CONSOLIDATED OUTLINES IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
I. a. 1.

INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS Definitions: Political Law, Constitutional Law, Constitution Macariola vs. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77.
Political Law has been defined as that branch of public law which deals with the organization and operation of the governmental organs of the State and defined the relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory.
b.

THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION b.1.

Amendment and Revision (Article XVII, 1987 Constitution) 1. Santiago vs. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 2. Lambino vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006 (En Banc) b.1.1 b.2.
c.

Doctrine of fair and proper submission 1. Tolentino vs. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702

Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy 1. Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408

The Constitution as Interpreted by Courts: Theory of Judicial Review c.1. Theory of Judicial Review 1. Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803) 2. Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil 139

2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

Conditions for the Exercise of the Judicial Review 1. Dennis B. Funa vs. Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, Office of the President, G. R. No. 184740, February 11, 2010 Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal vs. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G. R. No. 191618, November 23, 2010 Integrated Bar of the Philippines vs. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc., et al vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, et al/Kilusang Mayo Uno, et al vs. Hon. Eduardo Ermita, et al/Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), et al vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al/Karapata, et al vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al/The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, et al vs. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, et al/Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-Southern Tagalog, et al vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al. G. R. Nos. 178552, 178554, 178581, 178890, 179157, 179461, October 5, 2010 Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G. R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003 Manuel Mamba, et al vs. Edgar R. Lara, et al, G. R. No. 165109, December 14, 2009 Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, G. R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009 Atty. Oliver O. Lozano and Atty. Evangeline J Lozano-Endriano vs. Speaker Prospero C. Nograles, Representative, Majority, House of Representatives/Louis Barok C. Biraogo vs. Speaker Prospero C. Nograles, Representative, Congress of the Philippines, G. R. No. 187883, June 16, 2009
| Page

c.2.

Dante V. Liban, et al vs. Richard J. Gordon, G. R. No. 175352, January 18, 2011 Alunan III vs. Mirasol, 276 SCRA 501 Malaluan vs. COMELEC, 254 SCRA 397 Gonzales vs. Narvasa, 337 SCRA 733 Atty. Evillo C. Pormento vs. Joseph Erap Ejercito Estrada and COMELEC, G. R. No. 191988, August 31, 2010 14. Bayan vs. Zamora, 342 SCRA 449 15. Rodolfo G. Navarro, et al vs. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, et al, G. R. No. 180050, April 12, 2011 16. Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr., et al vs. Toll Regulatory Board, et al/Hon. Imee R. Marcos, et al vs. The Republic of the Philippines, et al/Gising Kabataan Movement, Inc., et al vs. The Republic of the Philippines, et al/The Republic of the Philippines vs. Young Professionals and Entrepreneurs of San Pedro, Laguna, G. R. No. 166910, 169917, 173630, 183599, October 19, 2010
9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

c.3.

Functions of Judicial Review 1. Osmea vs. COMELEC, 199 SCRA 750 2. Occea vs. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 1 3. Salonga vs. Cruz Pao, 134 SCRA 438 4. Javier vs. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 194 5. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 133486, January 28, 2000 What Court May Exercise Judicial Review 1. JM Tuason & Co. vs. Court of Appeals, 3 SCRA 696 2. Ynot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659 Political Questions 1. Estrada vs. Arroyo, G. R. No. 146738, March 2,

c.4.

c.5. 2001

2. IBP vs. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 3. Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G. R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003 Effect of Declaration of Unconstitutionality (Article 7, New Civil Code of the Philippines) 1. Serrano de Agbayani vs. PNB, 38 SCRA 429 2. Salazar vs. Achacoso, 183 SCRA 145 3. League of Cities of the Philippines represented by LCP National President Jerry P. Trenas, et al vs. COMELEC, et al, G. R. No. 176951/G. R. No. 177499/G. R. No. 178056, August 24, 2010 c.7. Principles of Constitutional Interpretation 1. Francisco vs. House of Representatives, supra. 2. Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc., et al vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, et al/Kilusang Mayo Uno, et al vs. Hon. Eduardo Ermita, et al, supra. c.6.

II. a. 1. 2.

THE PHILIPPINES AS A STATE STATE, DEFINED The Province of North Cotabato vs. GRP, G. R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008 Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Campos Rueda, 42 SCRA 23

| Page

b. 1. 2. 3. c.

Territory Article I, 1987 Constitution Part IV, UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982 RA 9522 People c.1. c.2. Different Concepts of People Citizenship

c.2.1. Importance 1. Lee vs. Director of Lands, G. R. No. 128195, October 3, 2001 c.2.2. Modes of Acquisition: Citizens of the Philippines 1. Tecson vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004 2. Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543 3. Re: Application of Ching, Bar Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999 4. Carlos T. Go, Sr., vs. Luis T. Ramos/Jimmy T. Go vs. Luis T. Ramos/Hon Alipio F. Fernandez et al vs. Jimmy T. Go a.k.a. Jaime T. Gaisano, G. R. No. 167569/G. R. No. 167570/G. R. No. 171946, September 4, 2009 5. Bengson III vs. HRET, G. R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001 6. Co vs. HRET, 199 SCRA 692 7. Belgamo Cabiling Ma, et al vs. Commissioner Alipio F. Fernandez, Jr., et al, G. R. No. 183133, July 26, 2010 c.2.3. Naturalization: Judicial, Administrative, Congressional Commonwealth Act No. 473 RA 530 RA 9139 Moya vs. Commissioner, 41 SCRA 292 Republic vs. dela Rosa, G. R. No. 104654, June 6, 1994 Republic vs.Liyao, 214 SCRA 748 Limkaichong vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 178831-32, April 1, 2009 c.2.4. Loss of Citizenship 1. Bengson III vs. HRET, supra. 2. Coquilla vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002 c.2.5. Reacquisition 1. Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 731 2. Tabasa vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 125793, August 29, 2006 3. Angat vs. Republic, G. R. No. 132244, September 14, 1999 4. Altajeros vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 163256,
| Page

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

November 10, 2004 c.2.6. Dual Citizenship and Dual Allegiance 1. RA 9225 2. Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630 3. Nicolas Lewis vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 162759, August 4, 2006 4. Calilung vs. Datumanong, G. R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007
d. 1. 2. 3. e.

Sovereignty Sinco, Philippine Political Law Reagan vs. CIR, 30 SCRA 968 Taada vs. Angara, G. R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997 Sovereign Immunity: Doctrine of Non-Suability of State e.1. e.2. Basis 1. Section 3, Article XVI, 1987 Constitution 2. Republic vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 83 Suit Against the State 1. Professional Video, Inc, vs. Technical Education and Skills Development Authority, G. R. No. 155504, June 26, 2009 2. Republic vs. Feliciano, 148 SCRA 424 3. Del Mar vs. PVA, 51 SCRA 424 4. PNB vs. CIR, 81 SCRA 314 5. Air Transportation Office vs. Spouses David and Elisea Ramos, G. R. No. 159402, February 23, 2011 6. Lansang vs. CA, G. R. No. 102667, February 23, 2000 7. Calub vs. Court of Appeals 8. Shell Philippines Exploration B. V. vs . Efren Jalos, et al, G. R. No. 179918, September 8, 2010

e.3.

Consent 1. Republic vs. Feliciano, 148 SCRA 424 2. Meritt vs. GPI, 34 Phil 311 3. Act. No. 3083 4. USA vs. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487 5. Commissioner of Public Highways vs. Burgos, 96 SCRA 831

f.

Government f.1. f.2. Government in General, Defined 1. US vs. Dorr, 2 Phil 322 Government of the Philippines, Defined 1. Section 2, Administrative Code of the Philippines 2. Estrada vs. Arroyo, supra Kinds of Government 1. Co Kim Cham vs. Tan Keh, September 17, 1945 2. Lawyers League for Better Philippines vs. Aquino, Supra

f.3.

| Page

f.4. f.5.

Functions of the Government: Ministrant and Constituent Doctrine of Parens Patriae 1. GP vs. Monte de Piedad, G. R. No. 9959, December 13, 1916

g. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Principles and Policies of the Philippine Government Art. II, 1987 Philippine Constitution Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, G. R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997 Taada vs. Angara, G. R. No. 118925, May 2, 1997 Representatives Gerardo S. Espina, et al vs. Hon. Ronaldo Zamora, Jr., et al, G. R. No. 143855, September 21, 2010 g.1. Principles g.1.a. Sovereignty of the People and Republicanism Read: Concurring Opinion of Justice Mendoza in Estrada vs. Arroyo, supra. Read: Dissenting Opinion of Justice Puno in Tolentino, et al vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 148334, January 21, 2004 g.1.b. Adherence to International law 1. Philip Morris vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 91332, July 16, 1993 2. Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, G. R. No. 139465, January 18, 2000 Compare: Doctrine of Transformation 3. Government of USA vs. Purganan, G. R. No. 148571, December 17m 2002 g.1.c. Civilian Supremacy g.1.d. Government as Protector of the People, and People as Defenders of the State g.1.e. Separation of Church and State 1. Article III, Section 5 2. Article IX, Section 2 (5) 3. Article VI, Section 5 (2)

Exceptions: 1. Article VI, Section 28 (3), Section 29 (2) 2. Article XIV, Section 3 (3), Section 4 (2) 3. Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201 g.2. Policies (Sections 7-28) g.2.a. Independent Foreign Policy and NuclearFree Philippines g.2.b. Just and Dynamic Social Order g.2.b.1. Social Justice (Section 10) 1. Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil 726 g.2.b.2. Human Rights (Section 11)
| Page

g.2.b.3. Equality of Men and Women (Section 14) g.2.b.4. Promotion of Health and Ecology (Section 14) Oposa vs. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 A. M. No. 09-6-8-SC (New Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases) g.2.b.5. Priority of Education, Science, Technology, Arts, Culture & Sports (Section 17) g.2.b.6. Urban Land Reform and Housing (Article III, Sections 9-10) g.2.b.7. Reform in Agriculture and Other Natural Resources (Section 21) g.2.b.8. Protection to Labor (Section 18) g.2.b.9. Independent Peoples Organization (Section 19) g.2.b.10. Family (Section 12) g.2.b.11. Self-Reliant & Independent Economic Order (Sections 19-20) g.2.b.12. Communication and Information (Section 24) g.2.b.13. Autonomy of Local Governments (Section 25) g.2.b.14. Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities (Section 22) g.2.b.15. Honest Public Service and Full Disclosure (Section 27) 1. Valmonte vs. Belmonte, 170 SCRA 256 2. Akbayan vs. Aquino, G. R. No. 170516, July 16, 2008
1. 2. III.

POWERS AND STRUCTURES OF THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT: DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS 1. Cruz, Philippine Political Law 2. Separate Opinion, Justice Puno, Macalintal vs. COMELEC, et al, G. R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003

IV.

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT: STRUCTURE Article VI, 1987 Constitution

a. 1.

Composition Sema vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 177597, July 16, 2008 a.1. Senate (Sections 2-4) a.2. House of Representatives (Sectiones 5-8) 1. Republic Act No. 7941 2. Rodolfo G. Navarro, et al vs. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, et al, G. R. No. 180050, February 10, 2010 3. Senator Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III and Mayor Jesse Robredo vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010 4. Victorino B. Aldaba, et al vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 188078, March 15, 2010 5. Tobias vs. Abalos, G. R. No. L-114783, December 8, 1994 6. Aquino vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 118577, March 7, 1995 7. Mariano, Jr. vs. COMELEC, G. R. No.118577, March 7,
| Page

1995 8. Veterans Federation Party vs. COMELEC, 342 SCRA 244 9. Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 177271, May 4, 2007 10. Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 172103, May 4, 2007 11. Bagong Bayani-OFW vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001 12. Partido vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 164702, March 15, 2006 13. Torayno vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 137329, August 9, 2000 14. Banat vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 137329, August 9, 2000 15. Banat vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 179271/G. R. No. 179295, July 8, 2009 16. Ang Ladlad-LGBT Party vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010 17. Philippine Guardians Brotherhood vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 190529, April 29, 2010
b. 1.

QUALIFICATIONS AND TERM OF OFFICE Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs Board, G. R. No. 157870, November 3, 2008 b.1. Residence Requirement 1. Macalintal vs. COMELEC, et al., supra 2. Read also Separate Opinion of Justice Puno b.2. Term vs. Tenure 1. Dimaporo vs. Mitra, 202 SCRA 779 2. Gaminde vs. COA, G. R. No. 154512, December 13, 2000 3. Socrates vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 154512, November 12, 2002

c. 1. 2. d.

ELECTION (Sections 8-9) Tolentino, et al vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 148334, January 21, 2004 Macalintal vs. COMELEC, July 10, 2003 ORGANIZATIONS & SESSIONS d.1. Election of Officers (Section 16 (1)) d.2. Quorum (Sections 16 (2)) 1. Avelino vs. Cuenco, 83 Phil 17 d.3. Rules of Proceedings (Sections 16 (3), 21) 1. Arroyo vs. de Venecia, G. R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997 2. Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., et al vs. Senate Committee of the Whole Represented by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, G. R. No. 187714, March 8, 2011 d.4. Discipline of Members (Section 16 (3)) 1. Alejandrino vs. Quezon, 46 Phil 83 2. Osmea vs. Pendatun, 109 Phil 863 3. Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 126055, April 19, 2001 d.5. Journal and Congressional Records (Section 16 (4)) d.5.a. The Enrolled Bill Theory 1. Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil 1
| Page

2. Casco vs. Gimenez, 7 SCRA 347 d.5.c. Matters to be Entered in the Journal a.) yeas and nays on 3rd and final reading (Sec. 26 (2)) b.) veto message of the President (Sec. 27 (1)) c.) yeas and nays on repassing of the vetoed bill (id) d.) yeas 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 1. Astorga vs. Villegas, 56 SCRA 714 2. Morales vs. Subido, 27 SCRA 131 3. Arroyo vs. de Venecia, 277 SCRA 268
e. f.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (Section 16 (4), par. 2) SESSIONS f.1. Regular Sessions (Sections 15 and 16 (5)) f.2. Special Sessions 1. Section 15 2. Article VII, Sections 10-11 3. Article VII, Sections 18, par. 3 f.3. Joint Sessions f.3.a. Voting Separately 1. Article VII, Section 4, 11 (4), 9 2. Section 23 (1) 3. Article XVII, Section 1 (1) f.3.b. Voting Jointly 1. Article VII, Section 18

g.

