Está en la página 1de 47

ARTICLE VII.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.

I. Scope of power
*Marcos v. Manglapus - 177 SCRA 668 [1989] and MR – 178 SCRA 760 [1989] (residual
power)

II. Examples of exercisef

A. Valid exercise
Philconsa v. Enriquez – 235 SCRA 506 [1994]
*Webb v. de Leon – 247 SCRA 652 [ ]
*Djumantan v. Domingo – 240 SCRA 746 [1995] (deportation)
Chavez v. PCGG – GR 130716, December 9, 1998 (compromise agreement in recovery of ill-
gotten wealth)
*Pontejos v. Ombudsman – 483 SCRA 83 [2006] (power to grant immunity to state
witnesses)
*Banda v. Ermita – 618 SCRA 499 [2010] (power to reorganize)

B. Invalid exercise
*Laurel v. Garcia - 187 SCRA 797 [1990] (alienation of government property)
*Review Center v. Ermita – 583 SCRA 42 [2009] (power of President over administrative
agencies)
*Biraogo v. Truth Commission – 637 SCRA 78 [2010] (power of the President to investigate)

III. Executive Privilege


*US v. Nixon - 418 US 683 [1974] (general claim of executive privilege)
*Almonte v. Vasquez - 244 SCRA 286 [1995] (EIIB information not subject of privilege)
*Senate v. Ermita – GR 169659, April 20, 2006 (E.O. 464)
*Neri v. Senate – GR 180643, March 25, 2008 (ZTE-NBN deal)
*Akbayan v. Aquino – GR 170516, July 16, 2008 (JPEPA)

IV. Immunity from Suit


Harlow v. Fitzgerald 457 US 800 [1982] (absolute v. qualified immunity)
*Soliven v. Makasiar 167 SCRA 393 [1988] (who has the right to invoke)
*Clinton v. Jones 520 US 681 [1997] (unofficial conduct)
*Gloria v. CA – GR 119903, August 15, 2000 (Cabinet member)
*Estrada v. Desierto – GR 146740-15, March 2, 2001 and MR – April 3, 2001 (impeachment)
*David v. Arroyo – 489 SCRA 162 [2006] (case against President Arroyo)

V. The Cabinet
Constantino v. Cuisia - 472 SCRA 505[2005] (alter ego)

Section 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines,
a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a
resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.

*Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, GR Nos. 221697 & 221698-700, March 8, 2016 (Citizenship of


a foundling)

Section 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same qualifications and term of office
and be elected with, and in the same manner, as the President. He may be removed from office in
the same manner as the President.
The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no
confirmation.

*Funa v. Executive Secretary, GR 191644, Feb 19, 2013 (exception to the general rule of
prohibition to hold other govt offices) (supra Art VII, sec 3)

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

1
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.

I. Term of the President and VP


Anson-Roa v. Arroyo - GR162384, March 24, 2004

II. Congress as National Board of Canvassers


Brillantes v. COMELEC - 432 SCRA[2005](advanced unofficial)
*Lopez v. Senate – GR 163556, June 8, 2004 (rules for canvassing)
*Pimentel v. Joint Committee – GR 163783, June 22, 2004 (non-leg.)
BANAT v. COMELEC - GR 177508, August 7, 2009 (automation)

III. Breaking Presidential ord Vice-Presidential Tie

IV. Presidential or Vice-Presidential Controversies


Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos – 253 SCRA 559 [1996] (protest rendered moot by assumption into
Senate)
*Tecson v. Lim – 424 SCRA 277 [2005] (need for post-election issue)
Poe v. GMA - Pet Case No. 002, March 29, 2005
*Macalintal v. PET – 635 783 [2010] (Constitutionality)

Section 5. Before they enter on the execution of their office, the President, the Vice-President, or the
Acting President shall take the following oath or affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as
President (or Vice-President or Acting President) of the Philippines, preserve and defend its
Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the
Nation. So help me God." (In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted.)

Section 6. The President shall have an official residence. The salaries of the President and Vice-
President shall be determined by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure. No increase in
said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the term of the incumbent during
which such increase was approved. They shall not receive during their tenure any other emolument
from the Government or any other source.

Section 7. The President-elect and the Vice President-elect shall assume office at the beginning of
their terms.
If the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice President-elect shall act as President until the
President-elect shall have qualified.
If a President shall not have been chosen, the Vice President-elect shall act as President until a
President shall have been chosen and qualified.
If at the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died or shall have
become permanently disabled, the Vice President-elect shall become President.

2
Where no President and Vice-President shall have been chosen or shall have qualified, or where
both shall have died or become permanently disabled, the President of the Senate or, in case of his
inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall act as President until a President or a
Vice-President shall have been chosen and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which one who is to act as President shall be
selected until a President or a Vice-President shall have qualified, in case of death, permanent
disability, or inability of the officials mentioned in the next preceding paragraph.

Section 8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the
President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of
death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice-
President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, shall then act as President until the President or Vice-President shall have been
elected and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President in case of death, permanent
disability, or resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve until the President or the Vice-
President shall have been elected and qualified, and be subject to the same restrictions of powers
and disqualifications as the Acting President.

Section 9. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President during the term for
which he was elected, the President shall nominate a Vice-President from among the Members of
the Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume office upon confirmation by a
majority vote of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.

Section 10. The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of the third day after the vacancy in
the offices of the President and Vice-President occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without
need of a call and within seven days, enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President
and a Vice-President to be held not earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the
time of such call. The bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2,
Section 26, Article V1 of this Constitution and shall become law upon its approval on third reading
by the Congress. Appropriations for the special election shall be charged against any current
appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4, Section 25, Article V1 of
this Constitution. The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special election
postponed. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before
the date of the next presidential election.

Section 11. Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such
powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President.
Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and
to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable
to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the
powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall reassume the
powers and duties of his office. Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet
transmit within five days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office, the Congress shall decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress shall
convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in accordance with its rules and without
need of call.
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if not in session,
within twelve days after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses,
voting separately, that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the President shall continue exercising the powers
and duties of his office.

*Estrada v. Desierto - GR 146740-15 and GR 146738, March 2, 2001 and MR- April 3, 2001 (supra.,
Sec. 1) (succession)

Supplement:

3
Panganiban, Reforming the Judiciary, Chapter 10.

Section 12. In case of serious illness of the President, the public shall be informed of the state of his
health. The members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign relations and the
Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, shall not be denied access to the President
during such illness.

Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or
assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or
employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice
any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with,
or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President
shall not, during his tenure, be appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the
Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or
offices, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.

I. Prohibition against Holding Another Office or Employment


*Rafael v. Embroidery & Apparel Control Board – 21 SCRA 336 [1967] (designation and ex-
officio capacity)
*CLU v. Exec. Secretary – 194 SCRA 317 [1991] (stricter prohibition on the President’s official
family against multiple offices)
*De la Cruz v. COA – GR 138489, November 27, 2001 (alternates of Cabinet member are also
not entitled to additional compensation)
Bitonio v. COA – 437 SCRA 277 [2004]
Nat’l. Amnesty Com. v. COA – 437 SCRA 655 [2004]
*Funa v. Ermita – 612 SCRA 308 [2010]
Betoy v. The Board of Directors, National Power Corporation - GR 156556-57, October 4, 2011
(Whether Sections 11, 48, and 52 of Epira violate Section 13. Reiterates CLU v. Exec Sec.)
*Funa v. Executive Secretary, GR 191644, Feb 19, 2013 (prohibition to hold any other office)
*Espiritu v. Lutgarda, GR 204964, October 2015, 2014

II. Other Prohibitions


*Doromal v. Sandiganbayan – 177 SCRA 354 [1989] (prohibited participation in a contract with
the government; indirect interest)

Section 14. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless revoked by
the elected President, within ninety days from his assumption or reassumption of office.

Section 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his
term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments
to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger
public safety.

Temporary Appointments
In re Appointment of Valenzuela - 298 SCRA 408
*De Castro v. JBC – 615 SCRA 666 [2010]
Atty. Elias Omar Sana v. Career Executive Service Board - GR 192296, November 15, 2011

Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other
officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other
officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those
whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of
other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments,
agencies, commissions, or boards.
The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress,
whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproved
by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.

4
I. Nature of the Appointing Power
*Government v. Springer- 50 PHIL 259 [1927] (power to appoint as executive)
Bermudez v. Exec. Secretary – GR 131429 [August 4, 1999] (DOJ recommendation not necessary)
*Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines - reconsideration GR 196271, February
2012 (Interpretation of power of president to appoint OICs)
*Velicaria – Garafil v. OP – 758 SCRA 414 [2015] (revocation of GMA appointments)

II. Kinds of Presidential Appointments and Confirmation requirement

A. 1st Sentence: The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain,
and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution.
*Bautista v. Salonga - 172 SCRA 1260 [1989] (CHR Chair; no CA confirmation)
*Quintos-Deles v. CA - 177 SCRA 259 [1989] (Sectoral representative; CA confirmation)
*Calderon v. Carale - 208 SCRA 254 [1992] (NLRC; list is exclusive)
U-Sing v. NLRC – 221 SCRA 680 [1993] (reiterating Calderon)
*Tarrosa v. Singson 232 SCRA 553 [1994] (CB Gov.; list is exclusive)
Manolo v. Sistoza – 312 SCRA 239[1999] (PNP officers with rank of col. or naval captain;
no CA confirmation; reiterating Tarrosa)
Soriano v. Lista - GR 153881, March 24, 2004

B. 2nd Sentence: He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments
are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint.
*Sarmineto III v. Mison – 156 SCRA 549 [1987] (Enumeration is limited; 3 rd sentence – use
of the word “alone” as mere lapsus; head of bureau; no CA confirmation)
*Pobre v. Mendieta – 224 738 [1993] (PRC Commissioner; no CA confirmation)
*Flores v. Drilon – GR 104732, June 22, 1993 (SBMA Chair and the Mayor of Olongapo
City)

C. 3rd Sentence: The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank
in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or
boards.
*Rufino v. Endriga – 496 SCRA 13 [2006]

D. 4th Sentence: The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of
the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only
until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the
Congress.
*Pimentel v. Ermita, GR 164978, October 13, 2005 (ad interim vs. acting capacity)

III. Aquino appointments made between Feb. 2, 1987 and July 27, 1987

Supplemental:
Bernas Commentary
Bernas Intent: p.443-454

Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices.
He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

I. Power of control
*Lacson-Magallanes v. Pano - 21 SCRA 395 [1967] (Presidential power to reverse decision of
heads of executive positions; non-delegable is what the President has to exercise in person)
*Ang-Angco v. Castillo - 9 SCRA 619 [1963] (distinguish President’s power over “acts” and
“person” of appointee in classified service)
*Villaluz v. Zaldivar - 15 SCRA 710 [1965] (power to remove Presidential appointee in
unclassified service)
NAMARCO v. Arca - 29 SCRA 648 [1969] (power of control over GOCC’s)
PASEI v. Torres - 225 SCRA 417 [1993] (repeal of LOI by EO)
De Leon v. Carpio - 178 SCRA 457 [1989] (acts of Cabinet Officials)

5
*Joson v. Torres - 290 SCRA 279 [1998] (power to discipline local officials)
Hutchison v. SBMA - GR 131367, August 31, 2000 (power of the President over SBMA; may
overturn decision)
Cruz v. Sec. of DENR – GR 135385, December 6, 2000 (power of the President over NCIP;
control and supervision)
Domingo v. Zamora, GR 142283, Feb. 6, 2003 (power to reorganize)
DENR v. DENR Region 12 Employees, GR 149724, Aug. 19, 2003 (qualified political agency)
Chavez v. Romulo – 431 SCRA 534 [2004]
*KMU v. Dir.-Gen. of NEDA – 487 SCRA 623 [2006] (also under Faithful execution clause)
Phillips v. BOI – 578 SCRA 69 [2010] (mode of review)
Angeles v. Gaite – 605 SCRA 409 [2009] (qualified political agency)
Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit - GR 177131, 07 June 2011

II. Power of supervision


*Drilon v. Lim - 235 SCRA 135 [1994] (power of DOJ Sec. to declare illegal a City Code is mere exercise of
supervision)

III. Faithful execution clause


PRA v. Bunag, GR 143784, Feb. 5, 2003
Romualdez v. SandiganBayan, GR 152259, July 29, 2004
*National Artist for Literature Virgilio Almario, GR 189028, July 16, 2013
*Ocampo v. Enriquez, GR 225973, November 8, 2016

Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines
and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress
lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety
requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours
from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,
the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting
jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke
such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the
initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or
suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist
and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or
suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency
of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ
or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the
functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction
on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor
automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for
rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained
shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.

I. Commander-in-Chiefship
*Lansang v. Garcia 42 SCRA 448 [1971] (habeas corpus reviewable by SC)
Aberca v. Ver 160 SCRA 590 [1988] (habeas corpus – not bar to civil action for damages)
IBP v. Zamora – GR 141284, August 15, 2000 (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 3 – discretionary power of the President to call
out the AFP not subject to tests unlike Martial Law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus)
Lacson v. Perez - GR 147780-81, 147799 and 1477810, May 10, 2001 (power of Supreme Court
to inquire into factual basis for declaration of “state of rebellion”; rendered moot)
Lim v. Exec. Secretary – GR 151445, April 11, 2002 (Balikatan exercises)
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary - 421 SCRA 656 (supra. A6, Sec. 23 (2)
*David v. Arroyo – GR 171396, May 3, 2006 (supra. A6, Sec. 23 (2))
*Ampatuan v. DILG Sec., GR 190259, June 7, 2011 (A6, Sec. 23 (2))

6
Fortun v. Arroyo - GR 190293, 20 March 2012 (power of Supreme Court to inquire into factual basis for
declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; rendered
moot)
*Kulayan v. Tan, GR 187298, July 3, 2012
*Lagman v. Midialdea – GR 231658, July 4, 2017

II. Three Types of Martial Law

III. Martial Law Proper is Essentially Police Power

IV. The 1972 Martial Law

V. The New Martial Law Doctrine

A. When, by whom, and how imposed?

B. The Role of Congress and Court

C. Effects of Imposition

Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the
President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after
conviction by final judgment.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the
Members of the Congress.

I. Purpose of Executive Clemency


*Diego v. People – 755 SCRA 260 [2015] (pardoning power as discretionary; beyond control of
the court)

II. Constitutional Limits on Executive Clemency


*Llamas v. Orbos - 202 SCRA 844 [1991] (clemency on administrative penalties)
People v. Salle - 250 SCRA 581 [1995] (pardon after conviction)
People v. Bacang - 260 SCRA 44 [1996] (pardon pending appeal)
Drilon v. CA - 202 SCRA 378 [1991] (reopening of case after pardon)
*Torres v. Gonzales - 152 SCRA 272 [1987] (violation of conditional pardon)
*People v. Casido - 269 SCRA 360 [1997] (amnesty)

III. Pardon: Nature and Legal Effects


*Cristobal v. Labrador 71 PHIL 34 [1940-1941] (absolute pardon; restoration of full political and
civil rights)
*Monsanto v. Factoran 170 SCRA 190 [1989] (reinstatement to former rights)
Garcia v. COA 226 SCRA 356 [1993] (pardon based on innocence)
*Risos- Vidal v. COMELEC and Estrada, GR No. 206666, January 21, 2015.

IV. Amnesty

V. Other forms of executive clemency

Section 20. The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, and subject to such limitations as
may be provided by law. The Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from the end of every
quarter of the calendar year, submit to the Congress a complete report of its decision on
applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed by the Government or government-owned and
controlled corporations which would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt, and containing
other matters as may be provided by law.

