No. 159402, Feb. 23, 2011 (focus on distinction between
governmental and proprietary functions of government for purposes of determining sovereign
immunity)
• Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152318,
Apr. 16, 2009 (focus on discussion of sovereign immunity in relation to a foreign entity)
• Professional Video, Inc. (Provi) v. Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (Tesda),
G.R. No. 155504, Jun. 26, 2009 (focus on distinction between governmental and proprietary functions
of government, and the immunity of public funds from attachment and garnishment)
• Minucher v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142396, Feb. 11, 2003 (ignore discussion of diplomatic
immunity; focus on sovereign immunity in relation to a United States government agent performing
official functions overseas)
• Republic v. Sandoval, G.R. No. 84607, 220 SCRA 124, Mar. 19, 1993 (focus on the discussion of how
liability should be borne by the individuals concerned, not the State)
• Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 88537, Apr. 17, 1990 (focus solely on the issue of whether the
State enjoys sovereign immunity against a counterclaim or against a party seeking no affirmative
performance)
• Municipality of San Fernando v. Firme, G.R. No. 52179, 195 SCRA 692, Apr. 8, 1991 (focus on
sovereign immunity of municipal corporations)
• CIVIL CODE, arts. 2176, 2180(6)
• Merritt v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 34 Phil. 311 (1916) (focus on discussion on whether
a government is liable for quasi-delicts committed by its officers and agents, particularly the quote from
the Spanish Supreme Court)
• Fontanilla v. Maliaman, G.R. No. 55963, Feb. 27, 1991 (read the main opinion and the separate
opinions of Justices Florentino Feliciano and Teodoro Padilla) (focus on whether the National Irrigation
Administration may invoke sovereign immunity and its liability for torts committed by its employees,
and how this case is distinguished from Merritt)

IV. Citizenship

• CONST. art. IV, §§ 1-5


• Secretary of Justice v. Pennisi, G.R. No. 169958, 614 SCRA 292, Mar. 5, 2010 (focus on “Validity of the
Cancellation of Respondent’s Certificate of Recognition and the Issuance of Deportation Order”)
• Ma v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 183133, 625 SCRA 566, Jul. 26, 2010
• CONST. art. VI, §§ 3, 6
• CONST. art. VII, § 2
• CONST. art. VIII, § 7
• CONST. art. IX-B, § 1
• CONST. art. IX-C, § 1
• CONST. art. IX-D, § 1
• CONST. art. XI, § 8
• CONST. art. XII, § 20
• CONST. art. XIII, § 17(2)
• CONST. art. XI, § 18
• CONST. art. XII, § 8
• CONST. art. XVIII, §§ 27 (date: February 2, 1987)
• Commonwealth Act No. 625, § 1 (1941)
• Commonwealth Act No. 473, §§ 2-7, 15 (1939)
• Commonwealth Act No. 63, §§ 1-2 (1941)
• Republic Act No. 8171, § 1 (1995)
• Republic Act No. 9225, §§ 3-5 (2003)

18
• Bengson v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 142840, 357 SCRA 545, May 7, 2001
(focus on “On the issue of citizenship” and Part 4 of Justice Artemio Panganiban’s concurring opinion)
• Co v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 92191, 199 SCRA 692, Jul. 30, 1991 (focus
on “On the issue of citizenship”)
• Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, G.R. No. 83882, 169 SCRA 364, Jan. 24, 1989 (focus on whether renunciation
of citizenship needs to be explicit)
• Sobejana-Condon v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 198742, Aug. 10, 2012 (focus on “Petitioner
is disqualified from running for elective office for failure to renounce her Australian citizenship”)
• In re Muneses, B.M. No. 2112, Jul. 24, 2012
• Cordora v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 176947, Feb. 19, 2009 (focus on “Tambunting’s dual
citizenship” and “requirements for dual citizens”)

PART 12: OTHER PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES

• CONST. arts. II, XII, XIII


• Please review the doctrines on self executing / non self executing principles.

