CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

University of San Jose Recoletus

Cebu City
ATTY. GONZALO D. MALIG-ON, JR.

COURSE OUTLINE (as of June 1, 2016)

Prescribed book: Philippine Political Law by Isagani Cruz

2014 Edition

A. PRELIMINARIES:

A. The Origin of the concept of Republicanism

1. Political Law, Defined

2. Brief History of monarchies under the Divine Right Theory
3. The Enlightenment, Social Contract Theory, Rise of Parliaments
and Withering of powers of the Monarchies in favor of
republicanism and the concept of government of laws

B. The Presidential System, its journey

1. The 13 colonies of America and Declaration of American

Independence
2. The American Presidential System, separation of powers, as a
departure of the European models of constitutional monarchy
and parliamentary systems
3. The Filipino Revolution against Spain in 1896 amidst the
backdrop of the Spanish-American War in 1898
4. The Malolos Republic and the American Conquest
5. The American Occupation and the various Organic Acts
integrating the American Presidential system in Philippine public
life
6. The 1935 Constitution, the 1973 Constitution, the experiment of
a semi-parliamentary system, and the birth of constitutional
dictatorship
7. EDSA Revolution, the 1987 Constitution

1
 C. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION AND BEYOND

1. Constitution: Definition, Nature, and Purpose

(Read Chapters 1 and 2, Cruz)

2. Understanding the Constitution

a) Self-Executory and Mandatory as a Rule

(Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS, G.R No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997; Oposa
vs Factoran, 224 SCRA 792; Kilosbayan vs Morato, G.R. No. 118910,
November 16, 1995)

b) Rules in interpretation
(Francisco, et al vs House Speaker, et al., GR No. 160261, November
10, 2003)

1. Whenever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their
ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed (verbal egis).
2. The words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the
intent of the framers (ratio legis et anima)
3. The constitution has to be interpreted as a whole (aut magis valeat quam
pereat)

Presumption of Constitutionality

Every law passed by Congress is constitutional unless it is declared otherwise by the

Supreme Court. In fact, to doubt its constitutionality is to sustain its constitutionality.

3. Political Question vs Justiciable Controversy

(Read Chapter 6, Cruz, Santiago vs Guingona, 134577, Nov. 18, 1998;

Javellana vs Exec Secretary, GR No. 36142, March 31, 1973)

The political question doctrine refers to questions, which under the constitution are
to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity or which full discretionary
authority is delegated to the legislative or executive branch of government.

2
 4. The Doctrine of Supremacy of the Constitution and Expanded
Judicial Power

(Read : Sec. 1, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution ; Francisco, et al vs House

Speaker, et al, supra.; Bondoc vs Pineda, 201 SCRA 792;
Angara vs Electoral Commission, 63 Phil 136)

The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform
and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer. No act
shall be valid, however noble its intentions, if it conflicts with the Constitution. The
Constitution must ever remain supreme. Right or wrong, the Constitution must be
upheld as long as the sovereign people have not changed it.

Duty of the Court is to assert superiority of the Constitution

When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any
superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act
of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by
the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution
and to establish for the parties in actual controversy the rights which that instruments
secures and guarantees to them. It is a duty to do so (and, not just a right) under the
expanded judicial power of the Courts per Section 1, Article VIII. .

5. What constitutes grave abuse of discretion

(Read Bondoc vs Pineda, 201 SCRA 792; Infotech Foundation, et al vs
COMELEC, GR No. 159139, Jan. 13, 2004)

*whimsical, oppressive, a clear violation of the constitution

a.) Judicial Power Proper

b.) Judicial Review
i. Ordinary Judicial Review
ii. Judicial Review based on Expanded Judicial Power
(Certiorari under Rule 65, part of Remedial Law subject)
Bondoc vs. Pineda, supra)

3
 D. THE PHILIPPINES: AS A STATE

Read: Article I, The National Territory (The 1987 Constitution- A

commentary, Bernas, 2009 Ed.),

Read Chapter 4, Cruz

Read Republic Act No. 9522 (New Baselines Law)

Read the Opening Statement of DFA Secretary Del Rosario before the
Permanent Court of Arbitration

A. Elements of a State

B. State vs Nation, from Government

C. Territory and the Archipelagic Doctrine; extent of territorial waters

(where innocent passage is allowed) vs internal waters (better covered
in International Law as it should relate to UNCLOS, exclusive economic zone issue,
continental shelf issue, etc );

Article I, 1987 Constitution: The National Territory of the Philippines:

1. Philippines archipelago with all islands and waters embraced therein;

2. all other territories over which Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its:
a) terrestrial;
b) fluvial; and
c) aerial domain;

Including its:
e) territorial sea;
f) sea bed;
g) insular shelves; and
h) other marine areas.

3. Waters:
a) around;
b) between; and
c) connecting
the islands of the archipelago regardless of :
(i) breadth; and
(ii) dimensions
form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

4
 (Note: internal waters under the Constitution is treated as Archipelagic
waters under UNCLOS of which innocent passage is allowed)

Archipelagic Doctrine-

The Philippines archipelago is considered as one integrated unit instead of being divided into
more than seven thousand islands so that together they constitute one unit, one country and one
state. An imaginary single baseline is drawn around the islands by joining appropriate points of the
outermost islands of the archipelago with straight lines and all the waters and islands enclosed
within the baseline form part of the territory of the Archipelagic State (

Read 2nd Sentence, Sec. 1, Art. I and Magallona, et al vs Ermita, et al, GR

No. 187167, August 16, 2011

D. People

1. Citizenship (extensively covered in Election Law subject)

2.1 Modes of Acquisition: Citizens of the Philippines

Tecson vs. COMELEC G.R. NO. 161434 Mar. 3, 2004

Mo Ya Lim Yao vs Commission on Immigration, 41 SCRA 29
Valles vs. COMELEC 337 SCRA 543
Bengson III vs. HRET G.R. No.142840, May 7, 2001
Co vs. HRET 199 SCRA 692
Balgamelo Cabiling, et al vs Comissioner, GR No. 183133,
July 26, 2010
Note: Grace Poe case (to be covered in Election Law)
Llamansares vs. COMELEC, G.R No. 221697-221670

2.2 Naturalization: Judicial, Administrative, Congressional

C.A. Act No. 473

R.A 530
Moya vs. Commissioner 41 SCRA 292
Republic vs. Dela Rosa G.R. NO. 104654 June 1994

5
 2.3 Loss of Citizenship:

Read Republic Act No. 8171

Bengson III vs. HRET, supra

Reacquisition:

Frivaldo vs. COMELEC 257 SCRA 731

Tabasa vs Court of Appeals in relation to RA 8171

2.4 Dual Citizenship and Dual Allegiance

Read Republic Act No. 9225 (Dual Citizenship Act)

Mercado vs. Manzano 307 SCRA 630

Jacot vs Dal and COMELEC, GR No. 179848,
November 27, 2008
AASJS Member Calilang vs Datumanong,
GR no. 160869, May 11, 2007

E. Government

Government of the Philippines, defined (It is the agency or

instrumentality through which the will of the State is formulated, expressed,
and realized.