Constantino v. Cuisia - 472 SCRA 505[2005] (Secretary of finance as alter ego)


*Land Bank v. Atlanta Industries – GR 193796, July 2, 2014
*Hontiveros-Baraquel v. TRB, GR 181293, February 23, 2015

7
Section 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by
at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

I. Senate concurrence in international agreements


*Gonzales v. Hechanova - 9 SCRA 230 [1963] (nature of executive agreements)
USAFFE Veterans Association v. Treasurer - 105 PHIL 1030 [1959] (treaty)
Tanada v. Angara - 272 SCRA 18 [1997] (supra., Art. 2, preliminary issue, Sec. 2, Sec. 19)
(instrument signing)
Bayan v. Zamora - GR 138570, October 10, 2000 (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 2) (VFA in relation to Art.
18, Sec. 25)
Abaya v. Ebdane – 315 SCRA 720 (2007)
Pharmaceutical v. DOH – GR 173034, October 9, 2007
Saguisag v. Exec. Secretary. GR 212426, January 12, 2016 and (MR) July 26, 2016, supra. A2,
Sec. 2 and Sec. 7

II. Termination of Treaty

III. Other Foreign Affairs Power


*Vinuya v. Romulo – 619 SCRA 533 [2010]

Section 22. The President shall submit to the Congress, within thirty days from the opening of every
regular session as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of expenditures and sources
of financing, including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures.

Section 23. The President shall address the Congress at the opening of its regular session. He may
also appear before it at any other time.

ARTICLE VIII. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

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.

I. Definition and scope of Judicial Power


*Marbury v. Madison – 1 Cranch 137 [1803] (essence of judicial duty)
*Santiago v. Bautista – 32 SCRA 188 [1970] (concept of judicial function)
*Radiowealth v. Agregado – 86 PHIL. 429 [1950] (implied power; acquisition of equipment)
*In re Laureta – 148 SCRA 382 [1987] (power to preserve its honor)
*In re Borromeo - 241 SCRA 405 [1995] (contempt power)
*Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice – GR 132601, January 19, 1999 (power to delay execution of
sentence)
Planters v. Fertiphil – 548 SCRA 485 [2008] (lower court; const’l. issue)
*RE: Letter of UP Law Faculty - A.M. No. 10-10-4-C, June 7, 2011 (contempt power)
*Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary – 677 SCRA 408 [2012] (ODES no power to
try and decide cases; E.O. No. 13 empowering it is unconstitutional)
*Tan c. Matsuura, GR 179003, Jan 9, 2013(power to review findings of prosecutor preliminary
investigation)
Locsin v HRET, GR 201123, March 19, 2013(supra Art VI, Sec 17)
*Garcia v. Drilon – (supra., A2, S14; power granted to Punong Barangay/Kagawad to issue TPO
not judicial but executive function)
People v. Sandiganbayan, 699 SCRA 713 (granting immunity not inherently judicial)
Disini v. Secretary of Justice, (supra, A2, S 24; issuance of subpoena as adjunct of investigatory
power of executive agencies is valid)
*City of Manila v. Grecia-Cuerdo – 715 SCRA 182 [2014] (power of CTA to issue auxiliary
writs, e.s. certiorari)

II. Intrinsic limit on judicial power


Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transit Co. – 57 PHIL. 60 [1932-1933] (non-judicial function; power to arbitrate)

8
*Noblejas v. Teehankee –23 SCRA 405 [1968] (no power to discipline officers in other branch with equivalent
rank of judge)
Erdito Quarto v. The Honorable Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo, et al. - GR 169042, 05 October
2011.

III. Justiciable Controversy


Angara v. Electoral Commission - 63 Phil 134
US v. Nixon – 418 US 683 [1974] (supra. Art. 7, Sec. 1; justiciable issue: intra-branch dispute and admissibility of
evidence)
Marcos v. Manglapus – 177 SCRA 668 [1989] and MR – 178 SCRA 760 [1989] (supra., Art. 7, Sec. 1; justiciable
issue: extent of judicial review)
Daza v. Singson – 180 SCRA 496 [1989] (supra.,Art. 6, Sec. 18; review of removal from CA by House)
Garcia v. BOI – 191 SCRA 288 [1990] (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 19; actual controversy: economic policy)
Djumantan v. Domingo – 240 SCRA 746 [1995] (supra., Art. 7, Sec. 1; review of deportation proceedings)
Mariano v. COMELEC – 242 SCRA 211 [1995](supra., Art. 6, Sec. 5; actual controversy: hypothetical question)
PPI v. Comelec - 244 SCRA 272
*SBMA v. COMELEC – 262 SCRA 492 [1996] (supra. Art. 6, Sec. 32; no controversy when
resolution is at proposal stage)
Tañada v. Angara – 272 SCRA 18 [1997] (supra., Art. 2, preliminary issue, Sec. 2, Sec. 19 and
Art. 7, Sec. 21; review of treaty-making/signing; entry into WTO as legislative wisdom)
Arroyo v. De Venecia – 277 SCRA 268 [1997] (supra., Art. 6, Sec. 16; review of violation of
internal House procedures)
CIR v. Santos – 277 SCRA 617 [1997] (review of tax-legislation; RTC’s power to invalidate law)
Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio – 278 SCRA 769 [1997] (review of Ombudsman’s findings)
Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona - GR 134577, November 18, 1997
Tatad v. DOE – 281 SCRA 330 [1997] (supra., Art. 6, Sec. 1; review of law-making)
Telecom v. COMELEC – 289 SCRA 337 [1998] (amendment of franchise)
Miranda v. Aguirre – GR 133064, September 16, 1999 (review of local government creation)
Cutaran v. DENR – 350 SCRA 697 [2001] (actual controversy)
Estrada v. Desierto - GR 146740-15, March 2, 2001 and MR April 3, 2001 (supra., Art. 6, Secs. 1,
7, 8 &11; justiciability of succession and immunity issues)
Cawaling v. COMELEC – GR 146319, October 23, 2001 (question of wisdom)
Montesclaros v. COMELEC – GR 152295, July 9, 2002 (concept of judicial power)
John Hay Peoples Alternative Coalition v. Lim - GR 119775, Oct. 24, 2003
Velarde v. Social Justice Society - GR 159357, Apr. 28, 2004
Panganiban v. Philippine Shell - GR 131471, Jan. 22, 2003
SMART v. NTC - GR 151908, Aug. 12, 2003
Buac v. Comelec - 421 SCRA 92
Information Technology v. COMELEC – 460 SCRA 291
Senate v. Ermita – GR 169659, April 20, 2006
David v. Arroyo – GR 171396, May 3, 2006
Garcia v. Executive Secretary – 583 SCRA 119 [2009]
Imbong v. Ochoa – 721 SCRA 146 [2014] (facial challenged expanded from free speech cases to
religious freedom and other fundamental rights. Natural law can’t be basis);
Araullo v. Aquino – 728 SCRA 1 [2015] (funds utilized through DAP)
*In re Save the Supreme Court – 746 SCRA352 [2015] (Supreme Court can’t declare a proposed
bill unconstitutional; no right arises therefrom; read with SBMA v. COMELEC, supra.)

IV. Advisory opinions


*Director of Prisons v. Ang Cho Kio – 33 SCRA 494 [1970] (no power to give advisory opinions
or recommend executive action)

V. Distinguished from declaratory relief


Macasiano v. NHA – 224 SCRA 236 [1993] (requisites)
*Tano v. Socrates – 278 SCRA 154 [1997] (hierarchy of courts)

VI. Grave abuse of discretion


PCGG v. Desierto - GR 132120, Feb. 10, 2003
Domingo v. Scheer - 421 SCRA 468 [2004]
Presidential Ad Hoc v. Desierto – 548 SCRA 295 [2008] (OMB no power)
Reyes v. Belisario – 596 SCRA 31 [2009] (OMB no power)
Eloisa L. Tolentino v. Atty. Roy M. Loyola, et al. - GR 153809, 27 July 2011

9
City of Manila v. Grecia-Cuerdo, G.R. 175723, February 4, 2014 (judicial power of CTA includes
power to determine grave abuse of discretion on the part of RTC in issuing interlocutory order;
CTA with power to issue writs of certiorari)

VII. Conclusive character of Supreme Court Judgment


In re subpoena duces tecum dated Jan. 11, 2010 - 614 SCRA 1

VIII. Plenary Judicial Power; derivative; PET


Macalintal v. PET - 635 SCRA 783 [2010]

Supplement
Did Article 8, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution Expand the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? 8
LR 6, #12 (Dec. 31, 1999). El Andres Narvasa, El Poder (1998).

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of
the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated
in Section 5 hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its
Members.

Mantruste Systems v. CA – 179 SCRA 136 [1989] (judicial non-interference with executive arm)
*Malaga v. Penachos – 213 SCRA 516 [1992] (injunctions against infrastructure projects)
Vivas v. Monetary Board, GR 191424, August 7, 2013 (undue delegation of power)

Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be
reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and, after
approval, shall be automatically and regularly released.

In re clarifying and strengthening …the Philippine Judicial Academy – 481 SCRA 1


RE: Petition for recognition of the exemption of GSIS - A.M. No. 08-2-01-0, February 11, 2010
(fiscal autonomy)
In re COA Opinion on Computation of Appraised Value of Properties – 678 SCRA 1 [2012]
In the Matter of: Save the Supreme Court Judicial Independence..., UDK 15143, 21 January 2015.

Section 4.
1. The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may
sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be
filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
2. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law,
which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of
Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application,
or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took
part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
3. Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a
majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the
required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or
principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be
modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.

I. Filling-in vacancy in Supreme Court; 90 days


*De Castro v. JBC – 615 SCRA 666 [2010] (supra.)

II. Referral to en banc; par. 3; cases only; modification of doctrine


*Fortich v. Corona – GR 131457, August 19, 1999 (involves "matters")
People v. Dy, GR 115326-37, Jan. 16, 2003
*Republic v. Garcia – 527 SCRA 495 [2007] (modification of doctrine)
Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. Land Bank of the Philippines - GR 164195,
05 April 2011.

10
In Re: Letters of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza re: G.R. No. 178083 – Flight Attendants and Stewards
Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), et al. - A.M. No. 11-
10-1-SC, 13 March 2012. (inhibition of a member-in-charge)
Lorenzo v. GSIS, GR 188385, October 2, 2013 (GSIS division v Raro en banc)

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.

I. Original Jurisdiction: par. 1

Quo Warranto
*Republic v. Sereno, GR 237428, May 11, 2018 (Removal of CJ Sereno)

II. Judicial Review; par. 2

A. Administrative agencies; no power


Serrano v. Gallant – 582 SCRA 254 [2009]

B. Requisites
Macasiano v. NHA – 224 SCRA 236 [1993] (requisites for judicial review)
Liban v. Gordon – 639 SCRA 709 [2011] (raise as an issue)

1. “ripe for adjudication”


*PACU v. Secretary of Education – 97 PHIL. 806 [1955] (also under locus standi)
*Tan v. Macapagal – 43 SCRA 678 [1972] (also taxpayer’s suit)
Solicitor General v. MMDA – GR 102782, December 11, 1991 (exception; to abate
confusion on a law)
Militante v. CA, GR 107040, April 12, 2000 (expropriation)
Pimentel v. HRET – GR 14189, November 29, 2002 (supra., Art. 6, Sec. 17)(HRET
party-list members)
Constantino v. Cuisia – 472 SCRA 505
Senate v. Ermita – 488 SCRA 1 [2006]
David v. Arroyo – 489 SCRA 162 [2006] (court decides moot case)
*Suplico v. NEDA - GR 178830, July 14, 2008 (ZTE contract moot)
Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel (supra.; MOA-AD)
Lozano v. Nograles – 589 SCRA 356 [2009]
Drilon v. De Venecia – 594 SCRA 749 [2009]
De Castro v. JBC – 615 SCRA 666 [2010] (supra.)
LAMP v. Sec. of Budget and Management – 670 SCRA 373 [2012]
Belgica v. Hon. Ochoa, (supra., A2, S. 25)

11
Remnan v. Professional Regulatory Board (supra., A 6, S. 26)
Villafuerte v. Robredo, GR 95390, December 10, 2014 (Memo received and may be basis
for question)
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, GR 205728, January 21, 2015 (Opinion of
COMELEC may be basis to question)

2. “Standing”

a. Legislators and Government Officials


Gonzales v. Macaraig, Jr. – 191 SCRA 452 [1990] (legislators’ standing; nullification
of Presidential veto). Read with Philconsa v. Enriquez – 235 SCRA 506 [1994] (also
validity of veto); Del Mar v. PAGCOR, GR 138298, November 29, 2000, Sandoval
v. PAGCOR – GR 138982, November 29, 2000 and Jaworski v. PAGCOR – 419
SCRA 420 (on jai-alai without franchise)
SANLAKAS v. Executive Secretary, GR 159085, Feb. 3, 2004
Farinas v. Executive Secretary, GR 147387, Dec. 10, 2003
Province of Batangas v. Romulo – 429 SCRA 736 [2004]
Disomangcop v. Datumanong – 444 SCRA 203 [2004]
CHR-Employees v. CHR – 444 SCRA 300 [2004]
Pimentel v. Executive Secretary – 462 SCRA 622
Pimentel v. Ermita – 472 SCRA 587
Senate v. Ermita – 495 SCRA 170 [2006] (distinction between party-list Bayan Muna
and PDP-Laban)
Prov. of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel – 564 SCRA 402 [2008]
*Concepcion v. COMELEC – 591 SCRA 420 [2009]
Drilon v. De Venecia – 594 SCRA 749 [2009]
Biraogo v. PTC – 637 SCRA 78 [2010]
League of Provinces v. DENR – 696 SCRA 190 [2013] (standing of league)

b. Taxpayers
*Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works – 110 PHIL 331 [1960-1961] (supra. Art. 2,
Secs. 24 & 29; requisites in questioning use of public funds)
Gonzales v. Marcos – 65 SCRA 624 [1975] (trust fund)
Gonzales v. Narvasa, GR 140835, August 14, 2000 (study on constitutional
amendments)
Information Technology Foundation v. Comelec, GR 159131, Jan. 13, 2004.
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary - 421 SCRA 656 [2004]
Velarde v. SJS – 428 SCRA 283 [2004]
Brillantes v. COMELEC – 432 SCRA 269 [2004]
Domingo v. Carague – 456 SCRA 450
Republic v. Nolasco – 457 SCRA 400
Constantino v. Cuisia – 472 SCRA 305
Abaya v. Ebdane – 515 SCRA 720 [2007]
Planters v. Fertiphil – 548 SCRA 485 [2008] (supra.)
Roque v. COMELEC – 599 SCRA 62 [2009]
Mamba v. Lara, GR 165109, December 14, 2009
De la Llana v. Chairperson, COA – 665 SCRA 176 (2012)
*Galicto v. Aquino – 667 SCRA 150 (2012) (no material interest in future increases
in benefits)
Intitiatives for Dialogue vs. PSALM – 682 SCRA 602 (2012)
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Cacayuran – 696 SCRA 861 (internal revenue
allotment for loans fo LGU; gives standing to taxpayers)
Remulla v. Marks – 706 SCRA 35 (appropriations not authorized and price is
excessive)
Belgica v. Hon. Ochoa (supra, A6, S1)

c. Citizens and associations; transcendental importance


*Legaspi v. CSC – 150 SCRA 530 [1987] (access to records)
Oposa v. Factoran – 224 SCRA 792 [1993] (supra, Art. 2, Sec. 16) (inter-
generational responsibility)
PASEI v. Torres – 225 SCRA 417 [1993] (recruitment agencies)
*Joya v. PCGG – 225 SCRA 568 [1993] (private funds)