CONSTITUTIONAL ORGANS WITHIN CONGRESS g.1. Electoral Tribunals (Sections 17 and 19) g.1.a. Composition 1. Taada vs. Cuenco, 103 Phil 1051 g.1.b. Function 1. Henry June Dueas, Jr. vs. HRET and Angelito Jett P. Reyes, G. R. No. 185401, July 21, 2009 2. Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil 139 3. Barbers vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 165691, June 22, 2005 4. Limkaichong vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 179120, Biraogo vs. Nograles, G. R. Nos. 179132-33, Paras vs. Nograles, G. R. Nos. 179240-41, Villando vs. COMELEC, G. R. Nos. 178831-32, April 1, 2009 g.2. Commission on Appointments (Sections 18 and 19) 1. Guingona, Jr. vs. Gonzales, G. R. No. 106971, October 20, 1992
| Page

2. Coseteng vs. Mitra, 187 SCRA 377 3. Daza vs. Singson, 180 SCRA 496 h. SALARIES 1. Article XVIII, Section 10 2. Article XVIII, Section 17 i. PRIVILEGES i.1. Freedom from arrest (Section 11) 1. Martinez vs. Morfe, 44 SCRA 22 i.2. Privelege of Speech and Debate 1. Jimenez vs. Cabangbang, 17 SCRA 876 2. People vs. Jalosjos, G. R. No. 132875, February 3, 2000 3. Pobre vs. Sen Santiago, G. R. No. AC No. 7399, August, 25, 2009 j. RESTRICTIONS (Sections 13, 14, 12, 20) 1. Adaza vs. Pacana, Jr. 135 SCRA 431 2. Puyat vs. de Guzman, 113 SCRA 31 3. Dante Liban, et al vs. Richard J. Gordon, G. R. No. 175352, July 15, 2009 4. Dennis B. Funa vs. Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, Office of the President, G. R. No. 184740, February 11, 2010 j.1. Appearace as counsel 1. Villegas vs. Legaspi, G. R. No. 53869, March 25, 1982
V. a.

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT: POWERS (Article VI) GENERAL PLENARY POWERS (Section 1) Read: Part I of Legislative Investigations and Right to Privacy By: Honorable Reynato S. Puno The Lawyers Review, April 30, 2005 LEGISLATIVE MILL REQUIREMENTS AS TO BILLS c.1. Subject and Title (Section 26) 1. Cruz vs. Paras, 123 SCRA 569 c.2. As to specific laws (Article VII, Section 22) Sections 24-5: 1. Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 2. Demetria vs. Alba, 148 SCRA 208 3. Abakada Guro vs. Ermita, G. R. No. 16056, September 1, 2005 (en banc) Section 29 1. Guingona vs. Carague, 196 SCRA 221 Section 28 Article XIV, Section 4 (3) and (4) Lung Center vs. Quezon City, G. R. No. 144104, June 29, 2004

b. c.

| Page

c.3. Presidential Veto (Section 27) 1. Bolinao Electronics Corp vs. Valencia, 11 SCRA 486 2. Gonzales vs. Macaraig, 191 SCRA 452 3. PHILCONSA vs. Enriquez, G. R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994 c.4. Effectivity of Laws 1. Taada vs. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 2. EO 200, June 18, 1987 3. PVB Employees vs. Judge Vera, G. R. No. 105364, June 28, 2001 c.5. Initiative and Referendum 1. R. A. No. 6735, August 4, 1989 2. Garcia vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 111230, September 30, 1994
d.

LIMITATIONS TO POWER OF LEGISLATION d.1 Express Limitations 1. Article III, Sections 26, 28 2. Article XIV, Section 4 (3) 3. Section 29-31 Fabian vs. Desierto, G. R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998 d.2. Implied Substantive Limitations d.2.a. Non-delegation of Legislative Powers 1. People vs. Vera, 65 Phil 56 (focus only on pp. 112- 125) 2. Edu vs. Ericta, 35 SCRA 481 3. ACCFA vs. CUGCO, 30 SCRA 649 4. Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA, 166 SCRA 533

1. 2. 3.

Exceptions under the Constitution: Sections 23 (2) and 28 (2)-delegation to the President Section 32, Article VI-delegation to the people Article X, Section 5-delegation to LGUs d.2.b. Procedural Limitations (Sections 26-27) 1. Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado, 227 SCRA 703

e.

AIDS TO 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 (Section 22) 1. Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita, G. R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006 e.2. Legislative Investigations (Section 21) 1. Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita, G. R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006
| Page

Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, G. R. No. L-89914, November 20, 1991 Negross Oriental II Electric Coop vs. SP, 155 SCRA 421 Arnault vs. Nazareno, 87 Phil 29 Senate Blue Ribbon Committee vs. Majaducon, July 29, 2003 In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of Camilo Sabio, G. R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006 (en banc) 7. Senate vs. Ermita, G. R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006 (en banc) 8. Gudani vs. Senga, G. R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006 (en banc) Read: Separate Opinion of J. Puno in Macalintal vs. COMELEC, July 10, 2003 9. Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigation, G. R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008 10. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee vs. Majaducon, G. R. No. 136760, July 29, 2003 11. Standard Chartered Bank vs. Senate Committee on Banks, G. R. No. 167173, December 27, 2007
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. f.

OTHER POWERS

f.1. As Board of Canvassers in Elections for President and Vice-President (Article VII, Section 4) f.2. Call Special Election for President and Vice-President f.3. Revoke/extend suspension of privilege of writ of habeas corpus, declaration of martial law (Article VII, Section 18) f.4. Approve Presidential Amnesties (Article VII, Section 19) f.5. Confirm certain appointments (Article VII, Section 9 and 16) f.6. Concur in treaties (Article VII, Section 21) 1. Bayan Muna, as represented by Rep. Satur Ocampo, et al vs. Alberto Romulo, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, et al, G. R. No. 159618, February 1, 2011 f.7. Declare war and delegate emergency powers (Section 23) 1. David vs. Arroyo, G. R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006 (en banc) 2. Agan vs. PIATCO, G. R. No. 155001, May 5, 2003 (en banc) f.8. Judge Presidents fitness Article VII, Section 11, par. 4 1. Estrada vs. Arroyo, supra f.9. Power of Impeachment (Article XI) f.9.a. Who may be impeached (Article XI, Section 2) 1. In re Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771 f.9.b. Grounds (Article XI, Section 2) f.9.c. Procedure (Article XI, Section 3 (1) to (6) 1. Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez vs. The House of Representatives Committee on Justice, et al, G. R. No. 193459, February 15, 2011 2. Ma. Merceditas C. Gutierrez vs. The House of Representatives Committee on Justice, et al, G. R. No. 193459, March 8, 2011 f.9.d. Effect (Article XI, Section 3 (7)) 1. Barcenas vs. House of Representatives, G. R. No. 160405, November 10, 2003 f.10. Power to Amend Constitution

| Page

VI. a. 1. 2. 3. b.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT: THE PRESIDENT (Article III) QUALIFICAITONS, ELECTION, TERM, OATH (Sections 2, 4, 5) FPJ vs. Arroyo, P. E. T. Case No. 002, March 29, 2005 Legarda vs. De Castro, P. E. T. Case No. 003, March 31, 2005 Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal vs. P. E. T., G. R. No. 191618, November 23, 2010 PRIVILEGE AND SALARY (Section 6) b.1. Executive Immunitiy 1. Soliven, Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393 2. Estrada vs. Desierto, G. R. No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001 3. Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 152259, July 29, 2004 b.2. Executive Privilege 1. Almonte, et al vs. Vasquez, G. R. No. 95367, May 23, 1995 2. Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita, G. R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006 3. Neri vs. Executive Secretary, supra
c. 1. 2.

PROHIBITIONS (Section 13) Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 85468, September 7, 1989 Civil Liberties Uniou vs. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 Compare with prohibitions against other officials: Article VI, Section 13 Article IX, A, Section 2 Article IX, B, Section 7 Article VIII, Section 12 Exceptions to the Rule: Vice-President- Article VII, Section 3, par. 2 Secretary of Justice- Article VIII, Section 8 (1) Ex oficio positions

d. 1. 2. 3.

SUCCESSION At the beginning of the term Article VII, Section 7, 10 During the term Article VII, Section 8, 10 Temporary Disability Article VII, Sections 2-3 Estrada vs. Arroyo, supra REMOVAL (Article XI, Sections 2-3) POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT

e. VII. a. 1. 2. 3. 4.

EXECUTIVE POWER (Article VII, Sections 1 and 17) Marcos vs. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 and 178 SCRA 760 Gonzales vs. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230 DENR vs. DENR Employees, G. R. No. 149725, August 19, 2003 Louis Barok C. Biraogo vs. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010/Rep. Edcel C. Lagman, et al vs. Exec. Sec. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al, G. R. No. 192935 & G. R. No. 19303. December 7, 2010 POWER OF CONTROL
| Page

b.

1. 2. 3. 4. c.

Mondano vs. Silvosa, 97 Phil 143 Villena vs. Sec. of Interior, 67 Phil 451 Free Tel. Workers vs. Minister of Labor, 108 SCRA 75 Atty. Sylvia Banda, et al vs. Eduardo R. Ermita, et al, G. R. No. 166620, April 20, 2010

POWER OF GENERAL SUPERVISION OVER LGUS Article X, Sections 4, 16 1. Ganzon vs. CA, 200 SCRA 271 2. Dadole vs. COA, G. R. No. 125350, December 3, 2002
d.

POWER OF APPOINTMENT d.1. Basis 1. GPI vs. Springer, 50 Phil 259 d.2. With Concurrence of COA Article VII, Section 16 Rufino vs. Endriga, G. R. No. 139554, July 21, 2006 Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549 Concepcion-Bautista vs. Salonga, 172 SCRA 160 Quintos-Deles vs. COA, 177 SCRA 259 Calderon vs. Carale, 208 SCRA 254 Heads of Departments Ambassadors, Public Ministers and Consuls Officers of AFP from colonel and naval captain Chairman and members of Constitutional Commissions Regular members of JBC (Article VIII, Section 9) Sectoral (Article XVIII, Section 7) d.3. Upon Recommendation of JBC 1. members of SC and all other courts (Article VIII, Section 9) 2. Ombudsman and deputies (Article XI, Section 9) d.4. Appointment of Vice-President as Cabinet Member (Section 3) d.5. Appointments solely by President (Section 16) 1. Those whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law 2. Those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint d.6. Limitations of Appointing Power d.6.1. Article VII, Sections 13 and 15 1. Aytona vs. Castillo, 4 SCRA 1 2. Jorge vs. Mayor, 10 SCRA 331 3. Quimsing vs. Tajanlangit, 10 SCRA 446 4. Arturo de Castro vs. JBC, G. R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010 Read: Dissenting Opinion of Justice Carpio Morales

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

d.6.2. Interim or Recess Appointments Article VI, Section 19 Article VII, Section 16 par. 2 1. Guevara vs. Inocentes, 16 SCRA 389
| Page

De Rama vs. CA, G. R. No. 131136, February 28, 2001 3. Matibag vs. Benipayo, G. R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002
2.

d.6.3. Temporary Designations Administrative Code of 1987, Book III, Sec.17 1. Arturo de Castro vs. JBC, G. R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010 Read: Dissenting Opinion of Justice Carpio Morales d.6.4. Limitations on Appointing Power of Acting President (Secs. 14-15)
e.

PARDONING POWER (Sec. 19) Article IX, C, Sec. 5 e.1. Pardon Distinguished from Probation 1. People vs. Vera, 65 Phil 56 e.2. Pardon Distinguished from Parole 1. Torres vs. Gonzales, 152 SCRA 272 e.3. Pardon Distinguished from Amnesty 1. Barrioquinto vs. Fernandez, 82 Phil 642 2. Vera vs. People, 7 SCRA e.4. Effect of Pardon 1. Monsanto vs. Factoran, G. R. No. 78239, February 9, 1989 e.5. Who may avail of Amnesty Macaga-an vs. People, 152 SCRA 430

f.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

MILITARY POWERS (Sec. 18) Article II, Sec. 13 Article VIII, Sec. 1 par. 2 Sanlakas vs. Reyes, G. R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004 IBP vs. Zamora, ibid Lacson vs. Perez, May 10, 2001 David vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, G. R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006 In Re: Ferdinand Arguelles, Jr. vs. Baladia, Jrl, G. R. No. 167211, March 14, 2006

Compare: Writ of Habeas Data (AM No. 08-1-16-SC); and Writ of Amparo (October 24, 2007) g. EMERGENCY POWERS (Article VI, Sec. 23 (2)) 1. David vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, G. R. No. 171396, March 3, 2006 (en banc)
h.

CONTRACTING AND GUARANTEEING FOREIGN LOANS (Sections. 20, 21) POWER OVER FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sec. 21) Bayan vs. Zamora, 342 SCRA 449 Pimentel vs. Executive Secretary, G. R. No. 158088, July 6, 2005 i.1. Deportation of undesirable aliens 1. Go Tek vs. Deportation Board, 79 SCRA 17 POWER
| Page

i. 1. 2.

OVER LEGISLATION i.2. To address Congress (Sec. 23) i.3. Preparation and submission of budget (Sec. 22) 1. Pimentel vs. Aguirre, 336 SCRA 201 i.4. Veto power (Sec. 27) i.5. Emergency powers (Article VI, Sec, 23 (2))
VIII. a.

THE JUDICIARY (Article VIII) THE SUPREME COURT a.1. Composition (Sec. 4) 1. Vargas vs. Rilloraza, 80 Phil 297 2. US vs. Limsiongco, 41 Phil 94 a.2. Appointment and Qualifications (Sections 7, 8, 9) 1. Arturo de Castro vs. JBC, G. R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010 a.3. Salary (Sec. 10) Article XVIII, Section 17 1. Perfecto vs. Meer, 85 Phil 522 2. Endencia vs. David, 93 Phil 696 3. Nitafan vs. CIR, 152 SCRA 284 a.4. Security of Tenure (Sec. 11, Sec. 2, par. 2) 1. De la Liana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294 a.5. Removal (Sec. 11) Article XI, Sec. 2 a.6. Fiscal Autonomy (Sec. 3) b. POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT b.1. JUDICIAL POWER b.1.a. (Article VIII, Sec. 1) 1. Santiago vs. Bautista, 32 SCRA 188 2. Mantruste Systems, Inc. vs. CA, 179 SCRA 136 3. Daza vs. Singson, 180 SCRA 496 4. Garcia vs. Board of Investments, 191 SCRA 288 5. Barcenas vs. House of Representatives, supra 6. Miranda vs. Aguirre, G. R. No. 133064, September 16, 1999 b.2. JUDICIAL REVIEW 1. Francisco vs. House of Representatives, supra 2. Justice Panganibans Liberty and Prosperity b.3. Article VIII, Sec. 5 1. In Re: Bermudez, 145 SCRA 160 2. Rule 122 and AM No. 00-5-03-SC Re Amendments Governing Death Penalty effective October 15, 2004 3. People vs. Mateo, G. R. No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004 b.4. Article VII, Sec. 18 par. 3
| Page

Article VII, Sec. 4, par. 7

1.