Read Section 2, Administrative Code of the Philippines

Kinds of Government: De Facto vs De Jure

Co Kim Cham vs. Tan Keh, September 17, 1945, 75 Phils 113
Lawyers League for Better Phils. vs. Aquino, GR No. 73748, 73972,
May 22, 1986)

6
 Forms of Government: Presidential, Parliamentary, Monarchy

Functions of Government: Ministrant and Constituent

Doctrine of Parens Patriae

GP vs. Monte de Piedad, G.R. No. 9959, Dec 13, 1916

Soriano vs Laguardia, GR No. 164785, April 29, 2009
587 SCRA 79

F. Sovereignty; Theory of Auto- limitation

Taada va Angara, GR No. 118295, May 2, 1997

1. Sovereignty- supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that

State is governed.
Kinds:

a. legal and political (legal- is the supreme power to make laws while political
sovereignty is the sum total of all the influences in s tate (legal/non-legal)
which determine the course of law.

b. internal and external (internal- power of the state to control its affairs.
External sovereignty is the power of the State to direct its relations with
the other States (better know as independene)

Is the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) a State within a State?

Read The Province of North Cotabato vs GRP Peace Panel,

GR. No. 183591, Oct. 14, 2008, 568 SCRA 402

Effect of Belligerent occupation: -

No change in sovereignty. However, Political laws, except those of Treason are

suspended; but municipal laws remain in force unless changed by the belligerent occupant.

At the end of the occupation, political laws are automatically revived (doctrine of ju
postliminium). All other laws normally remain enforceable.

Read Peralta v. Dir of Prison, 75 Phil. 285; Laurel v. Misa, 77 Phil. 856).

7
 Act of State-

An act done by the sovereign power of a country or by its delegate, within the limits of the
power vested in him. It cannot be questioned or made the subject of legal proceedings in a court of
law. (e.g. decision of the President in the exercise of his diplomatic power, to extend recognition to a
newly established foreign state or government. It is like a political question.)

Sovereign Immunity: Doctrine of Non-Suability of the State

Read: Chapter 4, Cruz

1. Basis: Sec. 3, Art.XVI, 1987 Constitution

Republic vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 83

Tan vs Director of Forestry, 125 SCRA 302

2. State cannot be sued without its consent

Republic vs. Feliciano, 148 SCRA 424

PNB vs. Pabala 83 SCRA 595
Department of Agriculture vs NLRC, Nov. 11, 1993
Sanders vs Veridiano, 162 SCRA 88

If suit against Unincorporated Government Agency (determine

primary function)

If governmental: no suit

Mobile Phil Inc. vs Customs Arrastre Service, 18 SCRA 1120

If suit against GOCC/Incorporated Agency (determine charter)

National Airports Corp vs Teodoro, 91 Phil 203

PNB vs CIR, 81 SCRA 314

8
 LGU is suable (can sue and be sued per its corporate powers
under Section 22 of the Local Govt. Code)

Municipality of San Fernando vs Judge Firme, 195 SCRA 692

Exceptions: Consent, Commercial Contract, Commences suit,

Non-payment in Expropriation

General Consent

Read CA 3083, CA 327, as amended by P.D. 1445

Special Consent

Merrit vs. GPI, 34 Phil. 311

Contracts

USA vs. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644; Republic of Indonesia vs

Vinzon, GR No. 54705, June 26, 2003; USA vs Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487

Commences litigation

Froilan vs Pan Oriental Shipping, GR No. L-6060, Sept. 30, 1950

Expropriation

Amigable vs Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360

9
 E. STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES

Read: - Article II, Declaration of Principles, The 1987 Constitution

- Chapter 5, Cruz

1. Nature of:

a. The Preamble
b. The Declaration of Principles and State Policies

Basco vs. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 91649, May 14, 1991

State Principles (Sections 1-6, Article II)

a. Sovereignty of the people (republicanism)

Tolentino et. Al. vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 148334

January 21, 2004 (read: Dissent of Justice Puno)

Characteristics of Republican State under our present constitution:

1. Existence of Bill of Right;

2. Majority rule governs;
3. Governments of law and not of men;
4. Non-suability of the State without its consent;
5. State cannot pass irrepealable laws;
6. Accountability of public officials;
7. Separation of powers; and
8. Delegation of powers (Martin, Reviewer in Political)

b. Adherence to International Law (Incorporation Clause)

Kuroda vs Jalandoni, 83 Phil 171

Philip-Morris vs. CA G.R. No. 91332 July 16, 1993
Sec. of Justice vs. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465,
January 18, 2000

Compare with: Doctrine of Transformation

Govt. of U.S. vs. Puruganan G.R. No. 148571 (2002)

10
 Conflict of Municipal Law vs International Law (also
covered in International Law subject)

Ichong vs Hernandez, 101 Phil 1155

Gonzales vs Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230
Taada vs Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (Theory of Auto-limitation)

c. Civilian Supremacy (at all times; President as Commander-in-Chief

per Article VII, Sec 18)
d. Government as protector of the people, and people as
defenders of the state
e. Separation of Church and State (part of Constitutional Law II
subject)
Art. III, Sec. 5 (freedom of religion and non-establishment of religion
clause

Ebralinag vs Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, 251

SCRA 569; Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201
Ymbong vs Ochoa, GR. No. 294819, April 8, 2014

Art. IX-C, Sec 2 (5) (exclusion of church/religious groups in COMELEC

registration)

Art. VI, Sec 5 (2) (exclusion of church/religious in party-list)

Exceptions:
Art. VI, Section 28(3), Section 29(2) (exempt from taxation; no
money can be directly or indirectly given to religious sect save some
exceptions)
Art. XIV, Section 3(3), Section 4(2) (optional religious class in
public schools)

2. State Policies (Sections 7-28, Art, II)

a. Independent Foreign Policy and Nuclear-free Phil.

b. Just and Dynamic Social Order
b.1 Social Justice (Sec.10)

Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil. 726

11
 B. 2 Protection of the life of the unborn

RH issue: Ymbong vs Ochoa, supra

b.3 Human Rights (Sec.11)

b.4 Equality of men and women (Sec.14)
b.5 Promotion of Health and Ecology (Sections 15, 16);

-Oposa vs. Factoran 224 SCRA 792

b.6 Priority of Education, Science, Technology, Arts,

Culture and Sports (Sec.17)

-relate to Sections 1, 2, 4, 5, Article XIV (other

provisions on Education)

b.7 Urban Land Reform and Housing (Art.III, Secs.9-10)

b.8 Reform in Agriculture and Other Natural Resources
(Sec.21)
b.9 Profession to Labor (Sec.18)
b.10 Independent Peoples Organization (Sec.19)
b.11 Family (Sec12)
b.12 Self-Reliant & Independent Economic Order (Sec.19-
20)
b.13 Communication & Information (Sec.24)
b.14 Autonomy of Local Governments (Sec.25)
b.15 Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities (Sec.22)
b.16 Honest Public Service And Full Disclosure (Sec.27)

-Valmonte vs. Belmonte, 170 SCRA 256

12
 F. STRUCTURE OF PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT

Basic Principles under our Presidential System

Read Chapter 6 & 7, Cruz

1. Doctrine of Separation of Powers, Blending of Powers, Checks and

Balance

Read Gonzalez vs Office of the President, GR No. 196231,

September 4, 2012, 679 SCRA SCRA 614

Separation of Powers

To prevent concentration of authority in one person or group of persons that lead

that might lead to irreparable error or abuse in exercise to the detriment of republican
institutions

Read Pangasinan Tranportation Co. v. Public Service Commission, 40

O.G. 8th Supp. 57

Dictates interdependence and equality among the 3 branches of government.