12
Kilosbayan v. Morato – 246 SCRA 540 [1995] (transcendental importance) and 250
SCRA 130 [1995] (particularized interests)
Tatad v. Garcia – 243 SCRA 436 [1995] (contravention of law: infrastructure)
*Board of Optometry v. Colet – 260 SCRA 88 [1996] (unregistered organizations)
Anti-Graft League of the Philippines – 260 SCRA 250 [1996] (sale of land by
government)
Telecom v. COMELEC – 289 SCRA 337[1998] (supra, Art. 8, Sec. 1) (direct injury)
Chavez v. PCGG – GR 130716 [May 19, 1999] (supra, Art. 2, Sec. 28 and Art. 6, Sec. 28(4);
enforcement of a public right)
IBP v. Zamora – GR 141284 [August 15, 2000] (supra, Art. 7, Sec. 18; deployment
of marines; also political question vis-à-vis expanded jurisdiction of the Court)
Bayan v. Zamora, GR 138570, October 10, 2000 (supra., Art. 2, Secs. 2&8 and Art.
6, Sec. 28 - VFA)
Cruz v. Secretary of DENR – GR 135385, December 6, 2000 (supra., Art. 7, Sec. 17 -
IPRA)
Lozano v. Macapagal-Arroyo – GR 146579, February 6, 2001 (legality of
Presidency)
Lim v. Exec. Secretary – GR 151445 April 11, 2002 (Balikatan exercises)
Chavez v. PEA – GR 133250, July 9, 2002 (reclamation project)
Tolentino v. COMELEC – 420 SCRA 438 [2004]
Agan v. PIATCO – 420 SCRA 575 [2004]
Tichangco v. Enriquez – 433 SCRA 324 [2004]
Automotive Industry Workers Alliance v. Romulo – 449 SCRA 1 (union)
Pimentel v. Office of the Executive Secretary – 462 SCRA 622 (supra.)
Senate v. Ermita – 488 SCRA 1 [2006]
Purok v. Yuipco – 489 SCRA 382 [2006] (association)
David v. Arroyo – 489 SCRA 162 [2006]
Holy Spirit v. Defensor – 497 SCRA 581 [2006] (association)
Henares v. LTFRB – 505 SCRA 104 [2006] (right to clean air)
Francisco v. Fernando – 507 SCRA [2006]
Public Interest Center v. Roxas – 513 SCRA 457 [2007]
Garcia v. J.G. Summit – 516 SCRA 483 [2007]
Kilosbayan v. Ermita – 526 SCRA 353 [2007]
*Tondo Medical v. CA – 527 SCRA 746 [2007] (standing is determined by merits of
case even in cases of transcendental importance)
*Anak Mindanao v. Executive Secretary – 531 SCRA 583 [2007] (abstract claims)
Pharmaceutical v. Duque – 535 SCRA 265
Chavez v. Gonzales – 545 SCRA 441 [2008] (transcendental)
Akbayan v. Aquino – 558 SCRA 468 [2008] (transcendental)
SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board – 570 SCRA 410 [2008] (transcendental)
Garcillano v. House – GR 170338, Dec. 23, 2008
White Light v. City of Manila – 576 SCRA 416 [2009]
Chamber of Real Estate v. Romulo – 614 SCRA 605 [2010]
Chamber of Real Estate v. ERC – 624 SCRA 556 [2010]
Southern Hemisphere v. ATC – 632 SCRA 146 [2010]
Orlando A. Rayos v. The City of Manila - GR 196063, 14 December 2011.
Jelbert B. Galicto v. H.E. President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino, III - GR 193978,
February 28, 2012 (Reiterates multiple cases. Liga ng mga Barangay v. City Mayor
of Manila, Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism
Council, Concepcion v. Comelec, etc.)
Bayan v. Romulo – 641 SCRA 244 [2011] (public right)
Magallona v. Ermita – 655 SCRA 476 [2011] (citizens)
Funa v. MECO, gr 193462, February 4, 2014 (citizens)
Advocates for Truth in Lending v. BSP Monetary Board – 688 SCRA 530 (No
standing; no public funds involved in Cir 905 which lifted ceiling on interest rates; no
personal injury; not borrowers affected by suspension of Usury Law)
Funa v. MECO, GR 193462, FEBRUARY 4, 2014 (citizens)Remman v. PRBREC
(supra. A6, s. 26 and A8, s.5)(real estate developers)
*Resident Marine Mammals v. Sec Reyes (supra. A2, Sec. 16)
Imbong v. Ochoa – 721 SCRA 146 [2014]
In re Save the Supreme Court, UDK-15143, January 21, 2015 (reiterates Tondo and
Anak cases on need for proper allegations in transcendental importance issue)

13
Hontiveros-Baraquel v. TRB, GR 181293, Feb. 23, 2015 (labor unions with
standing)
Saguisag v. Ochoa, GR 212444, January 12, 2016 (supra. A2, Sec. 2 and 7; A7, Sec.
21)
Rosales v. ERC. GR 201852, April 5, 2016
*International Service v. Greenpeace, GR No. 209271, Dec. 8, 2015 and MR July 26,
2016 (reversing 1st decision) (supra.)

3. “Raise at earliest opportunity” & “Constitutionality is the very lis mota”


*People v. Vera – 65 PHIL. 56 [1937-1938] (exception to the rule on earliest opportunity)
Mirasol v. CA – 351 SCRA 44 [2001] (accounting by PNB separable)
Matibag v. Benipayo – 380 SCRA 49 [2002] (ad interim appointment)
La Bugal v. Ramos – 421 SCRA 148 [2004]
Arceta v. Mangrobang – 432 SCRA 136 [2004]
Estarja v. Ranada – 492 SCRA 652 [2006]
Moldex v. HLURB – 525 SCRA 198 [2007]
Gobenciong v. CA – 550 SCRA 502 [2008]
Heirs v. Marasigan – 548 SCRA 409 [2008]
Abakada v. Purisima – 562 SCRA 251 [2008]
ABS-CBN v. Phil. Multi-Media – 576 SCRA 262 [2009]
CSC v. Andal – 608 SCRA 370 [2009]
BPI v. Shemberg – 628 SCRA 70 [2010]
Macalintal v. PET – 635 SCRA 783 [2010]
Sergio I. Carbonilla, et al. v. Board of Airlines Representatives - GR 193247, 14
September 2011. Reiterating Moldex v. HLURB
Hacienda Luisita v. PARC, GR 171101, November 22, 2011
Sana v. CESB, GR 192926, November 15, 2011 (moot)
Gamboa v. Teves – 652 SCRA 690 [2011] (interest)
*Narra Nickel Mining v. Redmont – 722 SCRA 382 [2014] (capable of repetition; need to
formulate principles)

C. Political questions; requisites


Baker v. Carr – 369 US 169 [1962] (guidelines)
*Torrecampo v. Metropolitan – 649 SCRA 482 [2011] (executive policy)

1. “Textually demonstrable commitment”


Osmena v. Pendatun – 109 PHIL. 863 [1960] (supra., Art. 6, Sec. 16) (Discipline)
Arroyo v. De Venecia – 277 SCRA 268 [1997] (supra., Art. 6, Sec. 16) (House of
Representatives)
Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona – GR 134577, November 18, 1998 (Senate)
ICMC v. Calleja – GR 85750, September 28, 1990 (Executive)
Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 [1997]
Garcia v. Corona, GR 132451, Dec. 17, 1999

2. “Judicially discoverable and manageable standards”


Liang v. People – GR 125865, March 26, 2001 (legal standards available)

D. Effect of unconstitutionality; par. 2(a)


*De Agbayani v. PNB – 38 SCRA 429 [1971] (operative fact)
*Philippine Coconut v. Republic, supra. (retroactive application to avoid injustice)
Garcia v. Drilon, GR 173267, June 25, 2013 (supra Art II, Sec 14)
*CIR v. San Roque Power Corp.- 707 SCRA 66 [2013] and [MR] October 8, 2013
*Araullo v. President Aquino, (supra, A6, S 29)
*Katipunan v. Robredo – 730 SCRA 322 [2014] (implementation of infrastructure project not
subject to judicial review)
*Sameer v. Cabiles – 732 SCRA 531 (re-enactment of a void law declared unconstitutional can’t
be done)
*Film Dev. Council v. Colon Heritage – 758 SCRA 536 [2015] (acted in good faith, so, operative
fact applied)

E. Automatic review; par. 2 (d)

14
Garcia, et.al. v. People – 318 SCRA 434 (reclusion perpetua requires interposition of appeal;
jurisdiction of the lower court in issue)
Pearson v. IAC - GR 74454, Sept. 3, 1998.
*People v. Mateo – 433 SCRA 640
People v. Duavis - GR 190681, 07 December 2011 (Reiterates People v. Mateo)

F. Question of law; par. 2(e)


Cebu Woman’s Club v. De la Victoria – GR 120060 [March 9, 2000] (questions of law) 327 SCRA 172
Garcia v. Drilon (supra., AII, S. 14; Family Court can still entertain issue of constitutionality of a
statute ; it is a question of law)

II. Change of Venue; par. 4


*People v. Gutierrez – 36 SCRA 172 [1970] (transfer of venue)

III. Power to Promulgate Rules; par. 5

A. Enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts


First Lepanto v. CA – 231 SCRA 30 [1994] (effect of circular of SC).
Lina v. Purisma – 82 SCRA 344 [1978] (power of SC to disregard its own rules)
*Santero v. CFI-Cavite – 153 SCRA 728 [1965] (rules of court v. civil code)
*Damasco v. Laqui – 166 SCRA 214 [1988] (prescription of crimes v. rules of court)
Carpio v. Sulu Resources – GR 148267, August 8, 2002 (transfer of appeals as procedural
matter)
*Baguio Market Vendors v. Hon. Cortes – GR 165922, February 26, 2010 (Congress can’t
repeal SC rules)
In re Petition for Recognition – 612 SCRA 193 [2010] (legal fees)
In re Exemption of NPC – 615 SCRA 1 [2010] (legal fees)
*In Re: In the Matter of Clarification of Exemption from Payment of All Court and Sheriff’s
Fees of Cooperatives - A.M. 12-2-03-0, 13 March 2012 (legal fees) – 668 SCRA 1 (2012)
(SC rule cannot be modified by law)
Sto. Tomas v. Paneda – 685 SCRA 245 [2012] (Sec.15 of Rules on Criminal Procedure
allows exceptions by law to rules on venue)
Paje v. Casiño (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 16)

B. Admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar,disciplinary powers, and legal assistance
to the underprivileged
*In re Cunanan – 94 PHIL. 534 [953-1954] (admission to the bar).
In re Admission to the Bar: Argosino – Bar Matter 712, 246 SCRA 14 [1995] (power to
admit, read with Cunanan)
Javellana v. DILG 212 SCRA 475 [1992] (practice of law by public officers)
Re: 2003 Bar Examination, Bar Matter No. 1222, Feb. 4, 2004
Velez v. De Vera – A.C. No. 6697, July 25, 2006 (disbarment)
*In re letter of UP Law Faculty – 644 SCRA 543 [2011] (plagiarism)
In the matter of the brewing controversies in the elections of the IBP, AM 09-05-2-SC, April
11, 2013 (supervision over the IBP)

C. Limits of power

1. Simplified and inexpensive procedure for speedy disposition

2. Uniform for all courts of the same grade

3. Not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights


Bustos v. Lucero – 81 PHIL. 648 [1948] (definition of substantial rights).
*PNB v. Asuncion – 80 SCRA 321 [1977] (procedural v. substantial rights)
*People v. Lacson – 400 SCRA 267 [2003] (time bar rule)
Planters v. Fertiphil – 426 SCRA 414 [2004] (retrospective application of rules)
Tan v. Bausch – 478 SCRA 115 [2005] (transfer of jurisdiction)
Republic v. Gingoyon – 478 SCRA 474 [2005]
Camp John Hay v. BIR – GR 172457, December 24, 2008

4. Procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies effective unless disapproved by SC

15
LBP v. De Leon – GR 143275, September 10, 2002 (agrarian law as special procedure)
Tan v. COMELEC – 507 SCRA 352 [2006] (review of rules of quasi-judicial bodies)

IV. Supervision over the Judiciary


*Ampong v. CSC – 563 SCRA 293 [2008]

Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof.

*Maceda v. Vasquez – 221 SCRA 464 [1993] (falsification) read with


De Vera v. Pelayo - GR 137354, July 6, 2000
Caoibes v. Ombudsman - G.R. No. 132177, July 19, 2001; and
Fuentes v. OMB - GR 124295, October 23, 2001.
Dolalas v. Office of the Ombudsman – 265 SCRA 819 [1996] (dishonesty)
Garcia v. de la Pena - 299 SCRA 776 [1994] (blood relations)
Maningas v. Barcenas - AM P-99-1315, Nov. 3, 1999
Gorospe v. Sandoval - AM RTJ-00-1534, Feb. 15, 2000
Caoibes v. Ombusman - GR 132177, July 19, 2001
Fuentes v. Ombudsman - GR 124295, Oct. 23, 2001
Adajar v. Develos - 475 SCRA 361[2005]
Garcia v. Miro – 582 SCRA 127 [2009]
Re : Request for guidance/clarification on Sec 7, Rule III of RA 10154, AM 13-09-08-SC, October 1,
2013 (exlusive administrative supervision)
CSC v. Pita – 696 SCRA 151 (administrative supervision and exclusive jurisdiction over
administrtive cases over judicial employees)
Re : Allegations against Justice Ong, AM No. Sb 14-21-J, September 23, 2014

Section 7.
1. No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless
he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court must be at least
forty years of age, and must have been for fifteen years or more, a judge of a lower court or
engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
2. The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no person may be
appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar.
3. A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence.

Villanueva v. JBC, GR 211833, April 7, 2015

Section 8.
1. A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court
composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative
of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a
retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.
2. The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a term of four years
with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, the
representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for three years,
the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of the private sector for one year.
3. The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a
record of its proceedings.
4. The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be determined by the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations for the
Council.
The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the judiciary. It may
exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.

De Castro v. JBC – 615 SCRA 666 [2010] (supra.)


*Chavez v. JBC – 676 SCRA 579 [2012] (interpretation of “a representative of Congress”)
Chavez v. JBC, GR 202242, April 16, 2013 (more than 1 member of Congress)
*Jardeleza v. CJ Sereno, et al., GR 213181, August 19, 2014
*Villanueva v. JBC – 755 SCRA 182 [2015]

16
* Hon. Philip A. Aguinaldo vs. His Excellency Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, et al., G.R. No.
224302, November 29, 2016 (shortlisting)

Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the
President from a list of at least three nominees preferred by the Judicial and Bar Council for every
vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.
For the lower courts, the President shall issued the appointment within ninety days from the
submission of the list.

Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and
of judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During the continuance in office, their salary shall
not be decreased.

*Nitafan v. CIR – 152 SCRA 284 [1987] (no tax exemption)

Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower court shall hold office
during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge
the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of
lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of majority of the Members who actually took part
in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted in thereon.

*Vargas v. Rilloraza – 80 PHIL. 297 [1948] (temporary replacement; uninterrupted security of tenure)
Read with
Estrada v. Desierto, supra.
De La Llana v. Alba – 112 SCRA 294 [1982] (abolition of office in good faith)
*People v. Gacott – 246 SCRA 52 [1995] (En banc decision to discipline)
Lumpas v. Tamin, AM no. RTJ-99-1519

Section 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be
designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative function.

Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, 635 SCRA 783 [2010] (supra sec. 5)

Section 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for the decision en
banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case the case assigned to a Member
for the writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice
shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties.
Any Member who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution must state
the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate court.

Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due
course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.