Lopez vs. Roxas Article IX, A, Sec. 7

b.5. Congressional Power over Jurisdiction of the SC Sec. 2, par. 1 Article VI, Sec. 30 1. Villavert vs. Desierto, G. R. No. 133715, February 23, 2000 2. Fabian vs. Desierto, G. R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998 b.6. Manner of sitting and votes required Article VIII, Sec. 4 Rule 56, Sec. 11 and Rule 125, Sec. 3, Rules of Court 1. League of Cities of the Philippines vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 176951, December 21, 2009 2. David Lu vs. Paterno Lu Ym, et al vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals of Cebu City, et al, G. R. No. 153690/G. R. No. 157381/G. R. No. 170889, February 15, 2011 b.7. Requirements as to decisions (Sections 13-14) 1. Yao vs. CA, G. R. No. 132428, October 24, 2000 2. Asiavest vs. CA, G. R. No. 110263, July 20, 2001 3. Fr. Martinez vs. CA, G. R. No. 123547, May 21, 2001 4. Lenindo Lumanog, et al vs. PP/Cesar Fortuna vs. PP/PP vs. SPO2 Cesar Fortuna y Abudo, et al, G. R. Nos. 182555/G. R. No. 185123/G. R. No. 187745, September 7, 2010 b.7.1. Mandatory periods for deciding cases Article VIII, Section 15 Article VII, Section 18, par. 3 Article XVIII, Sections 12- 14 b.8. ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS b.8.1. Supervision of lower courts (Sections 6, 11) 1. Maceda vs. Vasques, 221 SCRA 464 b.8.2. Temporary assignment of judges (Sec. 5 (3)) b.8.3. Change of Venue (Sec. 4) b.8.4. Appointment of officials and employees of judiciary (Sec. 5 (6)) b.9. RULE-MAKING POWERS (Sec. 5 (5)) Article XII, Sec. 14, par. 2 Article VII, Sec. 18, par. 3 In Re Cunanan, 94 Phil 534 In Re Marcial Edillon, 84 SCRA 554 Re: Request for Special Division, AM No. 02-1-09-SC, January 21, 2002 Aguirre vs. Rana, Bar Matter No. 1036, June 10, 2003 IN RE: PETITION TO DISQUALIFY ATTY. LEONARD DE VERA, ON LEGAL AND MORAL GROUNDS, FROM BEING ELECTED IBP GOVERNOR FOR EASTERN MINDANAO IN THE MAY 31, IBP ELECTIONS, A. C. N0. 6052, December 11, 2003

1. 2.

3. 4.

b.10. PROHIBITION ON QUASI-JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE WORKS (Sec. 12) 1. Manila Electric Co. vs. Pasay Trans, 57 Phil 600 2. Garcia vs. Macaraig, 39 SCRA 106
| Page

3.

In Re: Judge Rodolfo Manzano, 166 SCRA 246 c. REPORT ON JUDICIARY (Sec. 16) d. THE LOWER COURTS d.1. Qualifications and Appointments (Sec. 7 (1)(2), 8 (5), 9) 1. SB ng. Taguig vs. Judge Estrella, AM No. 01-1608RJT, January 16, 2001 d.2. Salary (Sec. 10)

d.3. Congressional Power to Reorganize and Security of Tenure (Sec. 11, 2 (2)) 1. De la Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294 d.4. Removal (Sec. 11) d.5. Jurisdiction (Sec. 1) 1. Ynot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659 d.6. Preparation of decisions (Sec. 14) 1. Pedragoza vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 164702, March 15, 2006 2. Partido ng Manggagawa vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 164702, March 15, 2006 d.7. Mandatory period for deciding Article VIII, Sec. 15 Article XVIII, Secs. 12-14 1. Marcelino vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51 2. De Roma vs. CA, 152 SCRA 205 e. THE JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (Sec. 8) 1. Arturo de Castro vs. JBC, G. R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010
f. IX. a.

AUTOMATIC RELEASE OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR JUDICIARY (Sec. 3) THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION a.1. Composition and Qualifications Article IX, B, Sec. 1 (1) Article VII, Sec. 13, par. 2

a.2. Functions Article IX, B, Sec. 3 Article IX, A, Sec. 7 1. Luego vs. CSC, 143 SCRA 327 a.3. Scope of Civil Service Article IX, A, Sec. 2 (1) 1. Leyson vs. Ombudsman, G. R. No. 134990, April 27, 2000 2. Baluyot vs. Holganza, G. R. No. 136374, February 9, 2000 3. Winston F. Garcia vs. Mariano I. Molina, et al/Winston F. Garcia vs. Mario I. Molina, et al, G. R. No. 157383/G. R. No. 174137, August 18, 2010
a.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
| Page

b.1. Composition and Qualifications Article IX, C, Sec. 1 (1) Article VII, Sec. 13, par. 2 1. Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210 b.2. Functions b.2.1. Administrative Article IX, C, Sec. 2 (1), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) b.2.2. Adjudicatory Article IX, C, Sec. 2 (2) and (3) Javier vs. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 194 Canisoca, vs. COMELEC, December 5, 1997 b.2.3. Rule-making Article IX, A, Sec. 6 1. Aruelo, Jr., vs. CA, 227 SCRA 311 b.2.4. Regulatory Article IX, C, Sec. 4 1. NPC vs. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 194 b.3. Review of Decisions Article IX, C, Sec. 2 (2) Article IX, A, Sec. 7 1. Flores vs. COMELEC, 184 SCRA 484 2. Garces vs. CA, 259 SCRA 99 b.9. Fiscal Autonomy Article IX, A, Sec. 5 c. COMMISSION ON AUDIT c.1. Functions Article IX, D, Secs. 2-3 Article VI, Sec. 20 Article IX, A, Sec. 6 1. Philippine Airlines vs. COA, 245 SCRA 39 2. National Housing Corp vs. COA, 226 SCRA 55 3. Luego vs. CSC, 143 SCRA 327 c.2. Scope 1. Ramon R. Yap vs. Commission on Audit, G. R. No. 158562, April 23, 2010
d. A.

NATIONAL COMMISSIONS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (CHR)

a.1. Composition and Qualifications Article XIII, Sec. 17 1. Bautista vs. Salonga, supra a.2. Powers and Functions Article XIII, Sec. 18-19
| Page

1. 2. 3.

Carino vs. CHR, G. R. No. 96681, December 2, 1991 EPZA vs. CHR, 208 SCRA 125 Simon, Jr. vs. CHR< 229 SCRA 117 X. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (Article X)

a. 1. g. 1.

RIGHT TO VOTE (Sec. 14) Ceniza vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 763 RECALL (Sec. 1) Garcia vs. COMELEC, 227 SCRA 100 XI. NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY (Article XII)

a. 1. b.

POLICIY (Sec. 1) Cruz vs. Sec. DENR, 347 SCRA 728 NATURAL RESOURCES b.1. Regalian Doctrine 1. Lee Hong Kok vs. David, 48 SCRA 372

c.

PRIVATE LANDS c.1. Citizenship Requirements (Sec. 7) 1. Godinez vs. Pak Luen, 120 SCRA 223 2. Tejido vs. Zamacoma, 138 SCRA 78 c.2. Exceptions c.2.1. Legal Succession 1. Ramirez vs. Vda de Ramirez, 111 SCRA 704 2. Matthews vs. Taylor, G. R. No. 164584, June 22, 2009 c.2.2. Acquisition by former natural-born citizens (Sec. 8)

d.

ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES

d.1. Organization and Regulation of Private Corporations (Sec. 16) 1. NADECO vs. PNB, 192 SCRA 257 2. Liban vs. Gordon, G. R. No. 164584, June 22, 2009 d.2. Operation of public utilities (Sec. 11, 17, 18) 1. Albano vs. Reyes, 175 SCRA 264 2. Republic vs. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620
e. 1.

MONOPOLIES, COMBINATIONS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION (Sec. 19) Lagman vs. Torres, 281 SCRA 330; 282 SCRA 337

| Page

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
I.

POLICE POWER Definition, Scope & Basis Characteristics Who exercise said power? Tests of Police Power

1. 2. 3. 4.

Laws: Balacuit vs. CFI, G. R. No. L-38429, June 30, 1988 Lozano vs. Matinez, 146 SCRA 323 (1986) Del Rosario vs. Bengzon, 180 SCRA 521 (1989) Tablarin vs. Judge Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 730 (1987) Zoning and Regulatory Ordinances: Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operators vs. City Mayor, 20 SCRA 849 (1967) Cruz vs. Paras, 123 SCRA 569 (1983) Velasco vs. Villegas, 120 SCRA 568 (1983) Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties, 234 SCRA 255 (1994) Tano vs. Socrates, G. R. No. 110249, August 27, 1997 City of Manila vs. Judge Laguio, G. R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005 Administrative Rules and Regulations: Bautista vs. Junio, 127 SCRA 329 (1984) Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila vs. BOT, 119 SCRA 597 (1982) Mirasol vs. DPWH, G. R. No. 158793, June 8m 2006 Anglo-Fil Trading vs. Lazaro, 124 SCRA 494 (1983) PPA vs. Cipres Stevedoring, G. R. No. 145742, July 14, 2005 Chavez vs. Romulo, G. R. No. 157036, June 9, 2004
II.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

EMINENT DOMAIN

1. 2.

1. 1.

Definition Who exercises the power? City of Manila vs. Chinese Cemetery of Manila, 40 Phil 349 (1919) Moday vs. CA, 268 SCRA 368 (1997) Constitutional Limitation: Article II, Sec. 9 Distinguished from destruction due to necessity Objects of Appropriation RP vs. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620 (1969) Where Expropriation Suit is file Barangay San Roque vs. Heirs of Pastor, G. R. No. 138896, June 20, 2000 Taking
| Page

1. 2. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 3. 4.

1. 2. 1. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 1. 2.

Definition and scope Requisites of Taking Republic vs. Castelvi, 58 SCRA 336 (1974) City Government of Quezon City vs. Ericta, 122 SCRA 759 (1983) Deprivation of Use Republic vs. Fajardo, 104 Phil 443 (1958) Napocor vs. Gutierrez, 193 SCRA 1 (1991) U.S. vs. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946) PPI vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272 (1995) Priority in Expropriation Fiscal International vs. CA, 284 SCRA 716 (1998) City of Mandaluyong vs. Francisco, G. R. No. 137152, January 29, 2001 Lagcao vs. Judge Labra, G. R. No. 155746, October 13, 2004 JIL vs. Municipality of Pasig, G. R. No. 152230, August 9, 2005 Public Use Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220 (1983) Sumulong vs. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461 (1987) Province of Camarines Sur vs. CA, 222 SCRA 170 (1993) Manosca vs. CA, 252 SCRA 412 (1996) Estate of Jimenez vs. PEZA, G. R. No. 137285, January 16, 2001 Governmental Withdrawal NHA vs. Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo, G. R. No. 154411, June 19, 2003 NPC & Pobre vs. CA, G. R. No. 106804, August 12, 2004 Recovery of Expropriated Land ATO vs. Gopuco, G. R. No. 158563, June 30, 2005 Republic vs. Lim, G. R. No. 161656, June 29, 2005 Genuine Necessity Municipality of Meycauyan vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 640 (1988) De Knecht vs. Bautista, 100 SCRA 660 (1980) Republic vs. De Knecht, G. R. No. 87351, February 12, 1990 De la Paz Masikip vs. Judge Legaspi, G. R. No. 136349, January 23, 2006 Just Compensation Defined Eslaban vs. De Onorio, G. R. No. 146062, June 28, 2001 RP vs. IAC, et al., G. R. No. 71176, May 21, 1990 Determination of Just Compensation EPZA vs. Dulay, 149 SCRA 305 (1987) When Determined Ansaldo vs. Tantuico, G. R. No. 50147, August 3, 1990 NAPOCOR vs. Tiangco, G. R. No. 170846, February 6, 2007 City of Cebu vs. Spouses Dedamo, G. R. No. 142971, May 7, 2002 Manner of Payment Association of Small Landowners vs. DAR, 175 SCRA 343 (1989) DAR vs. CA, 249 SCRA 149 (1995) Trial with Commissioners Meralco vs. Pineda, 206 SCRA 196 (1992) NPC vs. Henson, G. R. No. 129998, December 29, 1998 NAPOCOR vs. Sps. De la Cruz, G. R. No. 156093, February 2, 2007 Leca Realty vs. Republic, G. R. No. 155605, September 27, 2006 Legal Interest for Expropriation Cases NPC vs. Angas, 208 SCRA 542 (1992) Wycoco vs. Judge Caspillo, G. R. No. 146733, January 13, 2004 Writ of Possession City of Manila vs. Oscar Serrano, G. R. No. 142304, June 20, 2001 Republic vs. Gingoyon, G. R. No. 166429, December 19, 2005 Expropriation of Utilities, Landed Estates and Municipal Property Article XII, Sec. 18
| Page

Article XIII, Sec. 4 Article XIII, Sec. 9 1. City of Baguio vs. Nawasa, 106 Phil 114 (1959) 2. Zamboanga del Norte, vs. City of Zamboanga, 22 SCRA 1334 (1968)
III.

TAXATION

1. 2.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 1.

Definition and Nature Purpose CIR vs. Algue, Inc., 158 SCRA 9 (1988) Commissioner vs. Makasiar, 177 SCRA 27 (1989) Scope (The power to tax is the power to destroy) Who exercises the power? Article VI, Sec. 28 Article XIV, Sec. 4 (3) Article X, Sec. 5 Tax Exemptions YMCA vs. CIR, 33 Phil 217 (1916) Bishop of Nueva Segovia vs. Provincial Board, 51 Phil 352 (1927) Lladoc vs. CIR, 33 Phil 217 Province of Abra vs. Hernando, 107 SCRA 104 (1981) Abra Valley College vs. Aquino, 162 SCRA 106 (1988) American Bible Society vs. City of Manila, 101 Phil 386 (1957) Double Taxation Punzalan vs. Municipal Board of Manila, 95 Phil 46 (1954) License Fees Physical Therapy Organization vs. Municipal Board, G. R. No. 10448, August 30, 1957 DUE PROCESS Article III Article III, Sec. 14 (1) Definition, Nature and Scope Purpose of the Guaranty Hurtado vs. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) Meaning of Life, Liberty and Property Substantive Due Process Villegas vs. Hu Chong Tsai Pao Ho, 86 SCRA 275 (1978) Rubi vs. Prov. Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil 660 (1919) Void for Vagueness/Overbreadth Ople vs. Torres, 292 SCRA 141 (1998) Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001 David vs. Arroyo, G. R. No. 171390, May 3, 2006 Ong vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 126858, September 16, 2005 Procedurial Due Process Publication Requirement Taada vs. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446 (1986) PITC vs. Angeles, 263 SCRA 421 (1996) Tejano vs. Ombudsman, G. R. No. 159190, June 30, 2005 Tumey vs. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1997) People vs. Court of Appeals, 262 SCRA 452 (1996) Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 332 (1997) Prejudicial Publicity Sheppard vs. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966) Webb vs. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652 (1995) People vs. Sanchez, G. R. No. 121039, October 18, 2001 Notice of Hearing Summary Dismissal Board vs. Torcita, 330 SCRA 153 (2000)
IV.

1.