There are instances when powers are not confined exclusively within one department
but are assigned to or shared by several departments. This is commonly called the
Blending of Powers (Nachura, P. 37 ).

The principle of check and balances: allows one department to resist encroachments
upon its prerogatives or to rectify mistakes or excess committed by the other
departments.

Examples of Check and Balance Mechanisms:

1. Veto power of President;

2. Power of Congress to override veto of President;
3. Power of judicial review vested in courts;
4. Pardoning power of President;
5. Power of Congress to amend or repeal any law;
6. Power of Congress to appropriate money;
7. Commission on Appointment;
8. Impeachment
9. Power of Supreme Court to test sufficiency of factual basis for suspension of write of
habeas corpus and declaration of martial law; and
10. Congress may revoke such suspension and declaration

13
 G. MAJOR BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT: Legislative, Executive,
Judiciary

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Read Article VI, 1987 Constitution-Chapter 8, Cruz

Reserved lawmaking power (Initiative and Referendum)

Read Republic Act No. 6735, August 4, 1989 in relation to

Santiago vs. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 (1997) but is already
clarified in the more recent case of Lambino vs COMELEC

Composition OF Congress

A.1 Senate (Secs.2-4)

A.2 House of Representatives (Secs. 5-8)

Macias vs. COMELEC 32 SCRA 1T

Mariano, Jr. vs. COMELEC G.R. NO. 118577 Mar 7, 1995
Tobias vs. Abalos 239 SCRA 106

On party-list

Veterans Federation Party vs. COMELEC, 342 SCRA 244

Barangay Association for National Advancement (BANAT) vs
COMELEC, G.R. 179271, April 21, 2009
Atong Paglaum, Inc. vs COMELEC, GR No. 2003766
April 2, 2013

Note: Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054 allowing ARMM Regional

Assembly to create provinces and cities is unconstitutional
because it calls for creation of additional legislative districts that
only Congress can do.

SEMA vs COMELEC, GR No. 177597, July 16, 2008

Also, creating a legislative district does not need a

plebiscite unlike in the case of creating an LGU

Bagabuyo vs COMELEC, GR No. 176970, Dec. 8, 2008

14
 Qualifications and Term of Office

B.1 Residence Requirement (concept of domicile vs residence)

Marcos vs. COMELEC September 18, 1995

Aquino vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 120265 Sept. 18, 1995

Validity of Additional qualification requirement like drug

use clearance

Social Justice Society Vs Dangerous Drugs Board, GR No.

157870, Nove. 3, 2008

B.2 Term vs. Tenure

Dimaporo vs. Mitra 202 SCRA 77

B. 3 Disqualification- Sec. 13, 14 in relation

Article IX-B, Section 7, 1987 Constitution

Flores vs Drilon, 223 scra 568

Liban vs Gordon, GR No. 175352, July 15, 2009
and Jan. 18, 2011

A. Election (Sec. 8-9)

Tolentino et.al vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 148334 Jan 21, 2004

B. Organization & Sessions

D.1 Election of Officers (Sec.16[1])

D.2 Quorum (Sec.16[2]-

Avelino vs. Cuenco, 83 Phil 17

D.3 Rules of Proceedings (Sections 16[3], 21)

15
 Arroyo vs. de Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, Aug. 14, 1997

D.4 Discipline of Members (Sec. 16[3])

Osmena vs. Pendatun, 109 Phil 863

Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 126055
April 19, 2001
Paredes vs Sandiganbayan, GR No. 118364, Aug. 10, 1995

D.5 Journal and Congressional Records (Sec.16[4])

D.5.a. The Enrolled Bill Theory

-Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito 78 Phil 1

-Casco vs. Gimenez, 7 SCRA 347

D.5.b. Probative Value of Journal

-U.S. vs. Pons, 34 Phil 729

D.5.c. Matters to be entered in the Journal

(a) years and nays on 3rd and final reading(sec.26[2])

(b) veto message of President (Section 27[1])

(c) years and nays on repassing of vetoed bill (id)

(d) years and nays on any question upon request of

1/5 of members present (Sec.16[4])

D.5.d Journal Entry Rule vs. Enrolled Bill Theory

Astorga vs. Villegas, 56 SCRA 714
Morales vs. Subido, 27 SCRA 131
Arroyo vs. de Venecia, supra

16
 C. Congressional Record (Section 16[4], par.2)

D. Sessions

F.1. Regular Sessions (Sec.15 and 16[5])

F.2. Special Sessions (No Need of a Presidential Call)

Sec.15 (every 4th Monday of July-opening)

Article VII, Secs. 10-11 (when there is vacancy in the offices of

the President and Vice-President)

Article VII, Secs. 18, (when martial law is declared)

F.3. Joint Sessions

F.3.a. Voting separately:

i) Choosing the President (Sec. 4, Art.VII)

ii) Determining Presidents disability (Sec.11, Art.VII)

iii) Confirming nomination of the Vice President (Sec.9,

Art.VII)

iv) Declaring the existence of a state of war (Sec.23, Art.VI)

F.3.b. Voting Jointly: To revoke or extend proclamation suspending

the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or placing the Philippines under
martial law (Sec. 18, Art. VII).

F.3.c. Adjournment (Sec. 16 (5), Art. VI): Neither House during

sessions shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three
days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting

F.4.c-Silent whether voting jointly or separately: Proposing

constitutional changes (Sec.1, Art.XVII)

17


E. Constitutional Organs Within Congress

G.1. Electoral Tribunal (Sec.17 and 19)

G.1.a. Composition

Tanada vs. Cuenco, 103 Phil 1051

G.1.b. Function (independent from Congress itself; primary

judicial)
Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil 139
Bondoc vs. Pineda, supra.
Abbas vs Electoral Tribunal- sole body issue, 166 SCRA 651,
655

G.1.c. Subject to Judicial Review?