I. Decision expressing clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based

A. Sufficient
*Air France v. Carrascoso – 18 SCRA 155 [1966] (appellate conclusions: ultimate facts)*
People v. Bravo – 227 SCRA 285 [1993] (selective finding of facts)
Hernandez v. CA – 208 SCRA 429 [1993] (narration by Sol.-Gen.)
*Francisco v. Permskul – 173 SCRA 324 [1989] (memorandum decision)*
People v. Landicho – 258 SCRA 1 [1996] (sufficient decision)
People v. Co – 245 SCRA 733 [1995] (summary of evidence of opposing sides)
People v. Macoy – 275 SCRA 1 [1997] (assigned errors)
ABD v. NLRC – 286 SCRA 454 [1998] (new rules on procedure)
People v. Gastador – GR 123727 [April 14, 1999] (assessment of evidence)
People v. Ordonez - GR 129593, July 10, 2000
People v. Orbita - GR 136591, July 11, 2002
Lorbes v. CA - 351 SCRA 716 (no violation)
People v. Mendoza - GR 143702, Sept. 13, 2001 (amended upon MR)
Asia Traders v. CA – 423 SCRA 114 [2004]

17
Tichangco v. Enriquez – 433 SCRA 324 [2004]
Ceferina Lopez Tan v. Spouses Antazo - GR 187208, 23 February 2011.
Donnina C. Halley v. Printwell, Inc. - GR 157549, 30 May 2011.
Hon. Waldo Q. Flores v. Atty. Antonio F. Montemayor - GR 170146, 08 June 2011.
(Reiterating Solid Homes v. Laserna. Sec 14, Art VIII applies only to the Judiciary.)
*Deutsche Bank v. CIR, GR 188550, August 28, 2013 (applies only to decisions and not
minute resolutions) (supra Art II, Sec 2)

B. Insufficient
People v. Escober – 157 SCRA 541 [1988] (no details/specification)
Nicos v. CA – 206 SCRA 127 [1992] (no statement of support)
People v. Viernes – 262 SCRA 641 [1996] (reliance of prosecution)
People v. Bugarin – 273 SCRA 384 [1997] (rules on criminal procedure)
People v. Nadera - 324 SCRA 490 [2000]
Madrid v. CA - GR 130683, May 31, 2000
Yao v. CA - GR 132428, October 24, 2000
People v. Dumaguing - GR 135516, September 20, 2000
Ong Chiu Kwan - GR 113006, November 23, 2000
Spouses Yu Eng Cho v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. - GR 123560, March 27, 2000
Kao v. C.A. G- .R. No. 105014, December 18, 2001 (BOI)
People v. Pastor - 379 SCRA 181 (2002)
People v. Lizada - GR 143468, Jan. 24, 2003
Consing v. CA – 425 SCRA 192 [2004]
Velarde v. SJS – 428 SCRA 283 [2004]
Report on the Judicial Audit (MTC of Tambulig) – 472 SCRA 419 [2005]
Lacurom v. Tienzo – 535 SCRA 252 [2007] (memorandum decision)
*Salazar v. Marigomen – 537 SCRA 25 [2007]
De la Pena v. CA – 579 SCRA 396 [2009]
Office of the President and PAGC v. Calixto R. Cataquiz - GR 183445, 14 September 2011.
Republic of the Philippines (University of the Philippines) v. Legaspi - GR 177611, 18 April
2012.

II. Legal basis must be stated if a petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision shall
be refused due course or denied
Borromeo v. CA – 186 SCRA 1 [1990] (minute resolution)
JRB Realty v. CA – 271 SCRA 229 [1997] (SEC findings)
Komatsu v. CA – 289 SCRA 604 [1998] (dismissal of 2nd M.R.)
Martinez v. CA, GR 123547, May 21, 2001 (void)
Protacio v. Laya – 582 SCRA 417 [2009]
Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Ronald P. Valderama - GR 186614, 23 February
2011(Reiterating Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc. v. CIR.)
Re: Verified Complaint of Engr. Oscar L. Ongjoco - A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-184-CA-J, 31 January
2012. 
Agoy v. Araneta Center, GR 196358, 21 March 2012 (Reiterating Borromeo v. CA)

Section 15.
1. All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved
within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by
the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other
lower courts.
2. A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last
pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.
3. Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect signed by the Chief
Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of
the case or matter, and served upon the parties. The certification shall state why a decision or
resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period.
4. Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, without prejudice to such
responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or
matter submitted thereto for determination, without further delay.

Dizon v. Judge Lopez – 278 SCRA 483 [1997] (service of copy of decision)
Mosquera v. Legaspi, AM RTJ-99-1511, July 10, 2000

18
OCA v. Salva, AM RTJ-98-1412, July 19, 2000
Dela Cruz v. Bersamira, AM RTJ-00-1567, July 24, 2000
Heirs of Sucaldito v. Cruz, AM RTJ-991456, July 27, 2000
Sulla v. Ramos, AM-MTJ-00-1319, September 27, 2000
Seares v. Salazar, AM MTJ-98-1160, November 22, 2000
Gil v. Janolo, AM RTJ-00-1602, December 5, 2000
Aslarona v. Echavez, AM RTJ-03-1803, Oct. 2, 2003
Unitrust Dev’t Bank v. Caoibes, AM RTJ-03-1745, Aug, 20, 2003
Re: Request of Judge Javellana, AM 01-6-314-RTC, June 19, 2003
Salud v. Alumbres, AM RTJ- 00-1594, June 20, 2003
Samson v. Mejia, AM RTJ-02-1710, June 17, 2003
OCA v. Judge Busamante, AM No. MJJ-12-1806, April 7, 2014
Marcelo v. Judge Pictay, AM MTJ-13-1838, March 12, 2014

Supplement
Sibayan-Joaquin v Judge Javellana - A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601, Nov. 13,2001

Section 16. The Supreme Court shall, within thirty days from the opening of each regular session of
the Congress, submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on the operations and
activities of the Judiciary.

ARTICLE IX. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

A. COMMON PROVISIONS

Section 1. The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Service
Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.

Section 2. No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office
or employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active
management or control of any business which, in any way, may be affected by the functions of his
office, nor shall he be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any
franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

Section 3. The salary of the Chairman and the Commissioners shall be fixed by law and shall not be
decreased during their tenure.

Section 4. The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint their officials and employees in
accordance with law.

Section 5. The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Their approved annual appropriations
shall be automatically and regularly released.

Section 6. Each Commission en banc may promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and
practice before it or before any of its offices. Such rules, however, shall not diminish, increase, or
modify substantive rights.

Sabili v. Comelec - GR 193261, 24 April 2012 (power to promulgate own rules on pleadings and
practice before it)
Dumarpa v. COMELEC, GR. 192249, April 2, 2013 (power to promulgate rules on pleadings and
practice before)
Trade and Investment Development Corp. v. CSC – (supra., A6, S.1) 691 SCRA 384 (rule- making
authority limited to implementation of laws)
*Funa v. Chairman, CSC, GR 191672, November 25, 2014.

Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members, any case or matter
brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case
or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief,
or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless
otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each

19
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within
thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.

Fil. Engr. & Machine Shop v. Ferrer – 135 SCRA 25 [1985] (final orders reviewable by SC)*
Saligumba v. CA – 117 SCRA 669 [1982] (extent of SC’s review power)
PTTC v. COA –146 SCRA 190 [1986] (extent of SC’s review power)
Cua v. COMELEC – 156 SCRA 582 [1987] (valid decision – no need for unanimity, majority vote
only)
Mison v. COA – 187 SCRA 445 [1990] (COA as collegial body)
Paredes v. COMELEC –127 SCRA 653 [1984] (factual findings of COMELEC binding on SC in
certiorari proceedings)
Ambil v. Comelec - GR 143398, October 25, 2000 (judicial review)
ABS-CBN v. Comelec - 323 SCRA 811 (judicial review)
Salva v. Makalintal - GR 132603, September 18, 2000 (judicial review)
Maria Laarni L. Cayetano v. Comelec - GR 193846, 12 April 2011 (Reiterating Ambil v. Comelec:
"the Court can only review via certiorari a decision, order, or ruling of the COMELEC en banc in
accordance with Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution.")
*Gualberto J. Dela Llana v. The Chairperson, Commission on Audit, GR 180989, 07 February 2012.
(decisions and orders of the COA reviewable by the court via a petition for certiorari refer to the
COA’s quasi-judicial capacity not its quasi-legislative or rule-making powers)
Cagas v. COMELEC – 663 SCRA 644 [2012]
Sevilla v. COMELEC, G.R. 203833, March 19, 2013 (majority vote of all its members)
Reblora v AFP, GR 195842, June 18, 2013
Sahali v. COMELEC – 688 SCRA 552 (only final decisions of COMELEC subject to SC judicial
review in election cases within the original exclusive jurisdiction of COMELEC)
*Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (supra. Art 2, Sec. 26)
Fortune Life and General Insurance v. COA – 748 SCRA 286
*Querubin v. COMELEC, GR 218787, December 8, 2015
Tolentino v. COMELEC, GR 218536, January 26, 2016

Section 8. Each Commission shall perform such other functions as may be provided by law.

B. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Section 1.
1. The civil service shall be administered by the Civil Service Commission composed of a Chairman
and two Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of
their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, with proven capacity for public administration,
and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the elections immediately preceding
their appointment.
2. The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of
the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first
appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, a Commissioner for five years, and
another Commissioner for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall
be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or
designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

I. Term
*Gaminde v. COA, GR 140335, December 13, 2000*

II. Fiscal Autonomy


CSC v. DBM – 482 SCRA 233

Section 2.
1. The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the
Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.
2. Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be
determined, as far as practicable, and, except to positions which are policy-determining, primarily
confidential, or highly technical, by competitive examination.
3. No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause
provided by law.

20
4. No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any
electioneering or partisan political campaign.
5. The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees.
6. Temporary employees of the Government shall be given such protection as may be provided by
law.

Cuevas v. Bacal - GR 139382, December 6, 2000

I. Under Civil Service Law (Par. 1)


*MWSS v. Hernandez –143 SCRA 602 [1986] (GOCC’s with charter and created by special law)
NSC v. NLRC – 168 SCRA 122
UP v. Regino –221 SCRA 598 [1993]
Mateo v. CA – 247 SCRA 284 [1995]
DOH v. NLRC – 251 SCRA 700 [1995]
Juco v. NLRC – 277 SCRA 528 [1997]
Felciano v. Gison – 629 SCRA 103 [2010]

II. GOCCs under Corporation Code


*BLISS v. Callejo – 237 SCRA 271 [1994] (par. 1; GOCC’s without charter and created under
corporation code)*
Postigo v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society – 479 SCRA 628
LRTA v. Venus – 485 SCRA 301
Trade and Investment Devt Corp v. CSC, GR 182249, March 5, 2013 (includes GOCC as part of
civil service) (supra Art VI, Sec 1)
*Torres v. De Leon, GR. 199440, January 18, 2016

III. Classifications and Appointments (Par. 2)


HIGC v. CSC – 220 SCRA 148 [1993] (requirements in appointments)
Mauna v. CSC – 232 SCRA 388 [1994] (limitation on CSC’s power of appointment)
Rimonte v. CSC – 244 SCRA 498 [1995]
Gloria v. De Guzman – 249 SCRA 126 [1995] (other factors for appointment)
Atty. Elias Omar A. Sana v. Career Executive Service Board - GR 192926, November 15, 2011
(Pres. GMA's EO 883 and Pres. Aquino's subsequent revocation of EO 883 by EO 3)

A. Competitive
*Samson v. CA – 145 SCRA 654 [1986] (positions in competitive service)

B. Non-competitive
Astraquillo v. Manglapus –190 SCRA 280 [1990] (non-competitive position)
Office of the President v. Buenaobra – 501 SCRA 302

1. Policy-determining

2. Primarily confidential
Borres v. CA – 153 SCRA 120 [1987] (confidential positions)
*Grino v. CSC – 194 SCRA 458 [1991] (test of confidentiality of positions)
Santos v. Macaraig – 208 SCRA 74 [1992] (security of tenure in confidential positions)
Hilario v. CSC – 243 SCRA 206 [1995]
Rosete v. CA – 264 SCRA 147 [1996] (loss of confidence)
*CSC v. Salas – 274 SCRA 414 [1997] (nature of duties determinative of the
confidentiality of position)*

3. Highly technical

C. Temporary
*Achacoso v. Macaraig –195 SCRA 235 [1991] (temporary appointments)
Felix v. Buenaseda – 240 SCRA 139 [1995]
Pamantasan ng Maynila v. CSC – 241 SCRA 506 [1995] (union busting – illegal cause for
dismissal)
Province of Camarines Sur v. CA – 246 SCRA 231 [1995] (effect of passing civil service
exam. on temporary appointees)

21
PEZA v. Mercado – 614 SCRA 683 [2010]
CSC v. CA – 635 SCRA 749 [2010]
De Castro v. Carlos – 696 SCRA 400 [ ] (assistant general manager within career executive
service ; lacking eligibility)

D. Permanent
Luego v. CSC – 143 SCRA 327 [1986] (authority limited to reviewing appointments in light
of Civil Service Law)
Pangilinan v. Maglaya – 225 SCRA 511 [1993] (security of tenure in permanent appointees)

E. Reorganization
*Santiago v. CSC – 178 SRA 733 [1989] (“next in rank rule” not mandatory)
Montecillo v. Civil Service Commission - G.R. No. 131954, June 28, 2001 (classifying
positions in non-career service)
Gatmaitan v. Gonzales – 492 SCRA 591 (reassignment)
Nieves v. Blanco – 673 SCRA 638 [2012]

F. Appointment vs. designation


Binamira v. Garrucho – 188 SCRA 154 [1990] (par. 2) (designation by Dept. Sec.)

G. Removal for Cause / Security of Tenure (par. 3)

1. Cause for removal

a. Loss of confidence
*Hernandez v. Villegas – 14 SCRA 544 [1965] (loss of confidence as ground for
termination – expiration of term not removal from office)*

b. Abolition of office
*Briones v. Osmeña – 104 PHIL. 588 [1958] (abolition in good faith)*
Eugenio v. CSC – 243 SCRA 196 [1995] (office created by law can only be abolished
thru a law)

c. Reorganization
Romualdez-Yap v. CSC – 225 SCRA 285 [1993] (reorganization in good faith)
DTI v. CSC – 227 SCRA 199 [1993] (reorganization not in good faith)
Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas – 242 SCRA 192 [1995] (reorganization as management
prerogative of CSC)
Chato v. Natividad – 244 SCRA 787 [1995] (reorganization as cause provided by law
amount to reassignment)
Divinagracia v. Sto. Tomas – 244 SCRA 595 [1995] (arbitrary transfer without just
cause)
Vinzons-Chato v. Zenarosa - GR 120539, October 20, 2000
De Guzman v. Comelec - GR 129118, July 19, 2000
Padolina v. Fernandez - GR 133511, October 10, 2000
Cuevas v. Bacal - GR 139382, December 6, 2000

d. Qualifications for eligibility


Mayor v. Macaraig – 194 SCRA 672 [1991] (no retroactive effect of new eligibility
qualifications)

e. Abandonment; acceptance of incompatible position/other employment


Canonizado v. Aguirre, 323 SCRA 312 [2001]
Salvador v. CA, GR 127501, May 5, 2000

2. Due process in removal


Enrique v. CA – 229 SCRA 180 [1994] (par. 3) (concurrent jurisdiction in disciplinary matters)
CSC v. Magnaye – 619 SCRA 347 [2010] (par. 3) (right to due process)
Rubenecia v. CSC – 244 SCRA 640 [1995] (par. 3) (right to due process)
PCSO Board of Directors v. Marie Jean C. Lapid - GR 191940, 12 April 2011

22
3. Security of tenure
Chua v. CSC – 206 SCRA 65 [1992]
NLTD v. CSC – 221 SCRA 145 (security of tenure)
Cabagnot v. CSC – 223 SCRA 59 (security of tenure)
Marohombsar v. CA - GR 126481, February 18, 2000
Ong v. OP – 664 SCRA 413 [2012]

H. Electioneering or Partisan Political Activity (par. 4)


Santos v. Yatco – 106 PHIL 21
People v. De Venecia – 14 SCRA 864 [1965]

I. Right to Self-Organization and Right to Strike (par. 5)


SSS Employees v. CA – 175 SCRA 686 [1989]
Bangalisan v. CA – 276 SCRA 557 [1997]
Jacinto v. CA – 281 SCRA 557 [1997]
De la Cruz v. CA – 305 SCRA 303
*GSIS v. Kapisanan - 510 SCRA 622 (no strike)

J. Temporary Employees
*Gloria v. CA - GR 119903, August 15, 2000

Section 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the Government, shall
establish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity,
responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service. It shall strengthen the merit and
rewards system, integrate all human resources development programs for all levels and ranks, and
institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability. It shall submit to the
President and the Congress an annual report on its personnel programs.