1. 2. 1. 2. 3. 4.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. 3. 1.

| Page

2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, G. R. No. 139466, October 17, 2000 People vs. Estrada, G. R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000 Lim vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 111397, August 12, 2002 Opportunity to be Heard Budiongan vs. De la Cruz, G. R. No. 170288, September 22, 2006 Roxas vs. Vasquez, G. R. No. 114944, June 21, 2001 Marohombsar vs. Judge Adiong, A. M. RTJ-02-1674, January 22, 2004 Exceptions to notice and hearing requirements Philcomsat vs. Alcuaz, 180 SCra 218 (1989) Suntay vs. People, 101 Phil 833 (1957) De Bishop vs. Galang, 8 SCRA 244 (1963) Var Orient Shipping Co., vs. Achacoso, 161 SCRA 232 (1988) Administrative Due Process Ang Tibay vs. CIR, 69 Phil 635 (1940) Montemayor vs. Araneta University Foundation, 77 SCRA 321 (1977) Meralco vs. PSC, 11 SCRA 317 (1964) Ateneo vs. CA, 145 SCRA 100 (1986) Alcuaz vs. PSBA, 161 SCRA 7 (1988) Non vs. Hon. Dames, G. R. No. 89317, May 30, 1990 III. EQUAL PROTECTION Political, Economic, and Social Equality Article XIII, Sec. 1 and 2 (social justice) Id., Sec. 3 (protection to labor) Article XII, Sec. 10 (nationalization of business) Id., Sec. 2, par. 2 ((reservation of marine resources) Article 2, Sec.11 (free access to the courts) Article VIII, Sec. 5 (5) (legal aid to poor) Article IX-C, Sec. 10 (protection of candidates) Article II, Sec. 26 (public service) Article II, Sec. 14 (equality of women and men) Sexual Discrimination Philippine Association of Service Exporters vs. Drillon, 163 SCRA 386 (1988) Administration of Justice People vs. Hernandez, 99 Phil 515 (1956) People vs. Isinain, 85 Phil 648 (1950) Chavez vs. PCGG, G. R. No. 130716, December 9, 1998 Nunez vs. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433 (1982) Gallardo vs. People, G. R. No. 142030, April 21, 2005 Public Policiy Central Bank Employees Association vs. BSP, G. R. No. 148208, December 15, 2004 PNB vs. Palma, G. R. 157279, August 9, 2005 Unido vs. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 17 (1981) PJA vs. Prado, 227 SCRA 703 (1993) Olivarez vs. Sandiganbayan, 248 SCRA 700 (1995) Tiu vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 127410, January 20, 1999 Coconut Oil Refiners vs. Torres, G. R. 132527, July 29, 2005 ISAE vs. Quisumbing, G. R. No. 128845, June 1, 2000 PHILRECA vs. DILG, G. R. No. 143076, June 10, 2003 Beltran vs. Secretary of Health, G. R. No. 133640, November 25, 2005 III. THE NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE Article III, Sec. 10 Purpose When impairment occurs When allowed

1. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

| Page

1. 1. 2. 3. 1. 1. 1.

Emergency Powers Rutter vs. Esteban, 93 Phil 68 (1953) Zoning and Regulatory Ordinances Villanueva vs. Castaeda, 154 SCRA 142 (1987) Sangalang vs. IAC, 168 SCRA 634 (1988) Ortigas & Co. vs. CA, G. R. No. 126102, December 4, 2000 Administrative Regulations Tiro vs. Hontanosas, 125 SCRA 697 (1983) Rental Laws Caleon vs. Agus Development Corp., 207 SCRA 748 (1992) Tax Exemptions Meralco vs. Province of Laguna, 306 SCRA 750 (1999) ARRESTS Article III, Sec. 2 and 3 Purpose and Importance of the Guaranty Alvero vs. Dizon, 76 Phil 637 (1946) To Whom Directed People vs. Andre Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991) Who May Invoke the Right? Bache and Co., vs. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 323 (1971) Stonehill vs. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967) Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978) Wilson vs. Layne, 98-0083, May 24, 1999 Conditions for a Valid Warrant Existence of Probable Cause Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 (1984) Chandler vs. Miller, April 15, 1997, D-96-126 People vs. Chu Ho San, 308 SCRA 432 (1999) People vs. Molina, G. R. No. 133917, February 19, 2001 Partially Valid Warrant People vs. Salanguit, G. R. 133254, April 18, 2001 Microsoft Corp vs. Maxicorp., G. R. 140946, September 13, 2004 Personal Determination by Judge Sta. Rosa Mining Co., vs. Fiscal Zabala, 153 SCRA 367 Paderanga vs. Drillon, G. R. No. 96080, April 19, 1991 Pita vs. CA, 178 SCRA 362 (1987) Abdula vs. Guiani, 326 SCRA 1 (2000) People vs. Mamaril, G. R. No. 147607, January 22, 2004 Examination of Witnesses Passion Vda. De Garcia vs. Locsin, 65 Phil 68 (1938) Yee Sue Kuy vs. Almeda, 70 Phil 141 (1940) Alvarez vs. CFI, 64 Phil 33 (1937) Mata vs. Bayona, 128 SCRA 388 (1984) Particularity of Description Olaes vs. People, 155 SCRA 486 (1987) Prudente vs. Judge Dayrit, 180 SCRA 69 (1989) Chia vs. Collector of Customs, 177 SCRA 755 (1989) 20TH Century Fox Film Corp. vs. CA, 164 SCRA 655 (1988) People vs. Choi, G. R. No. 152950, August 3, 2006 Nolasco vs. Cruz Pano, 132 SCRA 152 (1985) PICOP vs. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253 (1999) Yousef Al Ghoul vs. CA, G. R. No. 126859, September 4, 2001 Del Rosario vs. People, G. R. No. 142295, May 31, 2001 Objects of Seizure Rule 126, Sec. 3, Rules of Court Unilab vs. Isip, G. R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005
| Page

IV.

1. 1. 1. 2. 3. 4.

1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

1.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1.

1. 1. 2.

Warantless Searches Valid Waiver People vs. Omaweng, 213 SCRA 462 (1992) People vs. Correa, 285 SCRA 679 (1998) People vs. Ramos, G. R. No. 85401-02, June 4, 1990 Veroy vs. Layague, 210 SCRA 97 (1992) People vs. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457 (1992) Lopez vs. Commissioner of Customs, 68 SCRA 320 (1975) Caballes vs. CA, G. R. No. 142531, October 15, 2002 People vs. Tudtud, et al, G. R. No. 144037, September 26, 2003 Incident to Lawful Arrest Rule 126, Sec. 13, Rules of Court Chimel vs. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1964) People vs. de la Cruz, G. R. No. 83988, April 18, 1990 People vs. Kalubiran, 196 SCRA 645 (1991) People vs. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401 (1991) Espano vs. CA, 288 SCRA 558 (1998) People vs. Tangliben, 184 SCRA 220, (1990) People vs. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592 (2000) People vs. Estrella, G. R. Nos. 138539-40, January 21, 2003 People vs. Libnao, et al, G. R. No. 136860, January 20, 2003 Plain View Doctrine People vs. Musa, 217 SCRA 597 (1993) Padilla vs. CA, 269 SCRA 402 (1997) People vs. Valdez, G. R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000 Arizona vs. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) People vs. Compacion, G. R. No. 124442, July 20, 2001 People vs. Huang Zhen Hua, G. R. No. 139301, September 29, 2004 Enforcement of fishing, customs, and immigration laws Roldan vs. Area, 65 SCRA 320 (1975) People vs. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785 (1997) People, vs. Johnson, G. R. No. 138881, December 18, 2000 People vs. Suzuki, G. R. No. 12067, October 7, 1997 Malacat vs. CA, 283 SCRA 159 (1997) Florida vs. J. L. 98-1993, March 28, 2000 Search of Moving Vehicles Papa vs. Mago, 22 SCRA 857 (1968) People vs. CFI of Rizal, 101 SCRA 86 (1980) Salvador vs. People, G. R. No. 146706, July 15, 2005 Whren vs. United States, 95-5841, January 10, 1996 Emergency Circumstances People vs. De Gracia, 233 SCRA 716 (1994) Checkpoints Gen. De Villa vs. Valmonte, G. R. No. 83988, May 24, 1990 Aniag vs. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424 (1994) People vs. Usana, 323 SCRA 754 (2000) People vs. Vinecario, G. R. No. 141137, January 20, 2004 Inspection of Buildings Camara vs. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) Warrantless arrests Rule 113, Sec. 5 Article 125, Revised Penal Code Rebellion as Continuing Offense Umil vs. Ramos, G. R. No. 81567, July 9, 1990 Committed in the Presence of Police Officers People vs. Sucro, 195 SCRA 388 (1991) People vs. Luisito Go, G. R. No. 116001, March 14, 2001
| Page

1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 1. 1. 2.

1.

Personal Knowledge of the Offense People vs. Gerente, 219 SCRA 756 (1993) People vs. Sinoc, 275 SCRA 357 (1997) People vs. Baula, G. R. No. 132671, November 15, 2000 People vs. Cubcubin, G. R. No. 136267, July 10, 2001 Time of Arrest People vs. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791 (1992) Go vs. CA, 206 SCRA 586 (1992) People vs. Calimlim, G. R. No. 123980, August 30, 2001 Marked Money People vs. Enrile, 222 SCRA 586 (1992) Lack of Urgency People vs. Pasudag, G. R. No. 128822, May 4, 2001 People vs. Aminnudin, 163 SCRA 402 (1988) Effect of Bail Rule 114, Sec. 26 Effect of Entry of Plea People vs. Conde, G. R. No. 113269, April 10, 2001 PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION & CORRESPONDENCE RA No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) (1965) Arts, 290, 291, 292, and 299, Revised Penal Code Gaanan vs. IAC, 145 SCRA 113 (1986) Katz vs. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967) Ramirez vs. CA, G. R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995 Salcedo Ortanez vs. CA, 235 SCRA 111 (1994) Alejano vs. Cabuay, G. R. No. 160792, August 25, 2005
V.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Privileged Communications In Re Laureta, 148 SCRA 382 (1987) People vs. Albofera, 152 SCRA 123 (1987) Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 699 (1996) Deano vs. Godinez, 12 SCRA 483 (1964) Waterhouse Drug Corporation, vs. NLRC, G. R. No. 113271, October 16, 1997

Exclusionary Rule Article III, Sec. 3 (2) 1. Silverthorne Lumber vs. U.S., 251 U.S. 385 (1920) 2. People vs. Aruta, G. R. 120915, April 3, 1998 3. People vs. Rondero, G. R. 125687, December 9, 1999
1.

Liability for damages Aberca vs. Ver, 160 SCRA 590 (1989)
VI.

RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION Article III, Sec. 12 1. Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Custodial Investigation People vs. Lugod, G. R. No. 136253, February 21, 2001 People vs. Del Rosario, G. R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999 People vs. Bolanos, 211 SCRA 262 (1992) Rhode Island vs. Innis, 446 SCRA 291 (1980) People vs. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455 (1999)

Administrative Investigations 1. People vs. Judge Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)
| Page

2. 3.

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Sumilang, 271 SCRA 316 (1997) People vs. Uy, G. R. No. 157399, November 17, 2005

Police Lineup Gamboa vs. Cruz, 162 SCRA 642 (1988) United States vs. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) People vs. Escordial, G. R. No. 138934, January 16, 2002 People vs. Piedad, et al, G. R. No. 131923, December 5, 2002 Cases before January 17, 1973 not applicable 1. Magtoto vs. Manguera, 63 SCRA 4 (1975)
1. 2. 3. 4.

Rule under the 1973 Constitution (Voluntary, knowing & intelligent waiver) 1. People vs. Caguia, 95 SCRA 2 (1980) 2. People vs. Tampus, 90 SCRA 624 (1980) 3. People vs. Sayaboc, G. R. No. 147201, January 15, 2004
1.

The Galit Rule People vs. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985) Rule under the 1987 Constitution Requirement of Competent and Independent Counsel People vs. Bandula, 232 SCRA 566 (1994) People vs. Quidato, G. R. No. 117401, October 1, 1998 People vs. Januario, 267 SCRA 608 (1997) People vs. Labtan, G. R. No. 12793, December 8, 1999 People vs. Samus, G. R. No. 135957-58, September 17, 2002 People vs. Tomaquin, G. R. No. 133138, July 23, 2004 People vs. Bagnate, G. R. No. 133685-86, May 20, 2004

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Counsel of Choice 1. People vs. Gallardo, G. R. No. 113684, January 25, 2000 2. People vs. Barasina, 229 SCRA 450 (1994) Counsels presence required in entire proceedings 1. People vs. Morial, G. R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001
1. 2. 3. 4.

Seized Articles People vs. Castro, 274 SCRA 115 (1997) People vs. Wong Chuen Ming, 256 SCRA 182 (1996) Marcelo vs. Sandiganbayan, 302 SCRA 102 (1999) People vs. Macabalang, G. R. 168694, November 27m 2006 Confession to Newsmen People vs. Andan, 269 SCRA 95 (1997) People vs. Endino, G. R. No. 133026, February 20, 2001 People vs. Ordono, G. R. No. 132154, June 29, 2000 People vs. Guillermo, G. R. No. 147786, January 20, 20004 Other Confessions People vs. Malngan, G. R. No. 170470, September 26, 2006 People vs. Gomez, 270 SCRA 432 (1997) Illinois vs. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990) People vs. Lugod, G. R. No. 136253, February 21, 2001 Re-enactment People vs. Luvendino, 211 SCRA 36 (1992)

1. 2. 3. 4.

1. 2. 3. 4.

1.

| Page

Exclusionary Rule Article III, Sec. 12 (3)

1. 2. 3.

Fruits of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine People vs. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 (1995) Harris vs. New York, 401 SCRA 222 (1971) New York vs. Quarles, 104 U.S. 2626 (1984)
VII.

RIGHT TO BAIL Article III, Sec. 13 Bail Defined Rule 114, Sec. 1, ROC Kinds of Bail Rule 114, Sections 10, 11, 14 & 15

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

When right may be invoked Herras Teehankee, vs. Rovira, 75 Phil 634 (1945) People vs. San Diego, 26 SCRA 522 (1968) Cortes vs. Judge Catral, A. M. No. RTJ-97-1387, September 10, 1997 Lavides vs. CA, G. R. No. 129670, February 1, 2000 Government vs. Judge Puruganan, G. R. No. 148571, December 17, 2002

Procedure for bail 1. Enrile vs. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217 (1990) 2. People vs. Judge Donato, 198 SCRA 130 (1991)
1. 2. 3.

Bail on appeal People vs. Fortes, 223 SCR 619 (1993) Maguddatu vs. CA, G. R. No. 139599, February 23, 2000 Obosa vs. CA, G. R. No. 114350, January 16, 1997 Standards for fixing bail Rule 114, Sec. 9 Villasenor vs. Abano, 21 SCRA 312 (1967) De la Camara vs. Enage, 41 SCRA 1 (1971) Almeda vs. Villaluz, 66 SCRA 38 (1975) Yap vs. CA, G. R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001 Cabaero vs. Caon, AM No. MTJ-01-369, September 20, 2001 Victory Liner vs. Belosillo, G. R. No. 425 SCRA 79 (2004)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Bail and the Right to Travel Abroad 1. Manotoc vs. CA, 142 SCRA 149 (1980)
VIII.

RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED Article III, Sec. 14 Presumption of Innocence

1.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt People vs. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59 (1971)

Order of Trial 1. Alejandro vs. Pepito, 96 SCRA 322 (1988)(modified by Rule 119, Sec. 3 (e) Presumption of Guilt
| Page

Dumlao vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392 (1980) People vs. Mingoa, 92 Phil 857 (1953) Applicability to Juridical Persons 1. Feeder International Line vs. CA, CR 94262, May 31, 1991
1. 2. 1.

Official Duty People vs. Martos, 211 SCRA 805 (1992) Equipoise Rule Corpuz vs. People, 194 SCRA 73 (1991) Dizon Paminatuan vs. People, July 11, 1994

1. 2.

Right to be heard personally or by counsel Importance of Counsel 1. People vs. Holgado, 85 Phil 752 2. Delgado vs. CA, 145 SCRA 357 (1986)
1. 2. 3. 4.