I. Democratic and republican state

• CONST. art. II, §§ 1, 4


• Aquino & Robredo v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189793, 617 SCRA
623, Apr. 7, 2010 (Carpio, J., dissenting) (focus on first two paragraphs)
• Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 120295, 257 SCRA 727, Jun.
28, 1996 (Puno, J., concurring) (focus on first three paragraphs)

II. Renunciation of war and policy on foreign troops in Philippine territory

• CONST. art. II, §§ 2, 7, 8


• Lim v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 151445, 380 SCRA 739, Apr. 11, 2002 (focus on brief discussion
of assigned constitutional provisions only)

III. Supremacy of civilian authority over the military / national police force

• CONST. art. II, § 3


• CONST. art. XVI, § 6
• CONST. art. XVIII, § 24
• Kulayan v. Tan, G.R. No. 187298, Jul. 3, 2012 (focus on text accompanying footnotes 39 to 41 and
footnotes 49 to 53)

IV. Social justice and agrarian reform

• CONST. art. II, §§ 10, 21


• CONST. art. XIII, §§ 1-2
• Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742,
175 SCRA 343, Jul. 14, 1989 (focus on text accompanying footnotes 1-4, 45-51)
• Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 80609, 164 SCRA 671, Aug. 23, 1988 (focus on text accompanying footnotes 13-
17)

V. Right to health

• CONST. art. II, § 15


• CONST. art. XIII, §§ 11-12
• CONST. art. XIV, § 19(1)
• Roma Drug v. Regional Trial Court of Guagua, G.R. No. 149907, Apr. 16, 2009 (focus on Part III)

19
VI. Right to balanced and healthful ecology

• CONST. art. II, § 16


• Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 224 SCRA 792, Jul. 30, 1993 (focus on
answering the guide questions)

VII. Nationalist economic provisions and role of private sector

• CONST. art. II, §§ 19-20


• CONST. art. XII, §§ 1, 10-13
• Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 122156, 267 SCRA 408, 431,
Feb. 3, 1997 (read the majority opinion and the dissents of Justices Puno and Panganiban; focus on the
implementation of the “Filipino First” policy and whether a Filipino bidder was allowed to match a
foreign bidder)
• Tanada v. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, 272 SCRA 18, 54, May 2, 1997 (focus on the sections “Declaration
of Principles Not Self-Executing” and “Economic Nationalism Should Be Read with Other
Constitutional Mandates to Attain Balanced Development of Economy”)
• Asia’s Emerging Dragon Corp. v. Secretary of Transportation and Communication, G.R. No. 169914,
549 SCR 44, Apr. 2008 (Corona, J., dissenting) (focus on text accompanying footnotes 71-73)

VIII. Equal access to public office and political dynasties

• CONST. art. II, § 26


• CONST. art. XIII, § 1
• Pamatong v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 161872, 427 SCR 96, Apr. 13, 2004

IX. Government duty to disclose and freedom of information

• CONST. art. II, § 28


• CONST. art. III, § 7
• Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment Through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. (Ideals) v.
Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corp. (Psalm), G.R. No. 192088, Oct. 9, 2012 (focus
on “Violation of right to information”)

X. Regalian doctrine, land ownership and exploitation of natural resources

• CONST. art. XII, §§ 1-4, 7-8


• CIVIL CODE, arts. 420, 1117, 1137
• Republic v. Santos, G.R. No. 180027, Jul. 18, 2012 (focus on the discussion of the Regalian Doctrine
under the Constitution in “Jura Regalia and the Property Registration Decree”)
• Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, 384 SCRA 152, Jul. 9, 2002 (focus on the
constitutional rules in “Dispositions under the 1987 Constitution,” “The Rationale behind the
Constitutional Ban” and “Classification of Reclaimed Foreshore and Submerged Areas” but do not
focus on the specific statutory rules applicable)
• La Bugal B’laan Tribal Association v. Ramos, G.R. No. 127882, Dec. 1, 2004 (focus on entire section
“The Proper Interpretation of the Constitutional Phrase ‘Agreements Involving Either Technical or
Financial Assistance’”)

XII. Ownership of public utilities

• CONST. art. XII, § 11


• Gamboa v. Teves, G.R. No. 176579, 652 SCRA 690, Jun. 28, 2011 (focus on “Definition of the Term
‘Capital’ in Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution”)

XIII. Monopolies

20
• CONST. art. XII, § 19
• Garcia v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 157584, 583 SCRA 119, Apr. 2, 2009 (focus on “Actual Case
Controversy Susceptible of Judicial Determination”

21