Light Railway Transit Authority v. Salvaña, GR 192074, June 10, 2014

Section 4. All public officers and employees shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend
this Constitution.

Section 5. The Congress shall provide for the standardization of compensation of government
officials and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations with
original charters, taking into account the nature of the responsibilities pertaining to, and the
qualifications required for, their positions.

Section 6. No candidate who has lost in any election, shall within one year after such election, be
appointed to any office in the Government or any Government-owned or controlled corporations or
in any of their subsidiaries.

Section 7. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any
public office or position during his tenure.
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official
shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including Government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries.

*Flores v. Drilon – 223 SCRA 568 [1993] (supra, Art. 7, Sec. 13; prohibition against designation of
elective officer during tenure) RE: Gross Violation of Civil Service Law on the Prohibition Against
Dual Employment and Double Compensation in the Government Service Committed by Mr. Eduardo
V. Escala, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division, Office of Administrative Services.,
A.M. No. 2011-04-SC, 05 July 2011.
La Carlota City, Negros Occidental v. Rojo - GR 181367, 24 April 2012 (prohibition against
designation of elective officer during tenure)
Posadas v. Sandiganbayan, GR 168951 and 169000, July 17, 2013 9prohibition to holding any other
office or position in the govt) Chancellor of U.P. appointed as Director of Technology Management
Center ; invalid

23
Section 8. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional, double, or
indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, nor accept without the consent of the
Congress, any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign government.
Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional, double, or indirect compensation.

Present, Emolument, Office or Title from a Foreign State


Saduesta v. Municipality of Surigao – 72 PHIL. 482 [1941] (specific authority from law to review
additional compensation)
Peralta v. Mathay – 38 SCRA 296 [1971] (purpose of prohibition; public office is a public trust)
NEA v. CSC – 611 SCRA 14 [2010] (double compensation)
Yap v. COA – 619 SCRA 154 [2010] (double compensation)
Sergio I. Carbonilla, et al. v. Board of Airlines, GR 193247, September 14, 2011. (overtime pay,
travel and meal allowances paid after regular office hours do not constitute double compensation)
PEZA V. COA -675 SCRA 513 [2012]
Dimagiba v. Espartero – 676 SCRA 420 [2012]
Ocampo v COA, GR 188716, June 10, 2013 (retiree receiving pension can continue to receive the
same even if he accepts another govt office or position)

C. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Section 1.
1. There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who
shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least
thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any
elective positions in the immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof, including the
Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for
at least ten years.
2. The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of
the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first
appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five years, and the last
Members for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the
unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a
temporary or acting capacity.

Matibag v. Benipayo – 380 SCRA 49


*Cayetano v. Monsod – 201 SCRA 210 [1991] (meaning of practice of law)*
Brillantes v. Yorac – 192 SCRA 358 [1990] (appointment in temporary / acting capacity)

Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:
1. Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum, and recall.
2. Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all
contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or
involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. Decisions, final
orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay
offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable.
3. Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including
determination of the number and location of polling places, appointment of election officials and
inspectors, and registration of voters.
4. Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities
of the Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of
ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
5. Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in
addition to other requirements, must present their platform or program of government; and
accredit citizens' arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not
be registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse
to uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall
likewise be refused registration. Financial contributions from foreign governments and their
agencies to political parties, organizations, coalitions, or candidates related to elections, constitute
interference in national affairs, and, when accepted, shall be an additional ground for the

24
cancellation of their registration with the Commission, in addition to other penalties that may be
prescribed by law.
6. File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or
exclusion of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election
laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.
7. Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election spending, including
limitation of places where propaganda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and penalize all
forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance candidacies.
8. Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it has deputized, or the
imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience to, its
directive, order, or decision.
9. Submit to the President and the Congress, a comprehensive report on the conduct of each
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.

I. Administrative power
Afiado v. Comelec - GR 141787, September 18, 2000 (power to enforce; recall)
Columbres v. Comelec - GR 142038, September 18, 2000 (power to enforce; recall)
Sahali v. Comelec - GR 134169, February 2, 2000 (power to enforce; recall)
Claudio v. Comelec - GR 140560, May 4, 2000 (power to enforce; recall)
De Guzman v. Comelec - GR 129118, July 19, 2000 (power to enforce; recall)
Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. COMELEC - G.R. No. 147571, May 5, 2001
Information Technology Foundation v. Comelec - GR 159139, Jan. 13, 2004
Buac v. Comelec - 421 SCRA 92
Capalla v. COMELEC – 673 SCRA 1 [2012]
Dumarpa v. COMELEC, GR. 192249, April 2, 2013(supra Art IX-A, Sec 6)

II. Election contests


Flores v. COMELEC – 184 SCRA 484 [1990] (brgy. elections appeal to COMELEC)
Galido v. COMELEC – 193 SCRA 78 [1991] (jurisdiction of SC over COMELEC’s decision
Mercado v. BES – 243 SCRA 422 [1995] (SK elections)
Relampagos v. Cumba – 243 SCRA 690 [1995] (power to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus)
People v. Delgado – 189 SCRA 715 [1990] (COMELEC subject to authority of trial judge)
Garces v. CA – 259 SCRA 99 [1996] (adjudicatory / quasi-judicial power)
Zarate v. Comelec and Lallave – GR 129096 [November 19, 1999] (division before en banc)
Regalado v. CA - GR 115962, February 15, 2000 (questions affecting elections)
Faelnar v. People - GR 140850-51, May 4, 2000 (questions affecting elections)
Tan v. Comelec - GR 148575, Dec. 10, 2003
Alauya v. Comelec - GR152151, Jan. 22, 2003
Cipriano v Comelec - GR 158830, Aug 10, 2004

III. Powers not given

IV. Deputizing law enforcement agencies


People v. Basilla – 179 SCRA 87 [1989] (power to deputize fiscal)

V. Registration of parties and organizations


LDP v. Comelec, GR 161265, Feb. 24, 2004
*Atienza v. COMELEC – 612 SCRA 761 [2010]
Lokin v. COMELEC – 674 SCRA 538 [2012]
Dayao v. COMELEC, GR 193643, Jan 29, 2013 (power to review and cancel registration) (supra
Art VI, sec 5)
Alcantara v. COMELEC, GR 203646, April 16, 2013 (power to register political parties)
Senior Citizens Party-list v. COMELEC (power to register party-list)

VI. Prosecution of election offenses


People v. Inting – 187 SCRA 788 [1990] (power to conduct preliminary investigation)
Corpus v. Tanodbayan – 149 SCRA 281 [1987] (exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and
prosecute election offenses)

25
COMELEC v. Silva – 286 SCRA 177 [1998] (power to conduct preliminary investigation and to
prosecute)
Comelec v. Hon. Espanol - GR 149164, Dec. 10, 2003
*Arroyo v. DOJ – 681 SCRA 181 [2012]

VII. Recommendatory powers

Section 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate
its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre- proclamation
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions
for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.

Pangilinan v. COMELEC – 228 SCRA 36 [1993] (jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies)


Sarmiento v. Comelec – 212 SCRA 307 [1992] (COMELEC en banc authority on MR)
Carnicosa v. COMELEC – 282 SCRA 512 [1997] (Division- hear and decide cases, en banc – MR)
Ramas v. COMELEC – 286 SCRA 189 [1998] (writ of execution)
Garvida v. Sales – 271 SCRA 767 [1997] (division only can hear and decide cases)
Velayo v. Comelec - GR 135613, March 9, 2000
Sebastian v. Comelec - GR 139573-75, March 7, 2000
Soller v. Comelec - GR 139853, September 5, 2000
Barroso v. Ampig, et al. - GR 138218, March 17, 2000
Maruhom v. Comelec - GR 139357, May 5, 2000
Balindong v. Comelec - GR 153991-92, Oct. 16, 2003
Jaramilla v. Comelec - GR 155717, Oct. 23, 2003
Bautista v. Comelec - GR 154796-97, Oct. 23, 2003
De Llana v. Comelec - GR 152080, Nov. 28, 2003
Repol v. Comelec - GR 151418, Apr. 28, 2004
Pedragoza v. COMELEC – 496 SCRA 513
Cayetano v. COMELEC – 479 SCRA 514
Munoz v. COMELEC – 495 SCRA 407
Tan v. COMELEC – 507 SCRA 352
Enriquel v. COMELEC – 613 SCRA 809
Mendoza v. COMELEC – 616 SCRA 443
Maria Laarni L. Cayetano v. Comelec - GR 193846, 12 April 2011 (also in Sec 7, Art IX-A):
Jalosjos v. COMELEC, GR 205033, June 18, 2013 (motion for reconsideration should be decided en
banc)

Section 4. The Commission may, during the election period, supervise or regulate the enjoyment or
utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and other public utilities,
media of communication or information, all grants, special privileges, or concessions granted by the
Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-
owned or controlled corporation or its subsidiary. Such supervision or regulation shall aim to
ensure equal opportunity, time, and space ,and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates
therefor, for public information campaigns and forums among candidates in connection with the
objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

Sanidad v. COMELEC – 181 SCRA 529 [1990] (no power to regulate media practitioners during
plebiscite)
NPC v. COMELEC – 207 SCRA 1 [1992] (power to supervise franchises)
Osmeña COMELEC – 199 SCRA 750 [1991] (regulation of media to ensure equal opportunity)
Telecom v. COMELEC – 289 SCRA 337 [1998] (supra, Art. 8, Sec. 1 and Sec. 5; grant free time
during election period)
Bankers Association v. COMELEC, GR 206794, November 26, 2013 (Money Ban Resolution- power
of COMLEC over BSP)
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 26)
1-UTAK v. COMELEC, GR 206020, April 14, 2015

Section 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for violation of election laws, rules,
and regulations shall be granted by the President without the favorable recommendation of the
Commission.

*Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC and Estrada (supra., Art. 7, Sec. 19)

26
*GMA Network v. COMELEC and Cayetano, GR 205357, September 2, 2014

Section 6. A free and open party system shall be allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the
people, subject to the provisions of this Article.

Section 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid, except
for those registered under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution.

Section 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list system,
shall not be represented in the voters' registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of
canvassers, or other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in
accordance with law.

Tecson v. Comelec - 423 SCRA 277

Section 9. Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in special cases, the election period shall
commence ninety days before the day of election and shall end thirty days thereafter.

Section 10. Bona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any form of harassment
and discrimination.

Section 11. Funds certified by the Commission as necessary to defray the expenses for holding
regular and special elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recalls, shall be provided in the
regular or special appropriations and, once approved, shall be released automatically upon
certification by the Chairman of the Commission.

D. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

Section 1.
1. There shall be a Commission on Audit composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners, who
shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least
thirty-five years of age, Certified Public Accountants with not less than ten years of auditing
experience, or members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the elections
immediately preceding their appointment. At no time shall all Members of the Commission belong
to the same profession.
2. The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of
the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first
appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, one Commissioner for five years, and the
other Commissioner for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be
only for the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

*Mison v. COA – 187 SCRA 445 [1990] (COA as collegial body)


Funa v. COA, GR 192791, 24 April 2012 (promotional appointments; nothing in Sec. 1(2),
Article IX(D) explicitly precludes a promotional appointment from Commissioner to Chairman)

Section 2.
1. The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle
all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and
property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions,
agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original
charters, and on a post- audit basis:
a. constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy
under this Constitution;
b. autonomous state colleges and universities;
c. other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and
d. such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or
through the Government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to
such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control system
of the audited agencies is inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including
temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies.

27
It shall keep the general accounts of the Government and, for such period as may be
provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto.
2. The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to define
the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required therefor, and
promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and
disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or
uses of government funds and properties.

I. Examine and audit

A. Government revenues

B. Government expenditures
*Blue Bar Coconut Phil. Tantuico – 163 SCRA 716 [1988] (post-audit authority)*
DBP v. COA – 231 SCRA 202 [1994] (post-audit authority)
Eslao v. COA – 236 SCRA 161 [1994] (limitations to post-audit authority)
J.F.F. Manacop v. CA – 266 SCRA 235 [1997] (limitations to post- audit authority)
Polloso v. Gangan - GR 140563, July 14, 2000 (prevention of unnecessary expenses)
Uy v. COA - GR 130685, March 21, 2000 (prevention of unnecessary expenses)
Aguinaldo v. Sandiganbayan – 265 SCRA 121 [1996] (independent administrative ruling)
DBP v COA - 422 SCRA 459. [2004] (SLP)
Home Dev’t Mutual Fund v. COA, GR 142297, June 15, 2004.
DBP v. COA – 498 SCRA 537 [2006]
Nava v. Palattao – 499 SCRA 745 [2006]
Gualberto Dela Llana v. Commission on Audit - GR 180989, 07 February 2012
Candelario L. Versoza, Jr. v. Guillermo N. Carague - GR 157838, 07 February 2012.
Philippine Coconut v. Republic – 663 SCRA 514 [2012]
Funa v. MECO, G.R. 193462, February 2, 2014 (supra., A8, S.5)
*Law Firms v. COMELEC, GR 213330, November 19, 2015 (hiring of law firm
unauthorized)

II. Audit jurisdiction


Caltex v. COA – 208 SCRA 726 [1992] (audit power)
Mamaril v. Domingo – 227 SCRA 206 [1993] (audit power)
Philippine Airlines v. COA – 245 SCRA 39 [1995] (power over GOCC)
CIR v. COA – 218 SCRA 203 [1993] (independent commission, not an executive agency)
CSC v. Pobre - GR 160568, Sept 15, 2004
Luciano Veloso, et al. v. Commission on Audit - GR 193677, 06 September 2011.
Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit - GR 177131, 07 June 2011.
De la Llana v. COA -665 SCRA 176 [2012]
Maritime Industry v. COA – 745 SCRA 3001

III. Settle government accounts


POI v. Aud. Gen. – 94 PHIL. 868 [1953-1954] (power to settle accounts)*
ICNA v. Republic – 21 SCRA 40 [1967] (power to act on specific debt claim)*
Dingcong v. Guingona – 162 SCRA 782 [1988] (power to disapprove payment)
NHC v. COA – 226 SCRA 55 [1993] (power to disapprove funds)
Euro-Med v. Prov. of Batangas – 495 SCRA 30 [2006]
Ocampo v. COA – 698 SCRA 136
Daraga Press v. COA – 751 SCRA 393

IV. Define scope and techniques for its own auditing procedures
Danville Maritime v. COA – 175 SCRA 701 [1989] (power to determine meaning of public
bidding)
The Special Audit Team v. CA, GR 174788, April 11, 2013 (power to define the scope of its audit
and examination)

V. Promulgate accounting and auditing rules


Leycano v. COA – 482 SCRA 215

VI. Decide administrative cases involving expenditure of public funds


NCMH v. COA – 265 SCRA 390 [1996] (discretion to most competent people)

28
Ramos v. Aquino – 39 SCRA 256 [1971]
Salva v. Carague – 511 SCRA 258 (on personal liability)
City of Basilan v. Hechanova – 58 SCRA 711 [1974] (city council with no power to abolish COA
position)
Dimapilis- Baldoz v. COA, GR 199114, July 16, 2013 (COA has authority to determine the
legality of expenditure) 9supra Art II, Sec 27)

Section 3. No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the Government or its subsidiaries in any
guise whatever, or any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the Commission on
Audit.

Luciano Veloso v. Commission on Audit - GR 193677, 06 September 2011.

Section 4. The Commission shall submit to the President and the Congress, within the time fixed by
law, an annual report covering the financial condition and operation of the Government, its
subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, and non-governmental entities subject to its audit, and recommend measures
necessary to improve their effectiveness and efficiency. It shall submit such other reports as may be
required by law.

ARTICLE X. LOCAL GOVERNMENT

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the
provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim
Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.

Section 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.