Improvident Plea of Guilt People vs. Baluyot, 75 SCRA 148 (1977) People vs. Magsi, 124 SCRA 69 (1983) People vs. Besonia, G. R. No. 151284-85, February 5, 2004 People vs. Murillo, G. R. No. 134583, July 14, 2004 Right to Lawyer of Choice People vs. Malunsing, 63 SCRA 493 (1975) Libuit vs. People, G. R. No. 154363, September 13, 2005

1. 2.

Deprivation of Right to be Heard 1. Moslares vs. CA, 291 SCRA 440 (1998) Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation Lack of Arraignment 1. Borja vs. Mendoza, 77 SCRA 422 (1977) 2. People vs. Alcalde, G. R. No. 139225, May 29, 2002 3. People vs. Dy, G. R. No. 115236, January 29, 2002
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Sufficiency of the Information People vs. Sadiosa, 290 SCRA 82, (1998) People vs. Perez, G. R. No. 122764, September 24, 1998 People vs. Lozano, G. R. No. 125080, September 25, 1998 People vs. Ladrillo, G. R. No. 124342, December 8, 1999 People vs. Valdesancho, G. R. No. 137051, May 30, 2001 People vs. Alcaide, G. R. Nos. 139-225-28, May 29, 2002 People vs. Ostia, G. R. No. 131804, February 26, 2003 People vs. Flores Jr., G. R. No. 128823-24, December 27, 2002 People vs. Cachapero, G. R. No. 153008, May 20, 2004 Right to speedy, impartial and public trial Speedy Trial

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Acevedo vs. Sarmiento, 36 SCRA 247 (1970) People vs. Judge Laya, 161 SCRA 327 (1988) Conde vs. Rivera, 45 Phil 650 (1924) Dacanay vs. People, 240 SCRA 490 (1995) People vs. Rivera, G. R. No. 139180, July 31, 2001 Solar Team Entertainment vs. How, G. R. No. 140863, August 22, 2000
| Page

7. 8.

Valencia vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 165996, October 17, 2005 Domondon vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 166606, November 29, 2005 Public trial Garcia vs. Domingo, 52 SCRA 143 (1970) Perez vs. Estrada, A. M. No. 01-4-03-SC, June 29, 2001

1. 2.

Impartial trial 1. Tumey vs. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) 2. Soriano vs. Angeles, G. R. No. 109920, August 31, 2000 Right to confront witnesses 1. U.S. vs. Javier, 37 Phil 449 (1918)
1. 2. 3.

Right to secure attendance of witnesses U.S. vs. Garcia, 10 Phil 384 (1908) People vs. Sandal, 54 Phil 883 (1938) People vs. De Luna, 174 SCRA 204 (1989)

Right to be present during trial Rule 115, Sec. 1 (c) 1. People vs. CA, G. R. No. 140285, September 27, 2006 When presence of the accused is a duty: Arraignment & plea Rule 116, Sec. 1 (b) During trial for identification 1. Aquino vs. Military Commission No. 63 SCRA 546 (1975) 2. People vs. Salas, 143 SCRA 163 (1986) Promulgation of sentence Rule 120, Sec. 6 Exception: Light offenses
IX.

PRIVILEGES AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION Article III, Sec. 17

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Scope covers compulsory testimonial incrimination United States vs. Tan The, 23 Phil 145 (1912) United States vs. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil 735 (1917) People vs. Otadura, 86 Phil 244 (1950) Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil 62 (1920) Bermudez vs. Castillo, 64 Phil 485 (1937) Beltran vs. Samson, 53 Phil 570 (1929) People vs. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 (1994) South Dakota vs. Neville, 459, U.S. 553 (1983) Schemerber vs. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) 10. People vs. Rondero, G. R. No. 125687, December 9, 1999 11. People vs. Gallarde, G. R. No. 133025, February 17, 2000

In what proceedings available 1. Pascual vs. Board of Medical Examiners, 28 SCRA 344 (1969) 2. Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274 (1985) Use Immunity vs. Transactional Immunity Article XIII, Sec. 18 (8) RA No. 1379, Sec. 8
| Page

Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274 (1985) Brown vs. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 Exclusionary rule Article II, Sec. 12 (3)
1.

Effect of denial of privilege by court Chavez vs. CA, 24 SCRA 663 (1968) IX. RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSTION OF CASES Article III, Sec. 16 Article VIII, Sec. 15 Article VII, Sec. 19, par. 3 Article IX, A, Sec. 17 Duterte vs. Sandiganbayan, 289 SCRA 721 (1998) Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, 159 SCRA 70 )1988) Licaros vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 145851, November 22, 2001 Dimayacyac vs. Judge Roxas, G. R. No. 136264, May 28, 2004 Bernat vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 158018, May 20, 2004
X.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

PUNISHMENTS Excessive fines and cruel, degrading and inhuman punishments 1. People vs. Dela Cruz, 92 Phil 906 (1953) 2. People vs. Borja, 91 SCRA 340 (1978) 3. People vs. Dacuycuy, 173 SCRA 90 (1989) 4. Louisiana vs. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947) 5. Ford vs. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) 6. Atkins vs. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)

The death penalty 1. Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, G. R. No. 132601, January 19, 1999 Involuntary servitude Article III, Sec. 18 Aclaracion vs. Gatmaitan, 64 SCRA 131 (1979) Imprisonment for debt Article III, Sec. 20 1. Sura vs. Martime, 26 SCRA 286 (1969) 2. People vs. Nitafan, 207 SCRA 726 (1992) 3. In Re: Habeas Corpus of Benjamin Vergara, G. R. No. 154037, April 30, 2003 Ex post facto laws and bills of attainder Article III, Sec. 22 Kay Villegas Kami, 35 SCRA 429 (1970) People vs. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972) People vs. Sandiganbayan, 211 SCRA 241 (1992) Wright vs. CA, 235 SCRA 341 (1994) Double Jeopardy Article III, Sec. 21 Rule 117, Sec. 7 Rule 120, Sec. 5 Elements
| Page

1. 2. 3. 4.

1.

People vs. Obsania, 23 SCRA 1249 (1968) Subsequent prosecution barred; Exceptions Melo vs. People, 85 Phil 766 (1959) People vs. Yorac, 42 SCRA 230 (1971)(overruled) PSB vs. Bermoy, G. R. No. 151912, September 26, 2005 Heirs of Rillorta vs. Firme, 157 SCRA 518 (1988) People vs. Miraflores, 115 SCRA 586 (1982) People vs. Judge Vergara, 221 SCRA 560 (1993) Tupaz vs. Ulep, G. R. No. 127777, October 1, 1999 Argel vs. Judge Pascua, A. M. No. RTJ-94-1131, August 20, 2001 Jurisdiction of Courts People vs. Bocar, 138 SCRA 166 (1985) Galman vs. Sandiganbayan, 144 SCRA 43 (1986) People vs. Grospe, 157 SCRA 154 (1988) People vs. Judge Santiago, 174 SCRA 143 (1989)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

1. 2. 3. 4.

Identity of Acts 1. People vs. Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)

1. 2.

Identity of Offenses People vs. City Court, 154 SCRA 175 (1987) Nierras vs. Dacuycuy, 181 SCRA 1 (1990) Military Court Proceedings Cruz vs. Enrile, 160 SCRA 702 (1988) Tan vs. Barrios, October 18, 1990

1. 2.

Right to Speedy Trial 1. Que vs. Cosico, 177 SCRA 410 (1989) 2. Caes vs. IAC, 179 SCRA 54 (1989) Administrative & Criminal Proceedings 1. Icasiano vs. Sandiganbayan, 209 SCRA 377 (1992) 2. Vincoy vs. CA, G. R. No. 156558, June 14, 2004 3. People vs. Laraaga, G. R. No. 138874, July 21, 2005 Plea of Guilty to Lesser Offense 1. People vs. Judge Villarama, 210 SCRA 246 (1992) PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Article II, Sec. 15 Article VII, Sec. 18 Villavencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil 778 (1919) Moncupa vs. Ponce Enrile, 141 SCRA 223 (1986) Lansang vs. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448 (1971) Chavez vs. CA, 24 SCRA 663 (1968) Gumabon vs. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420 (1971) In Re: Abadilla, 156 SCRA 92 (1987) Norberto Feria vs. CA, et al, G. R. No. 122954, February 15, 2000 Illusorio vs. Bildner, G. R. No. 139789, May 12, 2000
XI. XII.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Article III, Sec. 4 Id., Sec. 18 (1)

| Page

Purpose 1. United States vs. Bustos, 37 Phil 731 (1918) 2. Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 (1984) 3. New York Times vs. Sullivan, 380 U.S. 51 (1964)
1. 2.

Restrictions Gonzales vs. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835 (1969) Social Weather Station vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 147571, May 5, 2001 Balancing of Interest Test Dangerous Tendency Test Clear and Present Danger Test Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, 170 SCRA 1 (1989) Sanidad vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 90878, January 29, 1990 Reno vs. ACLU, D-96-511, June 26, 1997 Miriam College vs. CA, G. R. No. 127930, December 15, 2000 ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 133486, January 28, 2000 Chavez vs. COMELEC Freedom of Expression, Libel and National Security Babst vs. NIB, 132 SCRA 316 (1984) Espuelas vs. People, 90 Phil 524 (1951) Elizalde vs. CFI, 116 SCRA 93 (1982) Lopez vs. CA, 34 SCRA 116 (1970) PJI vs. Thoenen, G. R. No. 143372, December 13, 2005 Texas vs. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) Borjal vs. CA, 301 SCRA 1 (1999) Baguio Midland Courier vs. CA, G. R. No. 107566, November 25, 2004 Freedom of Expression and the Administration of Justice Cabansag vs. Fernandez, 102 Phil 152 People vs. Alarcon, 69 Phil 265 (1939) In Re: Ramon Tulfo, A. M. No. 90-4-1545-0, April 17, 1990 Nestle Philippines vs. Sanchez, 154 SCRA 542 (1987) In Re: Atty. Emil Jurado, A. M. 90-5-2373, July 12, 1990 Freedom of Expression, Movie Censorship, Obscenity, and the Right to Privacy Gonzales vs. Kalaw Katikbak, 137 SCRA 356 (1985) Lagunzad vs. Sotto, Vda. De Gonzales, 92 SCRA 476 (1979) Ayer Productions vs. Judge Capulong, 160 SCRA 861 (1988) KMU vs. Director General, G. R. No. 167798, April 19, 2006 MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN, G. R. No. 155282, January 17, 2005 Reno vs. ACLU, June 26, 1997, D-96-511 Miller vs. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) Fernando vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 159751, December 6, 2006 Radio Broadcasts Eastern Broadcasting Corp. (DYRE) vs. Dans, 137 SCRA 247 (1985) FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY B. P. Blg. 880 (Public Assembly Act of 1985) Primicias vs. Fugoso, 80 Phil 71 (1948) Navarro vs. Villegas, 31 SCRA 730 (1970) Ignacio vs. Ela, 99 Phil 346 (1956) J.B.I. Reyes vs. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553 (1983) Ruiz vs. Gordon, 126 SCRA 233 (1983) Malabanan vs. Ramento, 129 SCRA 359 (1984)
XIII.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

1.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

| Page

8. 9.

Arreza vs. GAUF, 137 SCRA 94 (1985) German vs. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514 (1985) 10. Acosta vs. CA and CSC, G. R. No. 132088, June 28, 2000 11. Bayan vs. Ermita, G. R. No. 169848, April 25, 2006 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Article III, Sec. 7 Baldoza vs. Dimaano, 71 SCRA 14 (1976) Taada vs. Tuvera, supra Valmonte vs. Belmonte, 170 SCRA 256 (1989) Legaspi vs. CSC, 150 SCRA 530 (1987) Garcia vs. BOI, 177 SCRA 374 (1989)
XIV. XV.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION Article III, Sec. 8 Article IX, Sec. 2 (5) Article XIII, Sec. 3, par. 2 1. Occena vs. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 404 (1985) 2. In Re: Edillon, 84 SCRA (1979) 3. Rotary International vs. Rotary Club, 481 U.S. 537 (1987)
XVI.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION Article III, Sec. 5 Non-establishment Clause Operation of Sectarian Schools Article XIV, Sec. 3 (3) Religious Instruction in Public Schools Article XIV, Sec. 3 (3) Civil Code, Article 359 (1)

1.

Anti-evolution laws Epperson vs. Arkansas, 33 U.S. 27 (1968)

Prayer and Bible Reading in Public Schools 1. Engel vs. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) 2. Abington Schools District vs. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1973) 3. Stone vs. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) Tax Exemption Article VI, Sec. 28 (3) Public Aid to Religion Article VI, Sec. 29 (2) Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201 (1937) Mueller vs. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983) Lemon vs. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) Wallace vs. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) Islamic Dawah Council vs. Executive Secretary, G. R. No. 153888, July 9, 2003

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Intramural Religious Disputes 1. Fonacier vs. CA, 96 Phil 417 (1955)

1.

Free Exercise Clause Estrada vs. Escritor, A. M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006

Flag Salute 1. West Va Board of Education vs. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
| Page

2.

Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent, March 1, 1993

Freedom to Propagate Religious Doctrines 1. American Bible Society vs. City of Manila, 181 Phil 386 (1957) 2. Swaggart Ministries vs. Cal Board of Equalization, 493 U.S. 378 (1990)
1.

Exemption from Union Shop Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54 (1974)

Disqualification for Local Government Officials 1. Pamil vs. Teleron, 86 SCRA 413 (1978)
1.

Religious Test Tocarso vs. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL Article III, Sec. 6 Salonga vs. Hermosa, 97 SCRA 121 (1989) Caunca vs. Salazar, 82 Phil 851 (1940 Manotok vs. CA, 142 SCRA 149 (1986) Marcos vs. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 (1989) Silverio vs. CA, G. R. No. 94284, April 8, 1991 Lorenzo vs. Director of Health, 50 Phil 595
XVII.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

PUBLIC CORPORATIONS
I.

Introduction Article X, 1987 Constitution E. O. 392-1990 (Metropolitan Manila Authority) E. O. 220-1987 RA 7924 (Metropolitan Manila Development Authority) RA 6734 (Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao) RA 6766 (Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region) and RA 8438 Cases:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, vs. Bel- Air Village Association, G. R. No. 134962, March 27, 2000 Alvarez, et al vs. Guingona, et al, G. R. No. 118303, January 31, 1996 Solicitor General vs. MMA, G. R. No. 102782, December 11, 1991 Metropolitan Traffic Command vs. Gonong, G. R. No. 91023, July 13, 1990 Cordillera Regional Assembly vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 93054, December 4, 1990
| Page

6. 7. 8.

Cordillera Board Coalition vs. COA, G. R. Nos. 79956 & 82217, January 29, 1990 Abbas vs. COMELEC, G. R. Nos. 89651-89965, November 10, 1989 Limbona vs. Mangelin, G. R. No. 80391, February 28, 1989
II.

General Principles

A. 1. 2. 3.

RA 7160 The Local Government Code: Policy and Application Effectivity (Sec. 536, LGC) Declaration of Policy (Sec. 2, LGC) Operative Principles of Decentralization (Sec. 3, LGC) Cases:

1. 2. 3. 4. B.

San Juan vs. Civil Service Commission, G. R. No. 92299, April 19, 1991 Ganzon vs. CA, G. R. No. 93252, 93746 & 95245, August 5, 1991 Cordillera Board Coalition vs. COA, G. R. Nos. 79956 & 82217, January 29, 1990 De Leon vs. Esguerra, G. R. No. 78059, August 31, 1987 Scope of Application (Sec. 4, LGC) RA 7227, Sec. 12 (i) Cases:

1. 2. 3. 4. C.