.
Pimentel vs. HRET G.R. No. 141489 Nov. 29, 2002
Codilla vs de Venecia, G.R. No. 150605, Dec. 10, 2002

G.2. Commission on Appointments (Secs.18 & 19)

Guingona vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 106971 Oct. 20, 1992

Coseteng vs. Mitra 187 SCRA 377
Daza vs. Singson 180 SCRA 496
Manalo vs Sistoza, 312 SCRA 239

F. Salaries

Section 10

Article XVIII, Section 17

18
 G. Privileges

I.1. Freedom from arrest (Sec.11)

People vs. Jalosjos G.R. No. 132875 Feb. 31, 2001

Aguinaldo vs. Santos, 212 SCRA 763
Trillanes vs. Hon. Oscar Pimentel, GR No. 179817 June 27,
2008

I.2. Privilege of Speech and Debate

Pobre vs Santiago, AC No. 7399, Aug. 25, 2009

Jimenez vs. Cabangbang, 17 SCRA 876
People vs. Jalosjos, supra.

H. Restrictions (Secs. 12, 13, 14, 20)

Adaza vs. Pacana, Jr., 135 SCRA 431

Puyat vs. de Guzman, 113 SCRA 31

J.1. Appearance as counsel

Villegas vs. Legaspi, G.R. No. 53869, Mar. 25, 1982

19
 H. POWERS of CONGRESS (Note: except to the extent reserved to the people by
the provision on initiative and referendum; thus, we are a democratic and a republic
state)

Read: Chapter 9, Philippine Political law by Cruz

Article VI, 1987 Constitution

Part I of Legislative Investigation and Right to Privacy

By: Hon Justice Puno, The Lawyers Review Apr. 30, 2005

A. General Plenary Powers (Sec.1)- can pass, amend, repeal any law
subject to limitations

-League of Cities vs COMELEC G.R. No. 176951, Nov 18, 2008

and subsequent Decisions/Resolutions on Motion for
Reconsiderations the last of which was on April 24, 2010;
February 11, 2011 and July 14, 2011

Doctrine of Non-Delegation of Legislative Powers/ Potestas

delegata non potest delegari: Rationale- premised on the ethical
principle that delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed
by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the
intervening mind of another.

PP vs. Vera, 65 Phil 56

U.S. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil 1
Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA 166 SCRA 533
Pelaez vs Auditor-General, 15 SCRA 569

Exceptions:@

1. Secs. 23 (2) and 28(2) Delegation to the President (tariff, import

and export quotas, etc)

20
 2. Sec, 32, Art VI Delegation to the People (referendum, initiative,
plebiscite)
3. Art. X, Sec. 5 Delegation to the LGU
4. Delegation to the Administrative Agencies
5. Delegation of emergency powers (lawmaking) under Sec 23,
Article VI

Compare with Section 17, Article XII (read David vs Arroyo, GR

No. 171396, May 3, 2006 and Divinagracia vs Consolidated
Broadcasting System, Inc., GR No. 162272, April 7, 2009)

6. Delegation of power to ascertain facts, contingencies, or events

upon which applicability of a law is made to depend (Abakada
Guro case)

Test of Valid Delegation

1. Completeness Test
2. Sufficient Standard Test

TATAD vs DOE, 281 SCRA 353

Kilusang Mayo Uno vs. Garcia, Jr. 239 SCRA 386 (1994)
Santiago vs COMELEC, supra

Note:

ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,

September 1, 2005-No undue delegation of legislative power. It is simply a delegation of
ascertainment of facts upon which enforcement and administration of the increase rate under
the law is contingent. The legislature has made the operation of the 12% rate effective January
1, 2006, contingent upon a specified fact or condition. Congress did not delegate the power to
tax to the President.- The intent and will to increase the VAT rate to 12% came from Congress
and the task of the President is simply to execute the legislative policy

Abakada Guro vs Purisima, GR No. 166715, August 14, 2008- Challenge

on the validity of the Attrition Law of 1995 (RA 9335); declared valid as it contains standards

B. Legislative Mill (How does a bill become a law)

C. Limitations

Substantive limitations:

1. Express
a) Bill of rights (Article III)

21
 b) On appropriations(Secs 25 and 29 (1) and (2), Art VI (with exception
re par 4, Section 10, Article VII- when there is a special election for
P/VP)

On Pork Barrel issue

Lawyers Movement Against Monopoly and Poverty, GR No. 164987

April 24, 2012
Belgica vs Exec. Secretary, GR. No. 208566, Nov. 19, 2013

On DAP issue

Araullo vs Exe. Secretary, GR. No. 209287, July 1, 2014

and Feb. 3, 2015

c) On taxation (Secs 28 and 29 (3), Art VI; Sec 4 (3), Art XIV
d) On constitutional appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Sec.
30, Art. VI)
e) No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be passed (Sec 31,
Art. VI)

Demetria vs. Alba, 148 SCRA 208

Guingona vs. Carague (riders and doctrine of inappropriate

provisions)

196 SCRA 221 ; PCCG vs COCOFED, GR. No. 147063, Dec 14, 2001)

Pascual vs Sec of Public Works, 110 Phil 331 wherein the Court
invalidated a budget for a road that passed through a private lot even if later it
was donated to the government

22
 2. Implied

a) Non-delegation of powers
b) Prohibition against irrepealable laws

3. Procedural limitations
a) One Subject and Title (Sec.26)

Cruz vs. Paras, 123 SCRA 569

Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board, GR No. 75697, June 18, 1987;
Tobias vs. Abalos, G.R. No. L-114783, Dec. 8, 1994

b) 3 readings rule; exception when certified as urgent; also, when a vacancy

occurs in Pres/VP, Congress shall convene without need of call, and enact a
special elections law which is deemed certified as urgent per Section 10,
Article VII; Bi-Conference system

-Some bills must originate in the HOR- Sec. 24 (appropriation,

revenue, bills authorizing public increase of the public debt, bills of local
application, and private bills;

-Must originate from the HOR but the Senate may propose or concur
with amendments

Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630

4. Presidential Veto (Sec.27)

Veto Power- partial veto is generally not allowed unless on

tariff/appropriation/revenue bills; pocket veto; option of executive
impoundment wherein the President does not veto but opts not to release
the funds

Bolinao Electronics Corp. vs. Valencia, 11 SCRA 486

Gonzalez vs. Macaraig, 191 SCRA 452

23
 PHILCONSA vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105 Aug. 19, 1994

5. Three ways by which a bill becomes a law

-by signature of the Pres, override of veto, inaction for 30 days

6. Effectivity of Laws

Tanada vs. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27

E.O. No. 200 June 18, 1987
PVB Employees vs. Judge Vera, G.R.No.105364 June 2001

G. Aids in Legislation

Read Part I of Legislative Investigations and Right to Privacy

By: Hon. Reynato S. Puno, The Lawyers Review, April 30, 2005

E.1. Question Hour (Sec.22) vs Legislative Inquiry (Section 21)

Question Hour: applies to Cabinet; appearance needs prior consent

of the President; informing power of the President so Congress will know what
the Executive is doing

Legislative Inquiry: applies to anyone; appearance of Cabinet does

not need prior consent by the President unless the latter invokes that the matters
inquired are covered within executive privilege which shall be specified;
information to be obtained relates to a pending bill or will result in proposed
legislation; different from preliminary investigation or criminal prosecution

-Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777 Apr. 20, 2006

-Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon,G.R. No. L-89914; November

20, 1991 (invalidated as it did not identify any pending or proposed legislation)

24
 -compare with Standard Charter vs Senate, GR No. 167173, Dec
27, 2007)

-Negros Oriental II Electric Coop vs. SP, 155 SCRA 421

(contempt power was not expressly delegated to LGUs)

-Arnault vs. Nazareno, 87 Phil 29 (cited for contempt)

-Gudani vs. Senga, G.R No.170165, August 15, 2006(EnBanc)-

military officers are under control of the President as Commander-in-Chief;
Power of the Pres to prevent them from appearing in legislative inquiries is
sustained

-Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public

Officers and Investigation, G.R.No.180643,March 25, 2008
(EnBanc; Court clarified the extent of executive privilege, Only Pres or Exec
Sec can invoke)

Note: Confidentiality Rules:

a) Executive Privilege- cabinet meetings, conversation with the

President

b) Legislative Privilege executive sessions of either House or any

of its committees

c) Deliberative Privilege internal deliberations of the Supreme

Court and lower courts

Note:

Emergency Power (Art. VI, Sec. 23[2]-delegation of law making

power to the President as distinguish from emergency power under
Sec. 17, Article XII

25
 H. Other Powers (not strictly lawmaking)

F.1. As Board of Canvassers in Elections for Pres. & Vice-Pres.

(Art. VII, Sec. 4)
F.2. Call Special Election for President and Vice-President
(Art.VII, Sec.10)
F.3. Revoke/extend suspension of privilege of writ of habeas corpus, declaration
of martial law (Art. VII, Sec.18)
F.4. Approve Presidential Amnesties (Art. VII, Sec19)
F.5. Confirm certain appointments (Art. VII, Sec.9 and 16)
Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549
F.6 Concur in treaties (Art.VII, Sec. 21)
F.7. Declare war and delegate emergency powers (Sec.23)
F.8. Judge Presidents fitness
Art. VII, Sec. 11, par.
F.9. Power of Impeachment (Art. XI; also part in chapter on Accountability of
Public Officials

I. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT: THE PRESIDENT

Read Article VII, 1987 Constitution- Chapter 10, Cruz

A. Qualifications, Election, Term, Oath (Sec. 2, 4, 5)

Note: Executive Power is vested on the President (alone) Cabinet members are
alter-egos of the President but they are not the Chief Executive; serve at the pleasure
of the President

Macalintal vs Presidential Electoral Tribunal, GR no. 191618,

Nov. 23, 2010 and June 7, 2011

B. Privilege and Salary (Sec.6)

b.1. Executive Immunity (applies only while sitting as President)

26
 Soliven vs. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393 (Only the President can invoke)
Estrada vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, Mar. 2, 2001

b.2. Executive Privilege

Almonte et. Al. vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, May 23, 1995
Senate Vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, Apr. 20, 2006

C. Prohibitions (Sec. 13; also part in Chapter on Civil Service

Commission)

Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 85468, Sept. 7, 1989

Civil Liberties Union vs. Exec. Sec., 194 SCRA 317
Public Interest Center vs Elma, GR No. 138965,
June 30, 2006

Compare with prohibitions on double appointments on other class

of officials:
Art. VI, Sec. 13 (for members of Congress)
Art. IX, A, Sec. 2(for members of Constitutional Commissions)
Art. IX, B, Sec. 7 (for elective officials)
Art. VIII, Sec. 12 (for members of the judiciary)

Exceptions to ban on double appointment:

Vice-President- Art.VII, Sec.3, Par.2 (as part of Cabinet)

Secretary of Justice- Art. VIII, Sec. 8(1) as part of JBC

D. Succession

(A) At the beginning of the term

Art. VII, Sec.7, 10

(B) During the Term

Art.VII, Sec. 8, 10

(C) Temporary Disability

Art.VII, Sec.2-3
Estrada vs. Arroyo, supra

27
 E. Removal (Art. XI, Secs. 2-3)

J. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE

PRESIDENT, Chapter 11, Philippine Political Law by Cruz

A. Executive Power (Art. VII, Sec. 1 and 17)- power and duty to execute
all laws; includes residual power as cited in

Marcos vs. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 and 178 SCRA 760

Biraogo, et al vs. Phil Truth Commission, GR No. 192935, December 7,

2010 (The High Court sustained the power of the President to create the
Commission; but, invalidated the Executive Order nevertheless on the ground of
violation of the equal protection clause.

Pichay vs Office of Deputy Exe. Secretary for Legal Affairs,

GR. No. 196425, July 24, 2012

B. Power of Control (Sec.17)-full control of the exec dept.

Read Section 31 of the Administrative Code of 1987-continuing

power to re-organize

Qualified Political Agency doctrine- Decisions of Cabinet

Secretaries being alter egos of the President are considered decisions of
the latter unless reversed, modified, or reprobated under the power of
control

power of control vs power of supervision (control also includes

power to re-organize/merge/ offices in the Executive Branch; but power to
create a GOCC, public office, or government bureau is generally
legislative)

DENR vs. DENR Employees, G.R. No. 149725, Ag. 19, 2003
Mondano vs. Silvano, 97 Phil. 143
Villena vs. Sec. of Interior, 67 Phil. 451
Lacson-Magallanes Co. Inc vs Pano, 21 SCRA 895

28
 C. Power of General Supervision over LGUs (Art. X, Secs. 4,16)

Ganzon vs. CA, 200 SCRA 271

Dadole vs. COA, G.R. No. 125350, December 3, 2002

D. Power of Appointment (power to appoint implies the power to remove

unless specified by the Constitution or law)

D.1. Basis

GPI vs. Springer, 50 Phil. 259 (if power by nature is neither legislative nor
judicial, then, it should belong to the Executive)

D.2. Needs concurrence of CA

Art. VII, Sec.16 (enumeration is exclusive)

1. Heads of Department (Cabinet Sec; hence, Bureau Chiefs like

Collector of Customs is not covered); Ambassadors, Public
Ministers and Consuls
2. Officers of the AFP from colonel and naval captain
3. Chairman and members of Constitutional Commissions (CSC,
COMELEC, COA)
4. Regular Members of JBC (Art. VIII, Sec. 8[2])
5. Sectoral (Art. XVIII, Sec. 7) (now unavailing due to the Party List
Law)

NO NEED of CA confirmation

D.3. Upon recommendation of JBC

(A) Members of SC and all other courts (Art. VIII, Sec. 9)

(B) Ombudsman and deputies (Art. XI, Sec.9)

D.4. Appointment of Vice-President as Cabinet Member (Sec.3)

D.5. Appointment solely by the President (Sec.16)

(A) Those whose appointment not otherwise provided by law

(B) Those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint

Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549

29
 Concepcion-Bautista vs. Salonga, 172 SCRA 160
Rufino vs. Edriga, G.R. No. 139554, July 21, 2006
Pimentel vs Office of the Exee. Secretary, 462 SCRA 622

Limitations to Appointment Power

D.6.1. Art. VII, Sec.13 and 15 (midnight appointment ban

except judicial)

Aytona vs. Castillo, 4 SCRA 1

Jorge vs. Mayor, 10 SCRA 331
De Castro vs JBC, GR no. 191002, March 17, 2010
(Corona case)

D.6.2. Ad Interim or Recess Appointments vs Regular

Art. VI, Sec. 19
Art.VII, Sec. 16, par. 2

Guevara vs. Inocentes, 16 SCRA 38

Matibag vs. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036,
April 2, 2002

D.6.3. Temporary Designations

Admin Code of 1987, Book III, Sec. 17

D.6.4. Limitations on appointing power of Acting Pres.