*San Juan v. CSC 196 SCRA 69 [1991] (g of governor to recommend)


Drilon v. Lim – 235 SCRA 135 [1994] (supervision)
Judge Leynes v. COA - GR 143596, Dec. 11, 2003
CREBA v. Sec. of DAR – GR 183409, June 18, 2010
Camp John Hay Devt. Corp. v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, GR 169234, October 2, 2013
Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014 (RH law) (supra Art II, Sec 12)
Belgica v. Ochoa, GR 208556, 19 November 2013 (PDAF)
*City of General Santos v. COA, GR 199439, April 22, 2014
Demaala v. COA, (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 25)
Paje v. Casiño (supra., Art 2, Sec. 16); Art. 6, Sec. 5(2); Art. 8, Sec. 5 (5)
SJS v. Lim, GR 187836, November 25, 2014 (Pandacan depot)

Section 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more
responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of
decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the
different local government units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and provide for the
qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions and duties
of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units.

Garcia v. COMELEC – 227 SCRA 100 [1993] (recall of governor)


Malonzo v. COMELEC – 269 SCRA 380 [1997] (recall of mayor)
Malonzo v. Zamora - 323 SCRA 875 (recall)
Demaala v. COA (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 25)
Jalover v. Osmeña, GR 209286, Sept. 23, 2014 (Residency)

Section 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local
governments. Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and
municipalities with respect to component barangays, shall ensure that the acts of their component
units are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions.

Ganzon v. CA – 200 SCRA 271


Joson v. Torres – 290 SCRA 279 (supra, Art. 7, Sec. 17) (disciplining v. investigative authority)

29
Bito-Onon v. Fernandez – 350 SCRA 732
National Liga v. Paredes – 439 SCRA 130 [2004]
SJS v. Atienza – 545 SCRA 92 [2009]
*Province of Negros Occidental v. COA – 631 SCRA 431 [2010]
League of Province of the PH v. DENR, GR 175368, April 11, 2013 (general supervision of the
President)
Republic v. Bayao, GR 179492, June 5 , 2013 (general supervision of the President)

Section 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues
and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may
provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall
accrue exclusively to the local governments.

Powers of Local Government


LTO v. City of Butuan - 322 SCRA 805
Acebedo Optical v. CA - GR 100152, March 31, 2000
Lina v. Pano - G.R. No. 129093, August 30, 2001
PLDT v. City of Davao - GR 143867, March 25, 2003
*Film Devt. Council of PH v. SM Prime Holdings, INC., GR 197937, April 3, 2013 (power to tax
of LGU)
Pelizloy Realty Corp v. Province of Benguet, GR 183137, April 10, 2013 (Congress limitation)
Ruzol v Sandiganbayan, GR 186739-960, April 17, 2013 (power to create source of revenue and
levy fees)
Smart Communications v. Municipality of Malvar, GR 204429, Feb 18, 2014 ((power to create
source of revenue and levy fees)
Deamaala v. COA (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 25)
La Suerte v. CA (supra., Art. 6, Sec. 28(2) (double taxation)

Section 6. Local government units shall have a just share, as determined by law, in the national
taxes which shall be automatically released to them.

Pimentel v. Aguirre – GR 132988, July 19, 2000


Province of Batangas – 429 SCRA 736 [2004]
*Alternative Center v. Zamora – 459 SCRA 578 [2005]
League of Cities v. Comelec - GR 176951, 15 February 2011, 12 April 2011O
*Villafuerte v. Robredo, GR 195390, December 10, 2014
*Mandanas v. Executive Secretary Ochoa, GR 199802, July 3, 2018 (Computation of Just Share)

Section 7. Local governments shall be entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization
and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, in the manner provided by
law, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.

Section 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be
determined by law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three
consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was
elected.

David v. COMELEC – 271 SCRA 90 [1997] (term of brgy. officials)


*Borja v. COMELEC – 295 SCRA 157
*Adormeo v. COMELEC – 376 SCRA 90
*Socrates v. COMELEC – GR 154152, November 12, 2002
*Latasa v. Comelec, GR 154829, Dec. 10, 2003
*Ong. V. Alegre – 479 SCRA 473
Rivera v. COMELEC – 523 SCRA 41
Monteban v. COMELEC – 551 SCRA 50 [2008]
Laceda v. Lumena – GR 182867, November 25, 2008
*Dizon v. COMELEC – 577 SCRA 589 [2009]
*Bolos v. COMELEC – 581 SCRA 786 [2009]
*Aldovino v. COMELEC – 609 SCRA 234 [2009]

30
*Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR 196271, February 2012
(reconsideration; holdover provision in RA 9054 unconstitutional, as Congress in passing RA
10153 has made clear).
*Abundo v. COMELEC, GR 201716, Jan 8, 2013 (rules regarding the three-term limit)
*Naval v. COMELEC, GR 207851, July 8, 2014

Section 9. Legislative bodies of local governments shall have sectoral representation as may be
prescribed by law.

Section 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged,
abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria established
in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite
in the political units directly affected.

*Tan v. COMELEC – 142 SCRA 727 [1986] (creation of a province)


Tobias v. Abalos – 239 SCRA 106 [1994] (metes and bounds)
Mun. of Jimenez v. Judge Baz – 265 SCRA 182 [1996] (de jure corporation)
Cawaling v. COMELEC – GR 146319, October 26, 2001 (supra)
*League of Cities v. COMELEC – GR 176951, 177499, 178056, February 15, 2011 and April 12,
2011 (Final Resolution)
*Navarro v. Exec. Sec. Ermita – GR 180050, April 12, 2011 (Dinagat Island)
Cagas v. COMELEC, GR 209185, October 25, 2013 (conducrt of plebiscite)
*Umali v. COMELEC, GR 203974, April 22, 2014 (conduct of plebiscite; Cabanatuan City as
HUC)

Section 11. The Congress may, by law, create special metropolitan political subdivisions, subject to
a plebiscite as set forth in Section 10 hereof. The component cities and municipalities shall retain
their basic autonomy and shall be entitled to their own local executive and legislative assemblies.
The jurisdiction of the metropolitan authority that will thereby be created shall be limited to basic
services requiring coordination.

*MMDA v. Garin – GR 130230, April 15, 2005(no authority to confiscate driver’s license)

Section 12. Cities that are highly urbanized, as determined by law, and component cities whose
charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials, shall be independent of
the province. The voters of component cities within a province, whose charters contain no such
prohibition, shall not be deprived of their right to vote for elective provincial officials.

Section 13. Local government units may group themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts,
services, and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them in accordance with law.

Section 14. The President shall provide for regional development councils or other similar bodies
composed of local government officials, regional heads of departments and other government
offices, and representatives from non-governmental organizations within the regions for purposes
of administrative decentralization to strengthen the autonomy of the units therein and to accelerate
the economic and social growth and development of the units in the region.

Pimentel v. Ochoa -696 SCRA 551 (2012)

AUTONOMOUS REGIONS

Section 15. There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras
consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographical areas sharing common and
distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and other relevant
characteristics within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as
territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.

Disomangcop v. Sec. of DPWH - GR 149848; Nov. 25, 2004

Section 16. The President shall exercise general supervision over autonomous regions to ensure that
laws are faithfully executed.

31
Datu Zaldy Uy Ampatuan v. Hon. Ronaldo Puno, GR 190259, June 7, 2011. 
(Proclamation 1946 and AOs 273 and 273-A do not violate the principle of local autonomy under
Section 16, Article X of the Constitution, and Section 1, Article V of the Expanded ARMM Organic
Act)
Kulayan v. Tan -675 SCRA 482 [2012] (state of emergency proclaimed by Governor due to
kidnapping ; call out AFP ; no power ; can’t create civilian emergency force)

Section 17. All powers, functions, and responsibilities not granted by this Constitution or by law to
the autonomous regions shall be vested in the National Government.

Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines - GR 196271, October 18, 2011. (the framers
decided to reinstate the provision in order to make it clear, once and for all, that these are the limits
of the powers of the autonomous government; those not enumerated are actually to be exercised by
the national government; the autonomy granted to the ARMM cannot be invoked to defeat national
policies and concerns. Since the synchronization of elections is not just a regional concern but a
national one, the ARMM is subject to it; the regional autonomy granted to the ARMM cannot be
used to exempt the region from having to act in accordance with a national policy mandated by no
less than the Constitution)

Section 18. The Congress shall enact an organic act for each autonomous region with the assistance
and participation of the regional consultative commission composed of representatives appointed by
the President from a list of nominees from multi-sectoral bodies. The organic act shall define the
basic structure of government for the region consisting of the executive department and legislative
assembly, both of which shall be elective and representative of the constituent political units. The
organic acts shall likewise provide for special courts with personal, family, and property law
jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of this Constitution and national laws.
The creation of the autonomous region shall be effective when approved by majority of the votes
cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite called for the purpose, provided that only provinces,
cities, and geographic areas voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous
region.

Section 19. The first Congress elected under this Constitution shall, within eighteen months from
the time of organization of both Houses, pass the organic acts for the autonomous regions in
Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras.

*Abbas v. COMELEC – 179 SCRA 287 [1989] (ARMM)


*Ordillos v. COMELEC – 192 SCRA 100 [1990] (CAR)
*Badua v. CBA – 194 SCRA 101 [1991] (tribal courts)
Atitiw v. Zamora – 471 SCRA 329 [2005]
Sema v. COMELEC – GR 177597, July 16, 2008
*Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel (supra. A7, Sec. 1)
Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines - GR 196271, February 2012. (means that
only amendments to, or revisions of, the Organic Act constitutionally-essential to the creation of
autonomous regions – i.e., those aspects specifically mentioned in the Constitution which Congress
must provide for in the Organic Act – require ratification through a plebiscite)

Section 20. Within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of this Constitution and
national laws, the organic act of autonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers over:
1. Administrative organization;
2. Creation of sources of revenues;
3. Ancestral domain and natural resources;
4. Personal, family, and property relations;
5. Regional urban and rural planning development;
6. Economic, social, and tourism development;
7. Educational policies;
8. Preservation and development of the cultural heritage; and
9. Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of
the people of the region.

32
Section 21. The preservation of peace and order within the regions shall be the responsibility of the local police
agencies which shall be organized, maintained, supervised, and utilized in accordance with
applicable laws. The defense and security of the regions shall be the responsibility of the National
Government.

ARTICLE XI. ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency;
act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

Hipolito v. Mergas – 195 SCRA 6 [1991] (moonlighting)


Bornasal, Jr. v. Montes – 280 SCRA 181 [1997] (unauthorized acts)
Almario v. Resus – AM No. P941076 [November 22, 1999]
Juan v. People, GR 132378, January 18, 2000
Re: AWOL of Antonio Makalintal - AM 99-11-06-SC, February 15, 2000
Estrella v. Sandiganbayan - GR 125160, June 20, 2000
Malbas v. Blanco - A.M. P-99-1350, December 12, 2001
Manaois v. Leomo - AM MTJ-03-1492, Aug. 26, 2003
Re: Mr. Gideon Alibang - AM 2003-11-SC June 15, 2004
ABAKADA v. Purisima – 562 SCRA 251 [2008]
Salumbides v. OMB - GR 180917, April 23, 2010
Belgica v. Ochoa, GR 208566, November 19, 2013
Office of the Court Admin v. Buencamino, AM P-05-2051, January 21, 2014

Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of
the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on
impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft
and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and
employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.

Office of the Ombudsman v. CA – 452 SCRA 714 [2005] (exclusive list)

Section 3.
1. The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
2. A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of
Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any Member thereof, which
shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper
Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority
vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such
referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for
consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof.
3. A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a
favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary
resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.
4. In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the
Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the
Senate shall forthwith proceed.
5. No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a
period of one year.
6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for
that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is
on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be
convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
7. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and
disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted
shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.
8. The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of
this section.

33
*In re Gonzales – 160 SCRA 771 [1988] (disbarment against an impeachable public officer)* read
with
Marcoleta v. Brawner – 582 SCRA 474 [2009])
Romulo v. Yñiguez – 141 SCRA 260 [1986] (Presidential impeachment)
*Estrada v. Desierto, GR 146738, March 2, 2001 and MR-GR 146710-15, April 3, 2001 (judgment in
impeachment)
*Francisco v. HR – GR 160261, November 10, 2003
*Gutierrez v. House of Representatives – GR 193459, February 15, 2011

Section 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and
exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.

Nuñez v. Sandiganbayan – 111 SCRA 433 [1982] (creation of Sandiganbayan)


*Lecaros v. Sandiganbayan – 128 SCRA 324 [1984] (crimes in relation to public offfice)*
Cunanan v. Arceo – 242 SCRA 88 [1995] (averment of the nature of the crime committed)
Binay v. Sandiganbayan – GR No. 120681-83 (October 1, 1999)
Mayor Layus v. Sandiganbayan – GR 134272, December 8, 1999
Abbot v. Mapayo, GR 134102, July 6, 2000

Section 5. There is hereby created the independent Office of the Ombudsman, composed of the
Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan, one overall Deputy and at least one Deputy each for
Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. A separate Deputy for the military establishment may likewise be
appointed.

Section 6. The officials and employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, other than the Deputies,
shall be appointed by the Ombudsman, according to the Civil Service Law.

Baluyot v. Hulganza, GR 136374, February 9, 2000


Garcia v. Ombudsman, GR 127710, February 16, 2000
Lapid v. CA, GR 142261, June 29, 2000
Tirol v. COA, GR 133954, August 3, 2000
Mamburao v. Ombudsman, GR 139141-42, November 15, 2000
Salvador v. Desierto, 420 SCRA 76 (Ombudsman’s discretion on w/n a criminal case should be
filed.)
Biraogo v. PTC – (supra., A7)

Section 7. The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the Office of the Special
Prosecutor. It shall continue to function and exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be
provided by law, except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under this
Constitution.

*Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan – 160 SCRA 843 [1988] (powers)


Quimpo v. Tanodbayan – 146 SCRA 137 [1986] (jurisdiction)
Acop v. Ombudsman – 248 SCRA 566 [1995] (prosecutory powers: distinction in preliminary
investigation and duty to investigate)
Camanag v. Hon Guerrero – 268 SCRA 473 [1997] (powers as ‘provided by law’)
Macalinao v. Sandiganbayan – 376 SCRA 452
Office of the Ombudsman v. Valera – 471 SCRA 715 [2005]
Perez v. Sandiganbayan – 503 SCRA 252
Calingin v. Desierto – 529 SCRA 720 [2007]
Lazatin v. Desierto – 588 SCRA 285 [2009]

Section 8. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines, and
at the time of their appointment, at least forty years old, of recognized probity and independence,
and members of the Philippine Bar, and must not have been candidates for any elective office in the
immediately preceding election. The Ombudsman must have, for ten years or more, been a judge or
engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
During their tenure, they shall be subject to the same disqualifications and prohibitions as provided
for in Section 2 of Article 1X-A of this Constitution.

Section 9. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed by the President from a list of at
least six nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council, and from a list of three nominees for

34
every vacancy thereafter. Such appointments shall require no confirmation. All vacancies shall be
filled within three months after they occur.

Section 10. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall have the rank of Chairman and Members,
respectively, of the Constitutional Commissions, and they shall receive the same salary which shall
not be decreased during their term of office.

Section 11. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall serve for a term of seven years without
reappointment. They shall not be qualified to run for any office in the election immediately
succeeding their cessation from office.

OMB v. CSC – 528 SCRA 535 [2007]

Section 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on
complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the Government, or
any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the
result thereof.