Chiongbian vs. Orbos, G. R. No. 96754, June 22, 1995 Badua vs. Cordillera Bodong Association, G. R. No. 92649, February 14, 1991 Cordillera Board Coalition vs. COA, G. R. No. 79956, January 29, 1990 Abbas vs. COMELEC, G. R. Nos. 89651-89965, November 10, 1989 Rules of Interpretation (Sec. 5, LGC) Cases:

1. 2. 3. 4. D. 1.

Tano vs. Socrates, G. R. No. 110249, August 21, 1997 Secretary of Health vs. CA, G. R. No. 112243, February 23, 1995 Greater Balanga Development Corp. vs. Balanga, G. R. No. 83987, December 27, 1994 Evardone vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 94010, December 2, 1991 Creation, Conversion and Abolition of Local Government Unites Creation and Conversion Sec. 6, LGC (RA 7160) Sec. 7, LGC (RA 7160) Sec. 10, Article X, 1987 Constitution RA 9009, Amending Sec. 450 of RA 7160 Cases:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

MMDA vs. Dante O. Garin, G. R. No. 130230, April 15, 2005 Sultan Osop B. Camid vs. Office of the President, et al, G. R. No. 161414, January 17, 2005 Padilla vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 105120, September 4, 1992 Grito vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 105120, September 4, 1992 Quezon vs. Mendez, G. R. No. 103702, December 6, 1994 Tan vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. L-73155, July 11, 1986 Lopez vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. L-56022 & L-56124, May 31, 1985 Malabang vs. Benito, G. R. No. L-28113, March 28, 1969 Pelaez vs. Auditor General, G. R. No. L-23825, December 24, 1965
| Page

10. League of Cities vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 176951, December 9, 2008

2. 3. 4. E.

Division and Merger (Sec. 8, LGC) Abolition of Local Government Units (Sec. 9, LGC) Naming of Local Government Units and Public Places, Streets and Structures (Sec. 13, LGC) Attributes of Local Government Units Secs. 6-24, LGC 1987 Constitution, Article X, Secs. 1, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16 and 19 LGC, Secs. 6-10. 385-386, 441-442, 449-450, 460-461 RA 8371 RA 7878 RA 4695 Cases:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Alternative Center for Organizational Reforms and Development, Inc., et al vs. Ronaldo Zamora, et al, G. R. No. 144256, June 8, 2005 Jimenez vs. Baz, G. R. No. 105746, December 2, 1996 Alvarez vs. Guingona, G. R. No. 118303, January 31, 1996 Mariano vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 118577 & 118627, March 7, 1995 Candijay vs. CA, G. R. No. 116702, December 28, 1995 Municipality of San Narciso, Quezon vs. Mendez, G. R. No. 103702, December 6, 1994 Grito vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 105120, September 4, 1992 Tobias vs. Abalos, G. R. No. 114783, December 8, 1994 Torralba vs. Sibagat, G. R. No. L-59180, January 29, 1987 10. Malabang vs. Benito, G. R. No. L-28113, March 28, 1969 11. Pelaez vs. Auditor General, G. R. No. L-23825, December 24, 1965 F. Beginning of Corporate Existence (Sec. 14, LGC) G. Political and Corporate Nature of LGUs (Sec. 15, LGC) Cases:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Macasiano vs. Diokno, G. R. No. 97764, August 10, 1992 City of Manila vs. IAC, G. R. No. 71159, November 15, 1989 Naga vs. CA, G. R. No. 37289, April 12, 1989 Cruz vs. CA, G. R. No. L-44178, August 21, 1987 Torio vs. Fontanilla, G. R. No. L-29993, October 23, 1978 General Powers of Local Government Units Police Power (Sec. 16, LGC) Secs. 16, 391, 447, 458, LGC RA 8369, Secs 8 and 11 RA 8425, Sec. 12, RA 8435, Secs. 19 (2nd par.), 90, 99, 101

A. 1.

| Page

Cases:
1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

City of Manila, et al., vs. Lagio, et al. , G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005 Tan, et al. vs. Pereta, G.R. No. 149743, February 18, 2005 Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA, G.R. No. 120865-71, December 7, 1995 Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA, G.R. No. 120865-71, December 7, 1995 Olivarez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 118533, October 4, 1995 Lim v. Pacquing, G.R. No. 115044, January 27, 1994 Patalinghug v. CA, G.R. No. 93654, May 6, 1992 Dacany v. Asistio, G.R. No.93654, May 6, 1992 Tatel v. Municipality of Virac, G.R. No. L-40243, March 11, 1992 Republic v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 45338, July 31, 1991 10. Technology Developers, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 94759, January 21m 1991 11. Binay v. Domingo, G.R. No. 92389, September 11, 1991 12. Estate of Gregoria Fransisco v. CA 95279, July 26, 1991 13. Chua Huat v. CA, G.R. No. 53851, July 9, 1991 14. Sangalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. Nos. 71169, 74376, 76394, 78182, 82281, 6072, August 25, 1989 15. Balacuit v. CFI, G.R. No. L-38429, June 30, 1988 16. Negros Oriental II Electric Cooperative Inc. v. Sangguniang 17. Panglungsod ng Dumaguete, G.R. No. L-72492, Nov. 5, 1987 18. Villanueva v. Castaneda, G.R. No. L-61311, September 21, 1987 19. Phil. Gamefowl Commission v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72969-7-, December 17, 1986 20. De la Cruz v. Paras, G.R. No. L-42571-72, July 25, 1983 21. Quezon City v. Ericta, G.R. No. L-34915, June 24, 1983 22. Ortigas v. Feati Bank, G.R. No. L-24670, December 4, 1979 23. Magtajs v. Pryce Properties, G.R> No. 111097, July 20, 1994 24. Tatel v. Mun. of Virac, G.R. No. L-40243, March 11, 1992 25. Solicitor General v. Metropolitan Manila Authority, G.R. No. 102782, December 11, 1991 26. Sangalang v. CFI of Agusan del Norte, G.R. No. L-38429, June 30, 1988 27. Villacorta v. Bernardo, G.R. No. L-38429, June 30, 1988 28. Matalin Coconut v. Mun. Council of Malabang, Lanao del Sur, G.R. No. L-28138, August 13, 1986 29. Terrado v. CA, G.R. No. L-58794 & L-64989, August 4, 1984 30. De la Cruz v. Paras, G.R. No. L-42571-72, July 25, 1983 31. Baguio Citizens Action v. City Council, G.R. No. L-247247, April 20, 1983 32. Velasco v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-24153, February 14, 1983 33. Citizens Surety v. Puno, G.R. No. L-34669, Decmber 15, 1982 34. Javellana v. Kintanar, G.R. No. L-33169, July 30, 1982 35. Ortigas and Co., Ltd. Partnership v. Feati Bank, G.R. No.L-24670, December 14, 1979 36. Primicias v. Mun. of Urdaneta, G.R. No. L-26702, October 23, 1974 37. U.S. v. Salaveria, G.R. No. 13678, November 12, 1918 Reclassification of Lands (Sec. 20, LGC) RA 6657 Administrative Order No. 363 (1997) RA 8435, Sec. 11
| Page

RA 8550, Sec. 16 Cases: Fortich v. Corona, G.R. No. 131457, April 24, 1998 Closure and Opening of Roads (Sec. 21, LGC)
2.

Cases:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. A.

Piliapil v. CA, G.R. No. 97619, November 26, 1992 Macasiano v.Diokno, G.R. No. 97764, August 10, 1992 Dacanay v. Asistio, G.R. No. 96654, May 6, 1992 Cabrera v. CA, G.R. No. 78673, March 18, 1991 Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. L-44178, August 21, 1987 Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. v. Berciles, G.R. No. L-40474, August 29, 1975 Favis v. City of Baguio, G.R. No. L-29910, April 25, 1969 Power to Tax and Raise Revenues (Sec. 18, LGC) Sec. 130, RA 7160 Cases:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Marcos, G.R. No. 120082, September 11, 1986 Drilon v. Lim, G.R. No. 112479, August 4, 1994 Phil. Petrolium Corp. v. Mun. of Pililia, Rizal, G.R. No. 90776, June 3, 1991 Basco v. Pagcor, G.R. No. 91649, May 14, 1991 Estnislao v. C, Januuart Zotales, G.R. No. 96516, May 8, 1991 Mun. of San Fernando v. Sta. Romana, G.R. No. L-30159, March 31, 1987 City of Cebu v. Urot, G.R. No. 70684, October 10, 1986 Matalin Coconut v. Mun. Councul of Malabang, G.R. No. L-40296, November 21, 1984 Allied Thread Co. v. City Mayor of Manila, G.R. No. L-40296, November 21, 1984 10. Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association v. City of Manila, G.R. No. L-24693, July 31, 1967 11. Compania General de Tabacos v. City of Manila, G.R. No. L-16619, June 29, 1963 12. Marcoin Co. Ltd. V. City of Manila, G.R. No. L-15351, January 28, 1961 13. Physical Thyerapy Org. of the Phil. V. Mun. Board of Manila, G.R. No. L-10448, August 30, 1957 Local Government Taxation Art. X, Secs. 3, 5, 6, and 7, 1987 Constitution Sec. 128, local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) RA 7643, Sec. 2 RA 7716, Secs. 11 and 17 RA 8241 RA 7942, Sec. 82 Cases:

1.

1. 2.

Alvarez v. Guingona, G.R. No. 118303, January 31, 1996 Tuzon & Mapagu v. CA, G.R. No. 90107, August 21m 1992
| Page

3. 4. 5. 2.

Floro Cement v. Gorospe, G.R. No. 46787, August 12, 1991 Basco v. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 921649, May 14, 1991 Estanislao v. Costales, G.R. No. 96516, May 8, 1991 Real Property Taxation (Secs. 197-283, LGC) Cases:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 3. 4. 5.

Antonio Taslusan and Celia Talusan v. Hermiligildo Tayag, et al, G.R. No. 1336798, April 4, 2001 Callanta v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 115253-74, January 30, 1998 NAPOCOR v. Lanao del Sur, G.R. No. 96700, November 19, 1996 MCIA v. Marcos, G.R. No. 120082, September 11, 1996 Ty v. Trampe, G.R. No. 117577, December 1, 1995 Province of Tarlac v. ALcantara, G.R. No. 65230, December 23, 1992 Benguet Corp. v. Central Bank of Assessment Appealsv 100959, June 29, 1992 NationL Dev. Corp. v. Cebu City, G.R. No. 52593, November 5, 1991 Phil. Petroleum Corp. v. Pililia, G.R. No. 90776, June 3, 1991 Collection of taxes (Sec. 165, LGC) Taxpayers Remedies Shares of LGUs in the Prodeeds of National Taxes Secs. 284-288, Local Government Code RA 8245 Cases:

1.

Alternative Center for Organizational Reforms and Devt, Inc. v. Ronaldo Zamora, G.R. No. 144256, June 8, 2005 C. Power of Eminent Domain (Sec. 19, LGC and Rule 67, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) Cases:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Paranaque v. V.M. Realty Corp. , G.R. No. 127820, July 20, 1998 Filstream International Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 125218, Jan 23, 1998 Velarma v. CA, G.R. No. 113615, January 25, 1996 Province of Camarines Sur v. CA, G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993 Mun. of Meycauayan v. IAC , G.R. No. 72126, January 29, 1988 Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-60549, October 26, 1983 City Government of Quezon City v. Ericta, G.R. No. L-34915, June 24, 1983 Republic v. Castelvi, G.R. No. L-20620, October 26, 1983 City of Manila v. Arellano Colleges, G.R. No.L-2929, February 28, 1950 10. City of Manila v. Chinese Community, G.R. No. October 31, 1919 Corporate Powers (Sec 22, LGC) Cases:

A.

1. 2. 3. 4.

City of Manila v. IAC, G.R. No.71159, November 15, 1989 Villanueva v. Castaneda, G.R. No.L-61311, September 21, 1987 Rabuco v. Villegas, G.R. No.L-24661 & L-24915-16, Feb 28, 1974 Salas v. Jarencio, G.R. No.L-29788, Aug 30, 1972
| Page

5. 6. 7. 8. 1.

Province of Zamboanga v. City of Zamboanga, G.R. No.L-24440, March 28, 1968 Legaspi v. A.L. Ammen Transportation, G.R. No.L-22377, Nov 29, 1968 NAWASA v. Dator, G.R. No.L-21911, Sep 29, 1967 Mun. Board v. CTA, G.R. No.L-18946, Dec 12, 26, 1964 To Sue and to be Sued Cases:

1.

Mun. of Pililia, Rizal v. CA, G.R. No.105909, June 28, 1994 2. City Council of Cebu v. Cuizon, G.R. No.L-28972, Oct 31, 1972 To Acquire and Convey Real or Personal Property Cases:

2.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 3.

Macasiano v. Diokno, G.R. No. 97764, Aug 10, 1992 Dacanay v, Asistio, G.R. No. 936594, May 6, 1992 Villanueva v. Castaneda, G.R. No.L-61311, September 21, 1987 Rabuco v. Villegas, G.R. No.L-24661 & L-24915-16, Feb 28, 1974 Salas v. Jarencio, G.R. No. L-29788, Aug 30, 1972 City of Naga v. CA, G.R. No. L-24954, Aug 30, 1972 Espiritu v. Mun. Council of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, G.R. No.L-11014, Jan 21, 1958 To Enter Contracts Cases:

1. 2. 3.

City of Manila v. IAC, G.R. No. 71159, Nov 15, 1989 Sangalang v. IAC, G.R. No.71169, Aug 25, 1989 Ortigas v. Feati Bank, G.R. No.L-24670, Dec 14, 1979 4. Manantan v. Mun. of Luna (La Union) , G.R. No. L-2337, Feb 36, 1949 To Negotiate and Secure Grants (Sec. 23, LGC) Liabilities of Local Government Units Liability for Damages (Sec. 24, LGC) Article 2189, Civil Code Article 2180 (6), Civil Code Article 34, Civil Code Cases:

4.

A.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Tuzon v. MAPAGU, G.R. No. 90107, Aug 2, 1992 Fernando v. CA, G.R. No. 92087, May 8, 1992 San Fernando v. Firme, G.R. No. 52179, April 8, 1991 Guilatco v. City of Dagupan, G.R. No. 61516, March 21, 1989 Jimenez v. City of Manila, G.R. No.71049, May 29, 1987 Pilar v. SangguniNG Bayan of Dasol, Pangasinan, G.R. No. L-63216, march 12, 1984 Torio v. Fontanilla, G.R. No.L-29993, October 23, 1978 City of Manila v. Teotico, G.R. No.L-23052, Jan 29, 1968 Guillergan v. Ganzon, G.R. No. L20818, May 25, 1986 10. Blue Bar Coconut Co. v. City of Zamboanga, G.R. No.L-20425, Dec 4, 1965 11. Gabutas v. Castellanes, G.R. No.L-17323, June 23, 1965
| Page

12. Urgelio v. Osmeta, Jr. , G.R. No. L-14908, Feb 28, 1964 13. Arcel v. Osmeta, Jr. , G.R. No. L-14956, Feb 27, 1961 14. San Diego v. Mun of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, G.R. No.L-9920, Feb 29, 1960 15. Meritt v. Govt of P.I. , G.R. No. 11154, March 21, 1916 16. Mendoza v. De Leon , G.R. No.9596, Feb 11, 1916
B.