(Secs.14-15); 90-day ban on appointment during election period does not apply to
judicial appointments as clarified in

De Castro vs JBC, et al. G.R. no. 191002, March 17, 2010

does not apply to local officials as ruled in

De Rama vs CA, G.R No.131136, February 28, 2001

D. 6. 5 Power of Removal

Gonzales vs Office of the President, GR. No. 196231.

September 4, 2012

30
 E. Pardoning Power (Sec. 19)

Art. IX, C, Sec.5

E.1. Pardon distinguished from Probation

People vs. Vera, 65 Phil 56
(pardoning power can be applied in administrative cases by way of
executive clemency

Llamas vs Orbos, 202 SCRA 844

Limitations on power to grant pardon:

1. officials who are impeached

2. those convicted of election offense which needs the
recommendation of the COMELEC

E.2. Pardon distinguished from Parole

Torres vs. Gonzales, 152 SCRA 272

E.3. Pardon distinguished from Amnesty

Barroquinto vs. Fernandez, 82 Phil 642

Vera vs. People 7 SCRA

E.4. Effect of Pardon (absolute pardon remits penal

consequences of the crime; but, not erases the crime itself)

Monsanto vs. Factoran, G.R. No. 78239, Feb. 9, 1989

E.5 Effect of violation of the terms of pardon (Maybe re-

arrested by order of the President; purely executive
prerogative under Section 64 of the Administrative Code

Torres vs Director of Bureau of Prisons, G.R. No. 122338,

Dec. 29, 1995

E.6. Who may avail of amnesty

31
 Macaga-an vs. People, 152 SCRA 430

F. Military Powers (Sec.18)

(includes calling out power; Martial Law: grounds, limitations,
and consequences; compare with previous constitutions)

IBP vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000 (calling out
power)
Lacson vs. Perez, May 10, 2001(calling out power, declaration of state of
rebellion)
David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No.171396, May 3, 2006, as
distinguished in the MARCOS time- Buscayno vs Military Commission
Fortun vs GMA, GR. No. 190293, March 20, 2012

Emergency power vs declaration of state of emergency

Ampatuan, et al vs Puno, GR No. 190259, June 7, 2011

G. Contracting and Guaranteeing Foreign Loans (Sec.20-21)

H. Diplomatic Power (Sec.21)

Nicolas vs Romulo, GR No. 175888, February 11, 2009.

Bayan vs. Zamora, 342 SCRA 449
Pimentel vs. Exec. Sec., G.R. No. 158088, July 6, 2005
Vinuya vs Romuo, GR. No. 162230, July 19, 2010

Deportation of Undesirable Aliens (essentially an Executive Power)

Go Tek vs. Deportation Board, 79 SCRA 17

I. Preparation and Submission of Budget (Sec.22)

32
 K. THE JUDICIARY

Read Article VIII, 1987 Constitution, Chapter 12, Cruz

The Supreme Court

A.1. Composition (Sec.4)

A.2. Appointment and Qualifications (Secs.7,8,9)

A.3. Salary (Sec.10)

Art.XVIII, Sec. 17

Endencia vs. David, 93 Phil 696

Nitafan vs. CIR, 152 SCRA 284

A.4. Security of Tenure (Sec.11, Sec.2, para 2)

De la Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294

A.5. Removal (Sec.11)

Art. XI, Sec.2

A.6. Fiscal Autonomy (Sec.3)

GSIS vs Heirs of Fernando Caballero, GR. 158090, 632 SCRA 5

A. Judiciary and independence of the Judiciary

B.1. Judicial Power (traditional definition and concept of

expanded judicial power)

B.1.a (Art. VIII, Sec.1)

Santiago vs. Bautista, 32 SCRA 188

Daza vs. Singson, 180 SCRA 496

Garcia vs Board of Investments, 191 SCRA 288

33
 B2. Judicial Review (test the validity of executive and legislative acts if
the same are in accordance of the constitution; supremacy of the constitution;
concept of judicial restraint and judicial legislation)

How Judicial Review is exercised

a.) Actual Case or Controversy; Ripeness of Controversy; Moot case

may still be decided by the SC to educate the bar and bench,
prevent repeated violation yet escaping review

-PACU vs. Sec. of Education, 97 Phil. 806

-Tan vs. Macapagal 43 SCRA 678
-Dumlao vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392
-Ople vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 141
-North Cotabato vs Republic, supra, MILF MOA where the SC still
reviewed despite being moot

b. Legal Standing (requisites; exceptions)

-Oposa vs Factoran, Jr., supra

-Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, Jr. 232 SCRA 110
-Kilosbayan vs. Morato G.R. supra
-Integrated Bar of the Phils. (IBP) vs. Zamora, G.R. NO. 141284,
August 15, 2000
- Joya vs PCGG, G.R. No. 96541, August 24, 1993
-Chavez vs. Public Estate Authority G.R. NO. 133250 July 9, 2002
-Prof. Randolf S. David vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, supra.

i. Requisites for Taxpayers Suit, Lawmakers Suit,

Voters Suit and Concerned Citizens Suit.

-Demetria vs. Alba G.R. NO. 71977, Feb. 27, 1987

-Gonzales vs. Narvasa G.R.NO.140835,
Aug. 14, 2000
-Prof. David vs. Arroyo, supra

34
 -Pimentel vs Ermita, 472 SCRA 587

ii. Paramount Importance Doctrine/Transcendental

Impt

-Kilosbayan vs. Guingona Jr., supra.

iii. In On Its Face attack [Facial Challenge) [as

opposed to As Applied attack] of statutes and the
doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and
void-for-vaguenes

-Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.NO. 148560 Nov. 19,

2001

c. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest

possible opportunity; Exceptions

-Umali vs. Guingona, G.R. NO. 131124, March 21, 1999

d. The decision on the constitutional question must be

determinative of the case itself (constitutional question
must be the very lis mota of the case)

-Laurel vs. Garcia 187 SCRA 797

-Hacienda Luisita vs Presidential Agrarian Reform Council,
G.R. No. 171101, 22 November 211)

Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality

a. The Orthodox View

b. The Modern View (operative fact doctrine)

-Article 7, New Civil Code of the Phils.