*Almonte v. Vasquez – 244 SCRA 286 [1995] (form and manner of complaint – unsigned letter)
Raro v. Sandiganbayan, GR 108431, July 14, 2000
Bautista v. Sandiganbayan, GR 136082, May 12, 2000
Roxas v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 114944, June 19, 2001
Kara-an v. Ombudsman, GR 119990, June 21, 2004
People v. Sandiganbayan – 451 SCRA 413 [2005]
Laxina v. Ombudsman – 471 SCRA 542 [2005]
Gemma P. Cabalit v. Commission on Audit-Region VII - GR 180236, January 17, 2012 January 17,
2012 (power of the Ombudsman to determine and impose administrative liability is mandatory)
*Gonzales III v. OP -679 SCRA 614 [2012] (Luneta Siege)
*Gonzales III v. OP, GR 196231 January 28, 2014 (President’s disciplinary authority over OMB and
his Deputies)

Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties:
1. Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official,
employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or
inefficient.
2. Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of the Government,
or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of any government-owned or
controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and expedite any act or duty required by
law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties.
3. Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at
fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure
compliance therewith.
4. Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law, to furnish it with copies of documents relating to contracts or transactions entered
into by his office involving the disbursement or use of public funds or properties, and report any
irregularity to the Commission on Audit for appropriate action.
5. Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of its
responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and documents.
6. Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with due
prudence.
7. Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the
Government and make recommendations for their elimination and the observance of high
standards of ethics and efficiency.
8. Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or
duties as may be provided by law.

I. In General
*Cruz v. Sandiganbayan – 194 SCRA 474 [1991] (concurrent jurisdiction with PCGG)
Maceda v. Vasquez – 221 SCRA 464 [1993] (Judiciary, supra Art. 8)
Macalino v. Sandiganbayan – 376 SCRA 452

35
Honasan v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors - GR 159747, Apr. 13, 2004
Samson v OMB - GR 117741, Sept. 29, 2004
Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan - GR 162214, Nov. 11, 2004
Khan v. OMB – 495 SCRA 452
OMB v. Estandarte – 521 SCRA 155 [2007]
*Salvador v. Mapa – 539 SCRA 34 [200] (no power to decide const’l. questions)
OMB v. Masing – 542 SCRA 253 [2008]
Medina v. COA – 543 SCRA 684 [2008]
Borja v. People – 553 SCRA 250 [2008]
Biraogo v. PTC – (supra.)
Ombudsman v. Chavez, GR 172206, July 3, 2013 (power to promulgate own rules)
Ampil v. Ombudsman, GR 192685, July 31, 2013
*Hernandez v. Ombudsman, GR 197307, Feb 26, 2014 (power of the OMB to dismiss v. power to
recommend the removal)
Alejandro v. OMB Fact-Finding Bureau – 695 SCRA 35 (jurisdiction over administration cases of
elective officials)
*Carpio-Morales v. CA – 774 SCRA 431 (condonation doctrine abandoned)

II. Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties


*Buenaseda v. Flavier – 226 SCRA 645 [1993] (when to suspend)
Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole – 251 SCRA 243 [1995] (nature)
Vasquez v. Hobilla-Alinio – 271 SCRA 67 [1997] (not in relation to duties)
*Ledesma v. CA – 465 SCRA 437 (2005) (the “recommendarory” function of OMB does not
divest Congress of plenary legislative power to vest OMB powers beyond the Constitution)
OMB v. CA – 491 SCRA 92
Estorja v. Ranada – 492 SCRA 652
OMB v. Madriaga – 503 SCRA 631
OMB v. CA – 507 SCRA 593
OMB v. Lucero – 508 SCRA 593
Balbastro v. Juinio – 527 SCRA 680 [2007]
OMB v. CA – 527 SCRA 798 [2007]
COA – 529 SCRA 245 [2007]
OMB v. Santiago – 533 SCRA 305 [2007]
Marohomsalic v. Cole – 547 SCRA 98
OMB v. Lisondra – 548 SCRA 83
Miro v. Abugan – 549 SCRA 34
Gobenciong v. CA – 550 SCRA 502 [2008]
Cesa v. OMB – 553 SCRA 357
OMB v. De Sahagun – 562 SCRA 122
OMB v. Samaniego – 564 SCRA 502
Boncalon v. OMB – GR 171812, December 24, 2008
OMB v. Beltran – 588 SCRA 574 [2009]
*OMB v. Apolonio - GR 165132, March 7, 2012 (power to directly impose administrative
penalties, including removal from office)
OMB v. Quimbo – 751 SCRA 632 (2015)

III. Jurisdiction over Criminal Cases


Natividad v. Felix – 229 SCRA 680 [1994] (amount)
*Lastimosa v. Vasquez – 243 SCRA 497 [1995] (prosecutor’s assistance)*
*Presidential v. Desierto – 528 SCRA 20 [2007]*
Busuego v. Office of Ombudsman, GR 196842, October 9, 2013 (concurrent jurisdiction to
investigate offenses)

IV. Fact-finding distinguished from Preliminary Investigation


Raro v. Sandiganbayan, GR 108431, July 14, 2000
Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, GR 148468, Jan. 28, 2003

Section 14. The Office of the Ombudsman shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Its approved annual
appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released.

36
Section 15. The right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or
employees, from them or from their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred by prescription,
laches, or estoppel.

Heirs of Gregorio Licaros v. SB, GR 157438, Oct. 18, 2004


Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Honorable Aniano A. Desierto as
Ombudsman, GR 135715, 13 April 2011. Reiterating Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee
on Behest Loans v. Desierto, GR 130140: "Provision applies only to civil actions for recovery of ill-
gotten wealth, and not to criminal cases."

Section 16. No loan, guaranty, or other form of financial accommodation for any business purpose
may be granted, directly or indirectly, by any government-owned or controlled bank or financial
institution to the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the
Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Commissions, the Ombudsman, or to any firm or entity in
which they have controlling interest, during their tenure.

Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as
may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In
the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the
Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the
armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the
manner provided by law.

Section 18. Public officers and employees owe the State and this Constitution allegiance at all times
and any public officer or employee who seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the status of an
immigrant of another country during his tenure shall be dealt with by law.

*Caasi v. CA – 191 SCRA 229 [1990] (foreign citizen)


Sampayan v. Daza – 213 SCRA 807 [1992] (foreign citizen)

ARTICLE XII. NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities,
income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the
nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality
of life for all, especially the underprivileged.
The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural
development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full of efficient use of human and
natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, the
State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all region s of the country shall be given
optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives, and
similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership.

Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils,
all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural
resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources
shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such
activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with
Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by
such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for
not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may provided by law. In
cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of waterpower, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
The State shall protect the nations marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and
exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as
well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish workers in rivers,
lakes, bays, and lagoons.

37
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either
technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of
minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided
by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In
such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical
resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this
provision, within thirty days from its execution.

I. Alienation
Sta. Rosa Mining v. Leido – 156 SCRA 1 [1987] (mining claims)
San Miguel Corporation v. CA – 185 SCRA 722 [1990] (possession in the concept of an owner)
Republic v. Bantigue Point Development Corporation - GR 162322, 14 March 2012 (burden on
applicant to prove land sought to be registered is alienable or disposable based on a positive act of
the government)
Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, GR 179987, September 3, 2013 (only agricultural lands can be
alienated)

II. Utilization
Miners v. Factoran – 240 SCRA 100 [1995] (jura regalia)
Tano v. Socrates – 278 SCRA 154 [1997] (subsistence fishermen)
Villaflor v. CA – 280 SCRA 297 [1997] (private ownership)
Republic v. CA and RREC – GR 103882 [November 25, 1998] 299 SCRA 199
Republic v. Rosemoor Mining and Dev’t Corp. - GR 149927, Mar. 30, 2004, Art. XII
Alvarez v. PICOP – 606 SCRA 444 [2009]
*IID v. PSALM -682 SCRA 602 [2012]

III. Public Domain and Regalian Doctrine


Land Mgt. Bureau v. CA - GR 112567, February 7, 2000
Republic v. De Guzman - GR 105630, February 23, 2000
Pua v. CA, GR 134992 - November 20, 2000
Cruz v. Sec. of DENR - GR 135385, December 6, 2000
Chavez v. PEA - GR 133250, July 9, 2002
*La Bugal-B’laan v. Ramos - GR 127872, Dec. 1, 2004*
Dipidio v. Gozun – 485 SCRA 586
Chavez v. NHA – 530 SCRA 235 [2007]
Republic v. Vda. De Jason, GR 163767, March 10, 2014(State ownership)
Republic v. Remman Enterprises, GR 199310, February 19, 2014 (burden of proof)
*Narra Nickel v. Redmont Consolidated, GR 195580 , January 28, 2015
*Resident Marine Mammals v. Sec. Reyes – 756 SCRA 513

Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral
lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law
according to the uses to which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be
limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands
of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not
more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the
Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve
hectares thereof, by purchase, homestead, or grant.
Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject to the
requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the
public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions therefor.

Dir. of Lands v. Aquino – 192 SCRA 296 [1990] (power to classify)


Republic v. CA – 160 SCRA 228 [1988] (conversion of land by perfection of a mining claim)
*Dir. of Lands v. IAC – 146 SCRA 509 [1986] (right of corporations to acquire land)*
Chavez v. PEA - supra.
Republic v. Southside – 502 SCRA 587
Republic v. T.A.N – 555 SCRA 477 [2008]
Fortuna v. Republic, GR 173423, March 5, 2014

38
Section 4. The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine, by law, the specific limits of forest
lands and national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, such forest
lands and national parks shall be conserved and may not be increased nor diminished, except by
law. The Congress shall provide for such period as it may determine, measures to prohibit logging
in endangered forests and watershed areas.

Section 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies
and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to
ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being.
The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or
relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain.

*Cruz v. Sec. of DENR - GR 135385, December 6, 2000


Paje v. Casiño (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 16; Art. 6, Sec. 5(2); Art. 8, Sec. 5(5) and, Art. 10, Sec. 2)

Section 6. The use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents shall contribute to
the common good. Individuals and private groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and
similar collective organizations, shall have the right to own, establish, and operate economic
enterprises, subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when
the common good so demands.

Telebap v. COMELEC – 289 SCRA 337 [1998] (supra, Art. 8, Sec. 1 and Sec. 5, and Art. 9-C, Sec. 4)
(social function of the use of property)

Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed
except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public
domain.

*Ramirez v. Vda. De Ramirez – 111 SCRA 704 [1982] (usufruct)


*Halili v. CA – 287 SCRA 465 [1998] (subsequent sale to Filipinos)
Lee v. Republic, G.R. No. 128195, October 3, 2001 (reiterates previous ruling)
Lentfer v. Wolff – 441 SCRA 584 [2004]
Muller v. Muller – 500 SCRA 65
Ting Ho v. Teng – 558 SCRA 421 [2008]
Hulst v. PR Builders – 566 SCRA 333 [2008]
*Osmena v. Osmena – 611 SCRA 164 [2010]
Beurmer v. Amores - 686 SCRA 770 [2012]
Republic v. Huang Te Fu, GR 200983, March 18, 2015

Section 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to
limitations provided by law.

*Republic v. CA – 235 SCRA 567 [1994] (citizenship at time of acquisition)

Section 9. The Congress may establish an independent economic and planning agency headed by
the President, which shall, after consultations with the appropriate public agencies, various private
sectors, and local government units, recommend to Congress, and implement continuing integrated
and coordinated programs and policies for national development.
Until the Congress provides otherwise, the National Economic and Development Authority shall
function as the independent planning agency of the government.

Section 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency, when
the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations
at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher percentage as
Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact measures that will
encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the
State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.
The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national
jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals and priorities.

39
*Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS – 267 SCRA 408 [1997] (national patrimony)
*Army and Navy v. CA – 271 SCRA 36 [1997] (historical landmark)
Tañada v. Angara – 272 SCRA 18 [1997] (supra, Art. 2, preliminary issue, Sec. 2, and Sec. 19, and
Art. 7, Sec. 21) (preference for Filipinos)
Republic v. CA, 299 SCRA 199
J.G. Summit Holdings v. CA, GR 124293, November 20, 2000
*Knights of Rizal vs. DMCI (Torre de Manila), GR 213948, April 25, 2017

Section 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public
utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations
organized under the laws of the Philippines, at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by
such citizens; nor shall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a
longer period than fifty years. Neither shall any such franchise or right be granted except under the
condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress when the
common good so requires. The State shall encourage equity participation in public utilities by the
general public. The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility
enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its capital, and all the executive and
managing officers of such corporation or association must be citizens of the Philippines.

Bagatsing v. Committee – 246 SCRA 344 [1995] (definition of public utility)


Albano v. Reyes – 175 SCRA 264 [1989] (power to grant franchise)
Tatad v. Garcia – 243 SCRA 436 [1995] (franchise to operate)
Telebap v. COMELEC – 289 SCRA 337 [1998] (supra, Art. 8, Sec. 1 and Sec. 5, and Art. 9-C, Sec. 4
and Art. 12, Sec. 6) (amendment to franchise)
Republic v. Express Telecom, 373 SCRA 316
Del Mar v. Pagcor, [2001]
PTC v. NTC, GR 138295, Aug. 28, 2003
Royal Cargo Corp v. CAB - 421 SCRA 21- participation of executive and managing officers in
governing body of public utility enterprise
Metropolitan v. Adala – 526 SCRA 465 [2007]
*Francisco v. TRB – 633 SCRA 470 [2010]*
*Wilson P. Gamboa v. Finance Secretary Margarito B. Teves - GR 176579, 28 June 2011.
Express Investment vs. Bayantel – 687 SCRA 50 (2012)
Hontiveros-Baraquel v. TRB (supra; Art. 7, S. 20)

Section 12. The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and
locally produced goods, and adopt measures that help make them competitive.

Tañada v. Angara – 272 SCRA 18 [1997] (supra, Art. 2, preliminary issue, Sec. 2 and Sec. 19, and
Art. 7, Sec. 21 and Art. 12, Sec. 10) (Filipino first policy)

Section 13. The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all
forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity.

Espina v. Zamora – 631 SCRA 17

Section 14. The sustained development of a reservoir of national talents consisting of Filipino
scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals, managers, high-level technical manpower and skilled
workers and craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by the State. The State shall encourage
appropriate technology and regulate its transfer for the national benefit. The practice of all
professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.

Section 15. The Congress shall create an agency to promote the viability and growth of cooperatives
as instruments for social justice and economic development.

Section 16. The Congress shall not, except by general law, provide for the formation, organization,
or regulation of private corporations. Government-owned or controlled corporations may be
created or established by special charters in the interest of the common good and subject to the test
of economic viability.

NDC v. PVB – 192 SCRA 257 [1990] (creation of GOCC)

40
Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. COA, GR 177131, 07 June 2011. 
Mendoza v. COA, GR 195395, September 10, 2013 (GOCC special charter)

Section 17. In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may,
during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct
the operation of any privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest.

Agan Jr. v. PIATCO- 420 S 575 [2004]


*David v. Arroyo – (supra. A7, Sec. 18)

Section 18. The State may, in the interest of national welfare or defense, establish and operate vital
industries and, upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other
private enterprises to be operated by the Government.

Telephone Interconnections
Republic v. PLDT – 26 SCRA 620 [1968] (national welfare and power of eminent domain)
PLDT v. NTC – 190 SCRA 717 [1990] (economic efficiency)
PLDT v. Eastern Telecom – 213 SCRA 16 [1992] (no franchise to operate telephone system)

Section 19. The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public interest so requires. No
combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed.

Tatad v. DOE – 281 SCRA 330 [1997] and MR – 282 SCRA 337 [1997] (supra, Art. 6, Sec. 1 & Art.
8, Sec.1 )
EASCO v. LTFRB - GR 149717, Oct. 7, 2003
Agan Jr. v. PIATCO - supra
*Avon v. Luna – 511 SCRA 376
Pharmaceutical v. Duque – (supra.)

Section 20. The Congress shall establish an independent central monetary authority, the members
of whose governing board must be natural-born Filipino citizens, of known probity, integrity, and
patriotism, the majority of whom shall come from the private sector. They shall also be subject to
such other qualifications and disabilities as may be prescribed by law. The authority shall provide
policy direction in the areas of money, banking, and credit. It shall have supervision over the
operations of banks and exercise such regulatory powers as may be provided by law over the
operations of finance companies and other institutions performing similar functions.
Until the Congress otherwise provides, the Central Bank of the Philippines operating under existing
laws, shall function as the central monetary authority.

Section 21. Foreign loans may only be incurred in accordance with law and the regulation of the
monetary authority. Information on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed by the Government shall
be made available to the public.