Liability for Torts Cases:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Mun. of San Fernando, La Union v. Firme, G.R. No. 52179, April 8, 1991 Palma v. Graciano, G.R. No.L-7240, May 16, 1956 Mednoza v. De Leon , G.R. No.9596, Feb 11, 1916 Torio v. Fontanilla, G.R. No.L-29993, October 23, 1978 City of Manila v. IAC, G.R. No.71159, NOV 15, 1989 San Luis v. CA, G.R. No. 80160, June 26, 1989 Laganapan v. Asedillo, G.R. No. L-28353, Sep 30, 1987 Rama v. CAv L- 44484, March 16, 1987 Pilar v. Sangguniang Bayan of Dasol, pangasinan, G.R. No. L-63216, March 12m, 1984 10. Correa v. CFI of Bulacan , G.R. No. L-46096, July 30, 1979 12. Salcedo v. CA, G.R. No. L-40846, Jan 31, 1978 13. Enciso v. Remo, G.R. No. L-23670, Sep 30, 1969 14. Nemenzo v. Sabillano, G.R. No. L-20977, Sep 7, 1968 1 5. City of Cebu v. Judge Piccio, G.R. No. L-13102, & 14876, Dec 31, 1960 16. Palma v. Graciano, G.R. No. L-7240, May 16, 1956 Liability for Violation of Law Cases:

C.

1. 2. 3. 4. D.

Moday v. CA, G.R. No. 107916, March 31, 1995 City of Manila v. IAC, G.R. No. 71159, Nov 15, 1989 Racho v. Mun. of Iligan, isabela, G.R. No. L-23542, Kan 2, 1968 Abella v. Mun. of Naga, G.R. No. L-3738, Nov 20, 1951 Liability for Contracts Cases:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

City of Manila v. IAC, G.R. No. 71159, Nov 15, 1989 Mun. of Pililia, Rizal v. CA , G.R. No. 105909, June 28, 1994 Laganapan v. Asedillo, G.R. No. L-28353, Sep 30, 1987 Prov. Of Cebu v. IAC 72841, Jan 29, 1987 Correa v. CFI of Bulacan, G.R. No. L-46096, July 30, 1978 Salcedo v. CA, G.R. No.L-40846, Jan 31, 1978 De Guia v. Auditor General, G.R. No. Nemenzo v. Sabillano, G.R. No. L-20977, Sep 7, 1968 San Diego v. Mun. of Naujan, oriental Mindoro, G.R. No. L-9920, Feb 29, 1960 Intergovernmental Relations

1. 2.

Executive Supervision over Local Government Units (Secs. 25-27, LGC) 1987 Constitution, Art. X, Secs. 2 and 4 1987 Constitution, Art. XVIII, Sec. 25
| Page

Cases:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. B.

Ty v. Trampe, G.R. No. 117577, Dec 1, 199 Drilon v. Lim, G.R. No. 112497, Aug 4, 1994 Ganzon v. CA, G.R. No. 93252, Aug 5, 1991 San Juan v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 92299, April 19, 1991 Hebron v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-9124, July 28, 1958 Mondano v. Silvosa, G.R. No. L-7708, may 30, 1995 Relations with the Philippine National Police (Sec. 28, LGC) RZ 6975, as amended by RA 8551 Cases:

1. 2. C. D.

Cabada v. Aluman, G.R. No. 119645, Aug 22, 1996 Carpio v. Executive Sec, G.R. No. 96409, Feb 14, 1992 Inter-Local Government Relations (Secs. 29-33, LGC) Realtions with People and Non- Governmental Organizations (Secs. 34-36, LGC) Local Government Units Barangay (Secs. 384-439, LGC) RA7808 RA 8044 Cases:

A.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

People v. Sion, G.R. No. 109617, Aug 11, 1997 David v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127116 & 128039, June 8, 1997 Garvida v. Sales, G.R. No. 124893, June 31, 1997 Alunan III v. Mirasol, G.R. No. 108399, July 31, 1997 Diu v. CA, G.R. No. 115213, Dec 19, 1995 Mercado v. Board, G.R. No. 109713, June 6, 1995 Associated Labor Unions v. Letrondo-Montejo, G.R. No.111988, Oct 14, 1994 Miguel v. CA, G.R. No. 111749, Feb 23, 1994 Uy v. Contreras, G.R. No. 111416-17, Sep 26, 1994 10. Morata v. Go, G.R. No. L-62339, Oct 27, 1983 Municipality (Secs. 440-447, LGC) Cases:

B.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. C.

Municipality of La Liberitad, Negros Oriental v. Judith Penaflor, G.R. No. 155477, march 18, 2005 Mun. of Jimenez v. Baz, G.R. No. 105746, Dec 2, 1996 Olivarez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 118533, Oct 4, 1995 The Mun. of Candijay, Bohol v. CA, G.R. No. 116702, Dec 28, 1995 Alinsug vs. RTC, G.R. No. 108232, Aug 23, 1993 City Cases:
| Page

1. 2. 3.

Alavarez, et al., v. Guingona, et al., , G.R. No. Jan 21, 1996 Gordon v. Veridiano II, G.R. No. L-55230, Nov 8, 1988 Negros Oriental II Electronix Cooperative Inc. v. Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Dumaguete, G.R. No. L-72492, Nov 5, 1987 Province (Secs. 459-468, LGC) Cases:

D.

1. 2.

Caram v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 105214, Aug 30, 1933 Grito v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 105210, Sep 4, 1992

Elective Officials (Secs. 39-75, LGC) RA 8553 1. Galido v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 95346, Jan 18, 1991
A.

Qualifications (Sec. 39, LGC) Cases:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Grego v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 1259955, June 19, 1997 Frivaldo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996 Labo v. COMELEC, and Ortega, G.R. No. 105111 & 105384, July 3, 1992 Labo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 86564, Aug 1, 1989 Frivaldo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 87193, June 23, 1989 RA 8295

B.

Disqualifications (Sec. 40, LGC) Cases:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. C.

Gayo v. Verceles, G.R. No. 150477, Feb 28, 2005 Nolasco v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 122250 & 122258, June 21, 1997 Rodriguez v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120099, July 24, 1996 De la Torre v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 121592, July 5, 1996 Malinao v. Reyes, G.R. No. 117618, march 29, 1996 Reyes v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120905, March 7, 1996 Marquez v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 112889, Apr 18, 1995 Manner of Election (Sec. 41, LGC) Date of Election (Sec. 42, LGC) Term of Office (Sec. 43, LGC) RA 6679 RA 8542 1987 Constitution, Art. X, Sec. 8 Cases:
| Page

D.

E.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. F.

Socrates v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154512, Nov 12, 2002 Benjamin U. Borja v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133495, Sep 3, 1998 David v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127116 & 128039, April 8, 1997 Osmeta v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 100318, July 30, 1991 Labo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 86564, Aug 1, 1989 Vacancies and Succession Cases:

1. 2. 3. 1.

Docena v. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Eastern Samar, G.R. No. 96817, June 25, 1991 Menzon v. Petilla, G.R. No. 90762, may 20, 1991 Labo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 86564, Aug 1, 1989 Permanent Vacancies (Secs. 44-45, LGC) Cases:

1. 2. 3. 2.

Faritas, et al. v. Barba, et al., , G.R. No. 116763, APRIL 19, 1996 Victoria v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 109005, Jan 10, 1994 Menzon v. Petilla, G.R. No. 90762, May 20, 1991 Temporary Vacancies (Sec. 46, LGC) Local Legislation Secs. 48-59, LGC The Sanggunians Cases: Romeo Gamboa v. Marcelo Aguire, G.R. No. 134213, July 20, 1999 De los Reyes v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 121215, Nov 13, 1997 Moday v. CA, G.R. No. 107916, March 31, 1995 Magtajas v. Pryce, G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994 Tatel v. Virac, G.R. No.L-40243, March 7, 199 Solocitor Genral v. Metroplitan Manila Authority, G.R. No. 102782, Dec 11, 199 Casito v. CA, G.R. No. 91192, Dec 2, 1991 Ortiz v. Posadas, G.R. No. 33885, March 3, 1931

A.

B.

Local Initiative And Referendum (Secs. 120-127, LGC) RA 6735 Cases: 1.Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997 2. Subic bay Metropolitan Authority v. COMELEC, et al. , G.R. No. 125416, Sep 26, 1996 3. Garcia v. COMELEC , G.R. No. 111230, Sep 30, 1994 Disciplinary Actions RA 6770 Cases:
| Page

1.

Salalima v. Guingona, G.R. No. 117589=92, May 22, 1996 2. Aguinaldo v. Santos, G.R. No. 94115, Aug 21, 1992 3. Espiritu v. Melgar, G.R. No. 100874, Feb 13, 1992 4. Ganzon v. CA, G.R. No. 93252, Nov 8, 1991 5. Ganzon v. CA, G.R. No. 93252, 93746, 45245, Aug 5, 1991 6. Docena v. Sanggunian, G.R. No. 96817, June 25, 1991 7. Layno v. Sandignabayan, G.R. No. L-65848, May 24, 1985 Grounds for Disciplinary Action Sec. 60 LGC Cases: Regidor v. Chiongbian, G.R. No. 85815, May 19, 1989 Form and Filing of Administrative Complaints (Sec. 61, LGC) Notice of Hearing (Sec. 62, LGC) Preventive Suspension (Sec. 63, LGC) Salary of Respondent Pending Suspension (Sec. 64, LGC) Rights of Respondent (Sec. 65, LGC) Form and Notice of Decision (Sec. 66, LGC) Cases: 1. Malinao v. Reyes, et al. , G.R. No. 117618, March 29, 1996 Administrative Appeals (Sec. 67, LGC) Execution Pending Appeal (Sec. 68, LGC) Recall Secs. 69-75, LGC RA No. 9244 (Elimination of Preparatory Recall Assembly as Mode of Instituting Recall) Cases: 1. Socrates v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154512, Nov 12, 2002 2. Jovito O. Claudio v. COMELEC, G.R. No. May 4, 2000 3. Jariol v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127456, March 20, 1997 4. Malonzo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127066, March 11, 1997 5. Angobung v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 126576, Nov 5, 1997 6. Paras v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 123169, Nov 4, 1996 7. Garcia v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 111511, Oct 5, 1993 8. Bince v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 106291, Feb 9, 1993 9. Evardone c. COMELEC, G.R. No. 94010, Dec 2, 1991 10. Morfe v. MUTUC, G.R. No. L-20387, Jan 31, 1968 By Whom Exercised(Sec. 69, LGC) Initiation of the Recall Process (Sec. 70, LGC) Election on Recall (Sec. 71, LGC) Effetcivity of Recall (Sec. 72, LGC) Prohibition from Resignation (Sec. 73, LGC) Limitations on Recall (Sec. 74, LGC) Expenses Incident to Recall Ekections (Sec. 75, LGC) Human Resources and Development (Secs. 76-97, LGC) RA 6713

A.

1.

| Page

Cases:
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

1. Ramos v. CA, G.R. No. 99425, March 3, 1997 Drilon v. Lim, G.R. No. 112497, Aug 4, 1997 Pililia v. CA, G.R. No. 105909, June 28, 1994 Bunye v. Escareal, G.R. No. 110216, Sep 10, 1993 Alinsug v. RTC, G.R. No. 108232, Aug 23, 1993 Javellana v. DILG, G.R. No. 102549, Aug 10, 1993 Flores v. Drilon , G.R. No. 104732, JUNE 22, 1993 Javellana v. DILG, G.R. No. 102549, August 10, 1992 Macalincag v. CHang, G.R. No. 96058, May 6, 1992 10. Espiritu v. Melgar, G.R. No. 100874, Feb 13, 1992 11. Mendez v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 95575, Dec 23, 1991 12. Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr. , G.R. No. 96859, Oct 15, 1991 13. Ganzon v. Ca, G.R. No.L-48757, May 30, 1988 14. Ramos v. CA, G.R. No.L-53766, Oct 30, 1981 Additional Cases:

1. LTO v. City of Butuan, G.R. No. 13152, Jan 20,2000 2. Acebedo Optical Co., Inc. , G.R. No. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100152, March 31, 2000 3. Pimentel, Jr., v Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, July 19, 2000 4. Thelma Gaminde v. Commission on Audit , G.R. No. 140335, Dec 13, 2000 5. Alexis canonizado, et al., v Hon. Alexander Aguirre, et al, G.R. No. 133132, Jan 25, 2000 6. Gloria v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131012, April 21, 1999 7. Alvin Garcia v. Hon. Arturo Mih=jica, et al. , G.R. No. 139043, April 29, 1999 8. Malonzo v. Zamora, G.R. No. 137718, July 27, 1999 9. Lonzanida v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 135150, July 28, 1999 10. Gamboa v. Aguirre, Jr. , G.R. No. 134213, July 20, 1999 11. Ramon Alquizola, Sr. v. Gallardo Ocol, G.R. No. 132413, G.R. No. Aug 27, 1999 12. Llorente v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 122166, March 11, 1998 13. Segovia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 124067, March 27, 1998 14. Constantino v. Desierto, G.R. No. 127457, April 13, 1998 15. Paraaque v. V.M. Realy Corp. , G.R. No. 127820, July 20, 1998

| Page

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW General Principles Art II, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution -Gonzales v. Hechanova, G.R. No. L-21897, Oct 22, 1963 -Ichong v, Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957 -Kuroda v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1948 -Co Kim Cham v. VCaldez Tan Keh, G.R. No. L-5, Sep 17, 1945 -Republic of Indonesia v. Viznzon, G.R. No. 154705, June 26, 2003 - Sison v. Board of Accountancy, 85 Phil 276(1949) -Bank of America v. American Realty Corp., 321 SCRA 659(1999) Sources of International Law -United Nations Charter of 1945 -Sec. 2, Art. II, 1987 Institution Sec. 4(2), Sec. 5 (2) (b), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution -Guerrero Transport System v. Blaylock, 71 SCRA 621(1976) -Firdausi Abbas v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 89651, 89965, Nov 10, 1989 -Mijares v. Ranada, 455SCRA 397(2005) -Hilton v. Guyot, 159 US 213 -Yao Kee v. Sy-Gonzales, 167 SCRA 736(1988) -The Paquete Habana, 175 US 677 -Gonzales v. Hechanova, G.R. No. L-21897, Oct 22, 1963 -Ichong v, Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957 -Kuroda v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1948 -Co Kim Cham v. VCaldez Tan Keh, G.R. No. L-5, Sep 17, 1945 The International Community -The united Nations Charter, June 25, 1945 The Concept of the State -People v. Pefecto, G.R. No. 18463, Oct 4, 1922 -Dismangcop v. Datumanong, 444 SCRA 203 (2004)
| Page