-Serrano de Agbayani vs. PNB, 38 SCRA 42
-Hacienda Luisita vs Presidential Agrarian Reform Council,
G.R. No. 171101, 22 November 211)

35
 Partial Declaration of Unconstitutionality; Conditions

-Salazar vs. Achacoso, 183 SCRA 145

- Ymbong vs Ochoa, supra.

B3. Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (enumeration of the powers of the Supreme Court)

Additional powers found in other Sections/Articles:

a) Article VII, Section 18, par. 3 (power to review sufficiency o the factual
basis of declaration of martial law)

b) Section VII, Section 4, par. 7 (power of Supreme Court to act as Presidential

Electoral Tribunal)

c) Article IX, A, Section 7 (power of Supreme Court to review on certiorari

all decisions of the Constitutional Commissions-CSC-COA-COMELEC)

In re Bermudez, 145 SCRA 160

People vs. Ramos, 88 SCRA 486

People vs. Mateo, G.R. No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004

B.4. Congressional Power over Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Sec. 2, par.1

Art.VI, Sec.30

Villavert vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 133715, Feb. 23, 2000

B.5. Manner of sitting and votes required

Art. VIII, Sec.4

Read Rule 56, Sec.11 and Rule 125, Sec.3 Rules of Court

36
 B.6. Requirement as to decisions (Sec.13-14)

Yao vs. CA, G.R. No. 132428, Oct. 24, 2000

Fr. Martinez vs. CA, G.R. No. 123547, May 21, 2001

b.6.1. Mandatory periods for deciding cases

Art.VIII, Sec.15

Art.VII, Sec.18, par.3

Art. XVIII, Sec.12-14

B.7. Administrative Powers

B.7.1. Supervision of lower courts (Sec.6,11)

Does the Ombudsman have power over judges?

Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464

Noblejas vs Teehankee, 23 SCRA 405

B.7.2. Temporary assignment of judges (Sec. 5[3])

B.7.3. Change of Venue (Sec.4)

B.7.4. Appointment of officials and employees of judiciary

(Sec5[6])

B.8. Rule Making Powers (Sec5[5]; cannot be changed by Congress

unlike in the previous constitutions; exclusive power to admit to the practice
of law, the Integrated Bar)

37
 New tools to protect constitutional rights:

(based on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court under Article

VIII, Section 5, par. (5) to enforce constitutional rights:

Writ of Amparo (October 24, 2007, part of Remedial Law)

Writ of Habeas Data (AM No.08-1-16-SC, part of Remedial law)

Art.XII, Sec. 14, par.2 (practice of professions shall be limited to Filipino

citizens save in cases prescribed by law.)

In Re: Petition to disqualify Atty. Leonard de Vera on Legal

And Moral grounds from being elected IBP Governor for
Eastern Mindanao in IBP election(Act. No.6052, Dec 2003)

B.9. Prohibition Against Quasi-Judicial or Administrative Works

(Sec.12)

Manila Electric Co. vs. Pasay Trans, 57 Phil 600

In Re Judge Rodolfo Manzano, 166 SCRA 246

B. Report on Judiciary (Sec.16)

C. The Lower Courts

D.1 Qualifications and Appointments (Sec. 7[1][2]. 8[5],9)

SB ng. Taguig vs. Judge Estrella, A.M. No.01-1608-RJT

Jan. 16, 2001

D.2. Salary (Sec.10)

D.3. Congressional Power to Reorganize and security of tenure

(Sec.11,2[2])

38
 De Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 29

D.4. Removal (Sec.11)

D.5. Jurisdiction (Sec.1)

Ynot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659

D.6. Preparation of decisions (Sec.14)

D.7. Mandatory period of deciding

Art. VIII, Sec.15

Art. XVIII, Sec 12-14

Marcelino vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51

De Roma vs. CA, 152 SCRA 205

D. The Judicial and Bar Council (Sec.8)-Rationale and Composition

Chavez vs JBC, GR NO. 202242, July 17, 2012

Jardeleza cs Sereno, GR No. 213181, Aug. 19, 2014

L. THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

Read: -Chapters 13-16, Philippine Political Law by Cruz

-Art IX, 1987 Constitution

A. Civil Service Commission-ensures professionalism in the government

service (also covered in Admin Law subject).

GSIS vs CSC, 202 SCRA 709

A.1. Composition and Qualification

39
 Art. IX, B, Sec.1[1]

Art. VII, Sec.13, par.2

A.2. Appointment and term of office of commissioners

A.3. Appointment of personnel of CSC

Art. IX, A, Sec.4

A.4. Salary

Art. XVIII, Sec.17

Art. IX, A, Sec.3

A.5. Disqualifications

Art. IX, A, Sec.2

A.6. Removal

Art. XI, Sec.2

A.7. Functions

Art. IX, B, Sec.3

Art. IX, A, Sec.7

Luego vs. CSC, 143 SCRA 327

A.8. Scope of Civil Service; Temporary vs permanent

appointments; career vs non-career officials

Art. IX, B, Sec.2[1]

Leyson vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 134990, Apr. 27, 2000

Baluyot vs. Holganza, G.R. No. 136374, Feb. 9, 2000

40
 Right to organize (Section 8, Art III); but not go on strike or
work stoppage.

Manila Public School Teachers Association vs Secretary of

Education, G. R. No. 95445, August 6, 1991

Social Security System vs the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85279,

July 28, 1989

Ban on double appointment:

elective (Article IX-B, Sec 7, no qualification)

vs

appointive (2nd par, same Section, maybe allowed by law or by reason of

office)

Note: But, for President, Vice-President, Cabinet and their Assistants, the ban
is covered by another provision specifically Article VII, Section 13. Exception
is valid when allowed in the Constitution (like VP can be appointed as Cabinet or DOJ
Secretary as Ex-Officio member of JBC per Article VIII, Section 8 (1).) and not just by a mere law.

Ban on double compensation:

per Article IX-B, Section 8 applies to both elective and appointive

officials, unless authorized by law or by the President.

Bitonio, Jr. vs COA, G.R. No. 147392, March 12, 2004

A.9. Review of Decisions

Art. IX, A, Sec.7

A.10. Fiscal Autonomy

Art. IX, A, Sec.5

B. Commission on Elections-sole power to enforce election laws

(also covered in Election Law subject)

B.1. Composition and Qualifications

41
 Art. IX, C, Sec.1[1]
Art. VII, Sec. 13, par.2

Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210

B.2. Appointment and term of office of commissioners

Art. IX, C, Sec. 1(2)

B.3. Disqualifications

Art. IX, A, Sec.4

B.4. Salary

Art. XVIII, Sec.17

Art. IX, A, Sec.3

B.5. Appointment of personnel

Art. IX, A, Sec.4

B.6. Removal

Art. XI, Sec.2

B.7. Functions

B.7.1. Administrative

Art. IX, C, Sec.2

B.7.2. Adjudicatory

Javier vs. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 194

Canisoca vs. COMELEC, Dec. 5, 1997

42
 B.7.3. Rule-Making

Art. IX, A, Sec.6

Aruelo, Jr. vs. CA, 227 SCRA 311

B.7.4. Regulatory

Art. IX, C, Sec.4

NPC vs. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 194

B.8. Review of Decisions

Art. IX, C, Sec.2[2]