Section 22. Acts which circumvent or negate any of the provisions of this Article shall be considered
inimical to the national interest and subject to criminal and civil sanctions, as may be provided by
law.

Supplement:
See the Proceedings of the Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reform, 1999, (CD).

ARTICLE XVI. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 1. The flag of the Philippines shall be red, white, and blue, with a sun and three stars, as
consecrated and honored by the people and recognized by law.

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.

Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.

41
Liang v. People, GR 125865, January 28, 2000
Calub v. CA, GR 115634, April 27, 2000
Lansang v. CA, GR 102667, February 23, 2000
Mancenido v. CA, GR 118605, April 12, 2000
Shell v. Jalos – 630 SCRA 399 [2010]
China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. v. Santamaria - GR 185572, February 7, 2012
(Revisits and reiterates several cases: GTZ v. CA, Holy See v. Rosario, DFA v. NLRC.)

I. Foundation of the Rule: A suit against the State


Santos v. Santos – 92 PHIL. 281 [1952-1953]
Republic v. Feliciano – 148 SCRA 424 ]1987]
*Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzons (2005) –

II. Unincorporated Agencies


Metran v. Paredes – 79 PHIL. 819 [1947-1948]
NAC v. Teodoro – 91 PHIL. 203 [1952]
*Mobil Philippines v. Customs Arrastre – 18 SCRA 1120 [1966]
*Del Mar v. PVA – 51 SCRA 340[1973]
CAA v. CA – 167 SCRA 28 [1988]
Farolan v. CTA – 217 SCRA 217 [1993]
PNR v. IAC – 217 SCRA 401 [1993]
Republic v. Nolasco – 457 SCRA 460 [2005]
Republic v. Unimex – 518 SCRA 20 [2007]
Professional Video v. TESDA – 591 SCRA 83 [2009]
DOH v. Phil Phramaceuticals – 691 SCRA 421 [ ]

III. Government Officers


*Ministerio v. CFI – 40 SCRA 464 [1971]
*Syquia v. Almeda-Lopez – 84 SCRA 312[1978]
Festejo v. Fernando – 94 SCRA 504 [1979]
Aberca v. Ver – 160 SCRA 590 [1988]
Shauf v. CA – 191 SCRA 713 [1990]
Vidad v. RTC – 227 SCRA 271 [1993]
Regional Director v. CA – 229 SCRA 557 [1994]
Africa v. PCGG/Villanueva v. Sandiganbayan – [January 1992]
DOH v. Phil. Pharmawealth – 518 SCRA 240 [2007]

IV. Foreign Government


Baer v. Tizon – 57 SCRa 1 [1974]
US v. Ruiz – 136 SCRA 487 [1985]
Sanders v. Veridiano – 162 SCRA 88 [1988]
U.S. v. Reyes – 219 SCRA 192 [1993]
*The Holy See v. Rosario – 238 SCRA 524 [1994]
JUSMAG v. NLRC – 239 SCRA 224 [1994]
Larkins v. NLRC – 241 SCRA 598 [1995]
*Minucher v. CA – GR 142396, Feb. 11, 2003
*Arigo v. Swift, GR 206510, September 16, 2014 (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 2)

V. Consent by Law
*Carabao v. Agricultural Product Com. – 35 SCRA 224 [1970]*
Arcega v. CA – 66 SCRA 230 [1975]
Rayo v. CFI – 110 SCRA 456 [1981]
Municipality of San Fernando v. Firme – 195 SCRA 692 [1991]
Republic v. NLRC – 263 SCRA 290 [1996]

VI. Exceptional Circumstance to avoid injustice


*DOH v. Canchela – 475 SCRA 218 [2005]

VI. Agency – Propriety


*United States v. Guinto – 182 SCRA 644 [1990]
Fontanilla v. Maliaman – 194 SCRA 486 [1991]

42
PRC v. CA – 256 SCRA 667 [1996]

VII. Waiver
*Republic v. Purisma – 78 SCRA 470 [1977]
Santiago v. Republic – 87 SCRA 294[1978]
Traders Royal Bank v. IAC – 192 SCRA 305 [1990]
Republic v. Sandoval – 220 SCRA 124 [1993]
Delos Santos v. IAC – 223 SCRA 11 [1993]
DA v. NLRC – 227 SCRA 693 [1993]
EPG v. Sec. of DPWH – 354 SCRA 566 [2001]

VIII. Resulting Liability


Philrock v. Board of Liquidators – 180 SCRA 171 [1989]
Liang v. People – GR 125865 [January 28, 2000] (ADB immunity)
Republic v. Hidalgo – 477 SCRA 12 [2005] (writ of execution)
*Philippine Agila v. Lichauco – 489 SCRA 22 [2006]
Curato v. PPA – 590 SCRA 215 [2009]
U.P. v. Dizon -679 SCRA 54 [2012]

Section 4. The Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be composed of a citizen armed force which
shall undergo military training and serve as may be provided by law. It shall keep a regular force
necessary for the security of the State.

Section 5.
1.All members of the armed forces shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this
Constitution.
2.The State shall strengthen the patriotic spirit and nationalist consciousness of the military, and
respect for people's rights in the performance of their duty.
3.Professionalism in the armed forces and adequate remuneration and benefits of its members shall
be a prime concern of the State. The armed forces shall be insulated from partisan politics. No
member of the military shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any partisan political activity, except
to vote.
4.No member of the armed forces in the active service shall, at any time, be appointed or designated
in any capacity to a civilian position in the Government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or any of their subsidiaries.
5.Laws on retirement of military officers shall not allow extension of their service.
6.The officers and men of the regular force of the armed forces shall be recruited proportionately
from all provinces and cities as far as practicable.
7.The tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the armed forces shall not exceed three years. However, in
times of war or other national emergency declared by the Congress, the President may extend such
tour of duty.

Section 6. The State shall establish and maintain one police force, which shall be national in scope
and civilian in character, to be administered and controlled by a national police commission. The
authority of local executives over the police units in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law.

Carpio v. Executive Secretary – 206 SCRA 290 [1992]


IBP v. Zamora, GR 141284, August 15, 2000

Section 7. The State shall provide immediate and adequate care, benefits, and other forms of
assistance to war veterans and veterans of military campaigns, their surviving spouses and orphans.
Funds shall be provided therefor and due consideration shall be given them in the disposition of
agricultural lands of the public domain and, in appropriate cases, in the utilization of natural
resources.

Section 8. The State shall, from time to time, review to increase the pensions and other benefits due
to retirees of both the government and the private sectors.

Re: Application for Survivorship pension benefits under RA 9946, AM 14155-Ret, November 19,
2013 (state’s duty to upgrade pensions and other benefits)

43
Section 9. The State shall protect consumers from trade malpractices and from substandard or
hazardous products.

Section 10. The State shall provide the policy environment for the full development of Filipino
capability and the emergence of communication structures suitable to the needs and aspirations of
the nation and the balanced flow of information into, out of, and across the country, in accordance
with a policy that respects the freedom of speech and of the press.

Section 11.
1. The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or
to corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly-owned and managed by such citizens.The
Congress shall regulate or prohibit monopolies in commercial mass media when the public interest
so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition therein shall be allowed.
2. The advertising industry is impressed with public interest, and shall be regulated by law for the
protection of consumers and the promotion of the general welfare.Only Filipino citizens or
corporations or associations at least seventy per centum of the capital of which is owned by such
citizens shall be allowed to engage in the advertising industry.
3. The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of entities in such industry shall be
limited to their proportionate share in the capital thereof, and all the executive and managing
officers of such entities must be citizens of the Philippines.

Section 12. The Congress may create a consultative body to advise the President on policies
affecting indigenous cultural communities, the majority of the members of which shall come from
such communities.

Paje v. Casiño (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 16; Art. 6, Sec. 5(2), Art. 8, Sec. 5(5); Art. 10, Sec 2)

ARTICLE XVII. AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS

Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
1. The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
2. A constitutional convention.

Imbong v. COMELEC – 35 SCRA 28 [1970] (constituent assembly)*

Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people
through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered
voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the
registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years
following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.

*Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC – 270 SCRA 106 [1997] and MR – [1997] (initiative and
referendum)*
*Lambino v. COMELEC – 505 SCRA 160*

Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional
convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling
such a convention.

Section 4.Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid
when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty
days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast
in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the
certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.

Gonzales v. COMELEC – 21 SCRA 774 [1967] (nature of power to amend the Constitution)*
Tolentino v. COMELEC – 41 SCRA 702 [1971] (single election)*

44
ARTICLE XVIII. TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Section 1. The first elections of Members of the Congress under this Constitution shall be held on
the second Monday of May, 1987.
The first local elections shall be held on a date to be determined by the President, which may be
simultaneous with the election of the Members of the Congress. It shall include the election of all
Members of the city or municipal councils in the Metropolitan Manila area.

Section 2. The Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, and the local officials first
elected under this Constitution shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992.
Of the Senators elected in the elections in 1992, the first twelve obtaining the highest number of
votes shall serve for six years and the remaining twelve for three years.

Section 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions, and
other executive issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until
amended, repealed, or revoked.

Section 4. All existing treaties or international agreements which have not been ratified shall not be
renewed or extended without the concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the Members of the
Senate.

Section 5. The six-year term of the incumbent President and Vice-President elected in the February
7, 1986 election is, for purposes of synchronization of elections, hereby extended to noon of June 30,
1992.
The first regular elections for the President and Vice-President under this Constitution shall be held
on the second Monday of May, 1992.

Section 6. The incumbent President shall continue to exercise legislative powers until the first
Congress is convened.

Section 7. Until a law is passed, the President may fill by appointment from a list of nominees by the
respective sectors, the seats reserved for sectoral representation in paragraph (2), Section 5 of
Article V1 of this Constitution.

Section 8. Until otherwise provided by the Congress, the President may constitute the Metropolitan
Manila Authority to be composed of the heads of all local government units comprising the
Metropolitan Manila area.

MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association, GR 135962, March 27, 2000

Section 9. A sub-province shall continue to exist and operate until it is converted into a regular
province or until its component municipalities are reverted to the mother province.

Section 10. All courts existing at the time of the ratification of this Constitution shall continue to
exercise their jurisdiction, until otherwise provided by law. The provisions of the existing Rules of
Court, judiciary acts, and procedural laws not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain
operative unless amended or repealed by the Supreme Court or the Congress.

Section 11. The incumbent Members of the Judiciary shall continue in office until they reach the
age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office or are removed
for cause.

Section 12. The Supreme Court shall, within one year after the ratification of this Constitution,
adopt a systematic plan to expedite the decision or resolution of cases or matters pending in the
Supreme Court or the lower courts prior to the effectivity of this Constitution. A similar plan shall
be adopted for all special courts and quasi-judicial bodies.

Section 13. The legal effect of the lapse, before the ratification of this Constitution, of the applicable
period for the decision or resolution of the cases or matters submitted for adjudication by the
courts, shall be determined by the Supreme Court as soon as practicable.

45
Section 14. The provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4), Section 15 of Article VIII of this Constitution
shall apply to cases or matters filed before the ratification of this Constitution, when the applicable
period lapses after such ratification.

Section 15. The incumbent Members of the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections,
and the Commission on Audit shall continue in office for one year after the ratification of this
Constitution, unless they are sooner removed for cause or become incapacitated to discharge the
duties of their office or appointed to a new term thereunder. In no case shall any Member serve
longer than seven years including service before the ratification of this Constitution.

Section 16. Career civil service employees separated from the service not for cause but as a result of
the reorganization pursuant to Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986 and the reorganization
following the ratification of this Constitution shall be entitled to appropriate separation pay and to
retirement and other benefits accruing to them under the laws of general application in force at the
time of their separation. In lieu thereof, at the option of the employees, they may be considered for
employment in the Government or in any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies,
including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. This provision also
applies to career officers whose resignation, tendered in line with the existing policy, had been
accepted.

Dario v. Mison – 176 SCRA 84 [1989] (reorganization)


Mendoza v. Quisumbing – 186 SCRA 108 [1990]
Ontiveros v. C.A., G.R. No. 145401, May 7, 2001

Section 17. Until the Congress provides otherwise, the President shall receive an annual salary of
three hundred thousand pesos; the Vice-President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, two hundred forty thousand
pesos each; the Senators, the Members of the House of Representatives, the Associate Justices of the
Supreme Court, and the Chairmen of the Constitutional Commissions, two hundred four thousand
pesos each; and the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, one hundred eighty thousand
pesos each.

Section 18. At the earliest possible time, the Government shall increase the salary scales of the other
officials and employees of the National Government.

Section 19. All properties, records, equipment, buildings, facilities, and other assets of any office or
body abolished or reorganized under Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986 or this Constitution
shall be transferred to the office or body to which its powers, functions, and responsibilities
substantially pertain.

Section 20. The first Congress shall give priority to the determination of the period for the full
implementation of free public secondary education.

Section 21. The Congress shall provide efficacious procedures and adequate remedies for the
reversion to the State of all lands of the public domain and real rights connected therewith which
were acquired in violation of the Constitution or the public land laws, or through corrupt practices.
No transfer or disposition of such lands or real rights shall be allowed until after the lapse of one
year from the ratification of this Constitution.

Section 22. At the earliest possible time, the Government shall expropriate idle or abandoned
agricultural lands as may be defined by law, for distribution to the beneficiaries of the agrarian
reform program.

Section 23. Advertising entities affected by paragraph (2), Section 11 of Article XV1 of this
Constitution shall have five years from its ratification to comply on a graduated and proportionate
basis with the minimum Filipino ownership requirement therein.

Section 24. Private armies and other armed groups not recognized by duly constituted authority
shall be dismantled. All paramilitary forces including Civilian Home Defense Forces not consistent
with the citizen armed force established in this Constitution, shall be dissolved or, where
appropriate, converted into the regular force.

46
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.

*Bayan v. Zamora, GR 138570, October 10, 2000

Section 26. The authority to issue sequestration or freeze orders under Proclamation No. 3 dated
March 25, 1986 in relation to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth shall remain operative for not more
than eighteen months after the ratification of this Constitution. However, in the national interest, as
certified by the President, the Congress may extend such period.
A sequestration or freeze order shall be issued only upon showing of a prima facie case. The order
and the list of the sequestered or frozen properties shall forthwith be registered with the proper
court. For orders issued before the ratification of this Constitution, the corresponding judicial
action or proceeding shall be filed within six months from its ratification. For those issued after
such ratification, the judicial action or proceeding shall be commenced within six months from the
issuance thereof.
The sequestration or freeze order is deemed automatically lifted if no judicial action or proceeding
is commenced as herein provided.

Joya v. PCGG – 225 SCRA 568 [1993]


*Republic v. Sandiganbayan – 221 SCRA 189 [1993] (powers of PCGG)
Cojuangco v. Roxas – 195 SCRA 797 [1991] (vote of sequestered shares)
Araneta v. Sandiganbayan – 242 SCRA 482 [1995] (investigate/prosecutory powers)
Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan – 244 SCRA 152 [1995] (authority over ill-gotten wealth)
Republic v. Sandiganbayan – 240 SCRA 376 [1995] (judicial action)
Republic v. Sandiganbayan – 255 SCRA 438 [1996] (proper parties)
Republic v. Sandiganbayan – 258 SCRA 685 [1996] (powers of commissioners)
Republic v. Sandiganbayan – 269 SCRA 316 [1997] (rules)
PCGG v. Sandiganbayan – GR 125788 [June 5, 1998] (proper parties)
Republic v. Saludares, 327 SCRA 449
Jalandoni v. Sec. of Justice, GR 115239-40, March 2, 2000
Antiporda v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 116941, May 31, 2001
PCGG v. Sandiganbayan - G.R. Nos. 119609-10, September 21, 2001
Palm Avenue v. Sandiganbayan, GR 173082, August 6, 2014

Section 27. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions.

De Leon v. Esquerra – 152 SCRA 602 [1987] (ratification)

47

También podría gustarte