Art. IX, A, Sec.7

Flores vs. COMELEC, 184 SCRA 484

Garces vs. CA 259 SCRA 99

B.9. Fiscal Autonomy

Art. IX, A, Sec.5

43
 C. Commission on Audit
(powers include promulgating accounting and auditing rules and regulations,
including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary,
excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures; power to disallow
payment is asserted after the transaction is completed based on post audit rule
and not prior)

C.1. Composition and Qualifications

Art. IX, D, Sec.1[1]

Art.VII, Sec.13, par.2

C.2. Appointment and term of office of commissioners

Art. IX, D, Sec.1[2]

C.3. Appointment of personnel of CSC

Art. IX, A, Sec.4

C.4. Salary

Art. XVIII, Sec. 17

Art. IX, A, Sec.3

C.5. Disqualifications

Art. IX, A, Sec.2

C.6. Removal

44
 Art. XI, Sec.2

C.7. Functions
Art. IX, D, Secs.2-3 (scope includes those NGOs receiving
subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly from or through the
Government)
Art.VI, Sec, 20
Art.IX, A, Sec.6

Phil. Airlines vs. COA, 245 SCRA 39

National Housing Corp. vs. COA, 226 SCRA 55
Luego vs. CSC, 143 SCRA 327

C.8. Scope of Civil Service

Art. IX, B, Sec.2[1]

C.9. Review of Decisions

Art. IX, A, Sec.7

C.10. Fiscal Autonomy

Art. IX, A, Sec.5

C.11 No exemption to COA jurisdiction

Art. IX, D-Section 3

M. ACCOUNTABLITY OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS (also partly covered in

Law of Public Officers)

45
 A. Policy of the Constitution: (Sec. 1, Art. X1)

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.

B. Impeachment

a. Who may be impeached (Art. XI, Sec.2); enumeration is exclusive

b. Who can file it?
In re Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771
c. Grounds (Art. XI, Sec. 2)
d. Procedure (Art. XI, Sec. 3[1] to [6])

Francisco vs House of Representatives, G.R No. 160261,

November 10, 2003)

Endorsement of 1/3 and direct transmittal; One impeachment per year;

meaning of initiate vs filing; HOR initiates and prosecutes while the Senate has
sole power to try and decide (2/3 votes of all members);

f. Effect removal from office; cannot be granted pardon

Question: What does sole power to try and decide mean? Is the
impeachment court beyond the review power of the Supreme Court; jurisdiction of the Senate
vs abuse in the exercise of jurisdiction; the Corona impeachment

C. The Ombudsman

1. Composition, Qualification, and Appointment (Sections 5, 6, 7,

8, 9, Art. XI)

2. Powers (extent of powers, nature of powers)

(Sections 12, 13, plus RA 6770 or the Ombudsman Act)

Office of the Ombudsman vs Madriaga, G.R No. 164316, Sept. 27,

2006,

46
 -shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form (even
anonymous)
-Can investigate on its own (unlike other prosecutorial arms that
normally need a complainant)

-Direct other officials to make appropriate action against public

officials and ensure compliance (Office of Ombudsman vs Madriaga, GR No.
164316, Sept 27, 2006 wherein the Court ruled that ombudsmans authority to impose
penalty and enforce compliance is not merely recommendatory; it is mandatory)

N. PATRIMONY (also covered in Law on Natural Resources,

Transportation Law and Public Service Act)

-Art.XII, 1987 Constitution

A. Policy (Sec.1)

-Cruz vs. Sec. of DENR, 347 SCRA 728

B. Natural Resources

B.1. Regalian Doctrine

-Lee Hong Kok vs. David, 48 SCRA 372

- Republic vs Republic Estate Corp., G.R. No. 103882, Nov. 25,
1998)
- Cruz vs Sec DENR, GR No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000 challenging the
constitutionality of the Indigenous Peoples Act of 1997

RA 7942 (New Mining Act)

La Bugal Blaay Tribal Association vs DENR, GR. No. 127882, Dec. 1, 2004
challenging the constitutionality of the New Mining Act.
47
 B. 1 Lands of the Public Domain (agricultural, forest/timber, minerals, national
parks); only agricultural land of the public domain can be alienated provided
classified as A and D. Others (forest, etc) can never ripen into private
ownership no matter how long the possession was.

Who can re-classify?

Legal classification of land is not necessarily a description of actual

condition of the said land.

Tax declaration vs land title

C. 2. Citizenship Requirement for acquisition of alienable agricultural

land of the public domain

-Art.XII, Secs.2 and 7

Chavez vs PEA-AMARI, G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002

Chavez vs PEA-AMARI, Resolution, Nov. 11, 2003

C. Classification, Size, Conditions for grant of Public Lands (Sec.3)

D. Private Lands

D.1. Citizenship Requirements (Sec.7)

-Godinez vs. Pak Luen, 120 SCRA 223

-Tejido vs. Zemacoma, 138 SCRA 78

48
 D.2. Exceptions to Filipino citizenship requirement

D.2.1. Legal Succession

-Ramirez vs. Vda. De Ramirez, 111 SCRA 704

D.2.2. Acquisition by former natural-born citizens (Sec.8) as

further defined in RA 8179 (Foreign Investment Act)

E. Economic Activities

E.1. Rationale (Sec.6, 12, 13)

E.2. Organization and Regulation of Private Corporations
(Sec.16)

-NADECO vs. PVB, 192 SCRA 257

E.3. Operation of public utilities (Sec.11, 17, 18)

-Albano vs. Reyes, 175 SCRA 264

-Republic vs. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620

E.4. Filipinization

E.4.1. of mass media and advertising

-Art.XVI, Sec.10, 11
-Art. XVIII, Sec. 23

E.4.2. Practice of professions (Sec.14)

F. Monopolies, Combinations and Unfair Competition (Sec.19)

-Lagman vs. Torres, 281 SCRA 330; 282 SCRA 337

49
 Amendments and Revisions to the Constitution

Methods:

Congress acting as Constituent Assembly

Constitutional Convention
Peoples Initiative (Amendment only)

Read Chapter 18, Cruz

Read Article XVII, 1987 Constitution

Defensor-Santiago vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 127325 March 19, 1997

Lambino vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006

5. Amendment vs. Revision (Distinction and Steps)

Lambino vs. COMELEC, supra

Jala vs House of Representatives, GR No. 184-426, Oct. 7, 2008

6. Ratification and the Doctrine of Fair and Proper Submission

Gonzales vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774

Tolentino vs. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702

7. Theories on the Position of CON-CON in relation to the regular

branches of government

Theory of Conventional Sovereignty

Inferiority of the CONCON
Independence and Co-equality

8. Amendments/Revisions is a justiciable question

Gonzales vs. COMELEC, supra.

50
 Javellana vs. Executive Secretary, supra
Sanidad vs. COMELEC, 73 SCRA 333

-nothing follows-

51