-People v. Lol-lo, 43 Phil 19(1922) -Republic v. Cibrario, 235 NY 255 -Haw Pia v. China Banking Corp., 80 Phil 604(1948) Recognition -Republic vs. SandiganbayN, G.R. No. 104768, Jukly 21, 2003 -Co Kim Chua v. Valdez Tan Keh, G.R. No. L-5, Nov 16, 1945 -Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 US 250(1897) -Alcantara v. Director of Prisons 75Phil 494(1995) -Etorma v. Ravelo, 78 Phil 145(1947) Rights of States -U.N. Charter -Intl. Catholic Migration Commission v. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 85750, Sep 28, 1990 -Southeast Asia Fisheries Devt. Center v. NLRC, G.R. No. 82631, Feb 23, 1995 -United States v. Guinto, G.R. No. 76607, Feb 26, 1990 -Com. Of Intl. Revenue v. Gotanco & Sons Inc. & CA, G.R. No. L-31092, Feb 27, 1987 -United States v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-35645, May 22, 1985 -Jose B.L. Reyes v. Ramon Bagatsing, G.R. No. L-65366, Nov 9, 1983 -Baer v. Tizon, G.R. No. L-24294, May 3, 1974 -World Health Organization v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-35131, nov 29, 1972 -Reagan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 30SCRA968(1969) -People v. GOZO, 53 SCRA 476(1973) -Laurel v. Misa, G.R. No. 77 Phil 856(1947) -People v. GOZO, 53 SCRA 476(1973) -Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 15 (1997) -Wright v. Court of Appeals, 235 SCRA 341(1994) -U.S. v. Puruganan, 389 SCRA 623(2002) -Santos v. Court of Appeals, 210 SCRA 256(1992) -Holy See v. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524(1994) -Oh Hek How v. Republic, 29 SCRA94 -Zapanta v. Local Civil Registrar, 237 SCRA 25(1994) Act of State Doctrine -Oejten v. Central Leather -Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino -Underhill v. Hernandez, supra Territory and Jurisdiction -1935 Constitution -Art. I, 1973 Constitution -Art. I, 1987 Constitution -Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies of the UN -Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations -Convention on the Territorical Sea and the Contyguous Zone -RD 1596 -RA 3246 -RA 5446 -Treaty of Paris, Dec. 10, 1898 -Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space -UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, April 32, 1982, ratified by the Phils. In Aug 19:3 -Southeast Asian Fisheries Devt Centur v. NLRC-People v. GOZO, 53 SCRA 476(1973)G. R. No. 82631, Feb 23, 1995 -World Health Organizationv. Aquino, G.R. No. L-35131, Nov 29, 1972 -Time, inc. v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-28882, May 31, 1971 -People v. Wong Cheng, G.R. No. L-18924, Oct 19, 1922
| Page

-Dizon v. Ryubus Command, 81 Phil 286(1948) -Asaali v. Commissioner of Customs, 26 SCRA 382(1968) -Calme v. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 285(1996) The Right of Legation -RP-US Treaty on Gen Relations, July 4 , 194 -Parreno v. Mcgrannery, L-4263, March 12, 1959 -Republic vs. Sandoval, 220 SCRA 124(1993) -Us v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644(1990) -Holy See v. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524(1994) -USA v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487(1987) -De Permo-Santos v. Macaraig, G.R. No. 94070, April 10, 1992 -Intl Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, G.R. No. 87750 -Intl Catholic MIgrsation Commission v. Calleja, G.R. No. 87750, Sep 28, 1990 -Miucher v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90314, Nov 27,19y0 -Syquia v. lopez, G.R. No. L-1648, Aug 17, 1949 -USA v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-35645, May 22, 1985 -World Health Organizationv. Aquino, G.R. No. L-35131, Nov 29, 1972 -Roniklijke\uchtvaart Maatshappij (KLM) v. CA and Mendoza, G.R. No. L-31150, July 22, 1975 -Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120334 & 120337, Jan 20, 1998 -Chinese Flour Importers Assoc. v. Price Stabilization Board, G.R. No. L-4465, July 12, 1951 -US v. Reyes, 219 SCRA 192(1993) -Shauf v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 713(1990) -Baer vs. Tizon, G.R. No. L-24924, May 3, 1974 -Lansang v. CA, G.R. No. 326 SCRA 259(2000) -Director of Telecom v. Aligaen 33 SCRA 368(1970) -Commissioner of Public HIgways v. Calleja 190 SCRA 130 (1990) -Seafdec v. NLRC, 241 SCRA 598(1995) -Laza v. UN 242 SCRA 681(1995) -Department of Foreign Affairs v. NLRC 262 SCRA 39(1996) Treaties -Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, Oct 10, 2000 -Jeffrey Liang v. People, G.R. No. 125865, March 26, 2001 -Cuevas v. Munoz, G.R. No. 140520, Dec 18, 2000 -CIR vs Court of Ap[peals & SC Johnson & Sons, Inc. , G.R. No. 127q0S, June 25, 1999 -Santos vs. Northwest Orient Airlines, G. R. No. 127905, June 25, 1999 -La Chemise vs. Fernandez, G. R. Nos. L-63796-97, May 21, 1984 -Agustin vs. Edu, G. R. No. L-49112, February 2, 1979 -Guerreros Transport Services Inc. vs. Blaylock Transport Services Employees Association Kilusan, G. R. No. L-41518, June 30, 1976 -Commissioner of Customs vs. Eastern Sea Trading, G. R. No. L-14279 -In Re: Arturo Efren Garcia, UNAV, August 15, 1961 -People vs. Hernandez, G. R. No. 86564, August 1, 1989 -Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration, G. R. No. L-21289, October 4, 1971 Treatment of Aliens -Extradition Treaty with Indonesia (1976) -Extradition Treaty with Australia (1988) -Sec. 12, Rule 24 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines -Borovsky vs. Commissioner of Immigration, G. R. No. L-4352, September 28, 1951 -Secretary of Justice, vs. Hon. Ralph Lantion, G. R. No. 139465, January, 18, 2000 -Government of United States of America vs. Hon. Purganan, G. R. No. 148571, September 24, 2002 Settlement of International Disputs -U.N. Charter
| Page

War -Geneva Convention -Charter of the United Nations, Article 2 -Arellano vs. Domingo, G. R. No. L-8671, July 26, 1957 -Kare vs. Imperial, G. R. No. L-7906, October 22, 1957 -Banaag vs. Qingson Encarnacion, G. R. No. L-493, April 19, 1949 -Brownell vs. Bautista, G. R. No. 6801, September 28, 1954 -Fernandez vs. Fernandez, G. R. No. L-9141, September 25, 1956 -Filipinas Compania de Seguros vs. Christern Huenfield, G. R. No. L-2294, May 25, 1951 -Haw Pia vs. China Banking Corporation, G. R. No. L-554, April 1948 -Hilado vs. De la Costa, G. R. No. L-409, January 20, 1947 -Navarre vs. Barredo, G. R. No. L-8860, May 21, 1956 -Ognir vs. Director of Prisons, G. R. No. L-49, November 12, 1945 -Republic vs. Lara, G. R. No. L-508, November 29, 1954 -Yamashita vs. Styer, G. R. No. L-129, December 19, 1945 -Co Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh, G. R. No. L-5, September 17, 1945

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW A. General Principles 1. E. O. No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987)

2.

Two-Fold Functions of the Government:

| Page

Constituent.- such constituent functions are exercised by the State as attributes of sovereignty, such as those relating to the maintenance of peace and the prevention of crime, those regulating property and property rights, those relating to the administration of justice and the determination of political duties of citizens, and those relating to national defense and foreign relations. b. Ministrant. - are exercised by the State to promote the welfare, progress and prosperity of the people.
a. 3. In Bacani vs. NACOCO, the issue of whether or not a GOCC (NACOCO) is a government entity within the purview of Sec. 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court held that GOCC is not a government entity for the simple reason that they do not come under the classification of municipal or public corporation. While NACOCO was organized with the purpose of "adjusting the coconut industry to a position independent of trade preferences in the United States" and of providing "Facilities for the better curing of copra products and the proper utilization of coconut by-products", a function which our government has chosen to exercise to promote the coconut industry, however, it was given a corporate power separate and distinct from our government, for it was made subject to the provisions of our Corporation Law in so far as its corporate existence and the powers that it may exercise are concerned (sections 2 and 4, Commonwealth Act No. 518). It may sue and be sued in the same manner as any other private corporations, and in this sense it is an entity different from our government. (Bacani vs. NACOCO, G. R. No. L-9657, November 29, 1956). 4. In

Central Bank vs. CA, it was held that the term "National Government" may not be deemed to include the Central Bank. Under the Administrative Code itself, the term "National Government" refers only to the central government, consisting of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the government, as distinguished from local governments and other governmental entities and is not synonymous, therefore, with the terms "The Government of the Republic of the Philippines" or "Philippine Government", which are the expressions broad enough to include not only the central government but also the provincial and municipal governments, chartered cities and other government-controlled corporations or agencies, like the Central Bank. (I, Martin, Administrative Code, p. 15.).
The contention, therefore, of Central Bank that a certification of availability of funds by the Auditor General as embodied under Section 607 of the Revised Administrative Code is required for the perfection of contract entered into in any projects or undertakings has not basis there was no perfected contract,

5.
To be sure the Central Bank is a government instrumentality. But it was created as an autonomous body corporate to be governed by the provisions of its charter, Republic Act 265, "to administer the monetary and banking system of the Republic." (Sec. 1) As such, it is authorized "to adopt, alter and use a corporate seal which shall be judicially noticed; to make contracts; to lease or own real and personal property, and to sell or otherwise dispose of the same; to sue and be sued; and otherwise to do and perform any and all things that may be necessary or proper to carry out the purposes of this Act. The Central Bank may acquire and hold such assets and incur such liabilities as result directly from operations authorized by the provisions of this Act, or as are essential to the proper conduct of such operations." (Sec. 4) It has capital of its own and operates under a budget prepared by its own Monetary Board and otherwise appropriates money for its operations and other expenditures independently of the national budget. It does not depend on the National Government for the financing of its operations; it is the National Government that occasionally resorts to it for needed budgetary accommodations. Under Section 14 of the Bank's charter, the Monetary Board may authorize such expenditures by the Central Bank as are in the interest of the effective administration and operation of the Bank." Its prerogative to incur such liabilities and expenditures is not subject to any prerequisite found in any statute or regulation not expressly applicable to it. Relevantly to the issues in this case, it is not subject, like the Social Security Commission, to Section 1901 and related provisions of the Revised Administrative Code which require national government constructions to be done by or under the supervision of the Bureau of Public Works. (Op. of the Sec. of Justice No. 92, Series of 1960) For these reasons, the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code invoked by the Bank do not apply to it.
virtual law library

4.

-Central Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-33022, April 22, 1975
| Page

-Blas F. Ople vs. Ruben D. Torres, G. R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998 -Edu vs. Ericta, G. R. No. 32096, October 24, 1970 Delegation of Powers to Administrative Agencies -Cia. Gral. De Tabacos vs. Board of Public Utility, G. R. No. 11216, March 6, 1916 -United States vs. Tang Ho, G. R. No. L-17122, February 27, 1922 -Alegre vs. Collector of Customs, G. R. No. 30783, August 27, 1929 -People vs. Vera, G. R. No. 45685, November 16, 1937 -Calalang vs. Williams, G. R. No. 47800, December 2, 1940 -Cervantes vs. Auditor-General, G. R. No. L-4043, May 26, 1952 -Pangasinan Trans. Co. vs. Public Service Com., G. R. No. 47065, June 26, 1940 -Lovina vs. Moreno, G. R. No. L-17821, November 29, 1963 -Pelaex vs. Auditor General, G. R. No. L- 23825, December 24, 1965 Separation of Powers -Meralco vs. Pasay Transport Co., G. R. No. 37878, November 25, 1932 -Noblejas vs. Teehankee, G. R. No. L-28790, April 29, 1968 -Garcia vs. Macaraig, Jr., Adm. Case No. 198-J, May 31, 1971 -Macariola vs. Asuncion, Adm. Case No. 133-J, May 31, 1982 -In Re: Rodolfo U. Manzano, Adm. Matter No. 88-7-1861-RTC, October 5, 1988 Powers and Functions of Administrative Bodies A. Rule-making Power -Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, G. R. No. L-12426, February 16, 1959 -Pascual vs. Commissioner of Customs, G. R. No. L-10979, June 30, 1959 -Teoxon vs. Members of the Board of Administrators (PVA), G. R. No. L-25619, June 30, 1970 -Manuel vs. General Auditing Office, G. R. No. L-28952, December 29, 1971 -Lupangco vs. CA, G. R. No. L-77372, April 29, 1988 -Montecillo vs. Civil Service Commission, G. R. No. 131954, June 28, 2001 -Smart Communications, Inc. vs. NLRC, G. R. Nos. 151908 & 152063, August 12, 2003 1. Internal Rules -Maglunob vs. NAFCO, G. R. No. L-6203, February 26, 1954 -Interprovincial Autobus Co., Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, G. R. No. L-6741, January 31, 1956 2. Penal Regulations -United States vs. Barrias, G. R. No. 4349, September 24, 1908 -United States vs. Tupasi Molina, G. R. No. 9878, December 24, 1914 -People vs. Maceren, G. R. No. L-32166, October 18, 1977 Interpretative Rules -Hilado vs. Collector, G. R. No. L-9408, October 31, 1956 -Victorias Milling Co., Inc. vs. Social Security Systems, G. R. No. L-1674, March 17, 1962 -Philippine Blooming Mills vs. SSS, G. R. No. L-21223, August 31, 1966 B. Quasi-judicial Functions 1. Inspection, Investigation and Adjudication
| Page

-Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial Relations, G. R. No. 46496, February 27, 1940 -Carmelo vs. Ramos, G. R. No. L-17778, November 30, 1962 -Vivo vs. Montesa, G. R. No. L-24576, July 29, 1968 -PLDT vs. PSC, G. R. No. L- 26762, L-26765, L-26779 & L-26799, August 31, 1970 -Evangelista vs. Jarencio, G. R. No. L-29274, November 27, 1975 -Civil Aeronautics Board vs. Philippine Air Lines,, G. R. No. L-40245, April 30, 1975 -Antipolo Realty Corp. vs. National Housing Authority, G. R. No. L-50444, August 31, 1987 -RCPI vs. NLRC, G. R. No. 135945, March 7, 2001 2. Determination of Sufficiency of Standards -People vs. Rosental, G. R. No. 46076 & 46077, June 12, 1939 -International Hardwood & Veneer Co. vs. Pangil Federation of Labor, G. R. No. 47178, November 25, 1940 -Cervantes vs. Auditor General, G. R. No. L-4043, May 26, 1952 -PACU vs. Secretary of Education, G. R. No. L-5279, October 31, 1955 C. Executive and Administrative Functions 1. Issuance or Revocation of Licenses, Permits and Leases -Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. vs. Torres, G. R. No. 101279, August 6, 1992 -Gonzalo Sy Trading vs. CBP, G. R. No. L-41480, April 30, 1976 -Pantranco South Express, Inc. vs. Board of Transportation, G. R. No. 49664,67, November22, 1990 -Cohon vs. CA, G. R. No. 83542, August 20, 1990 2. Fixing of Rates, Wages and Prices -Ychausti Co. vs. Public Utility Commissioner, G. R. No. 17665, January 9, 1922 -Panay Autobus Co. vs. Philippine Railway Co., G. R. No. L-16005, April 28m 1962 -Meralco vs. Public Service Commission, G. R. No. L-19850, January 30,1964 -Bautista vs. Board of Energy, G. R. No. 75016, January 13, 1989 -Philippine Communications Satellite Corp. vs. Alcuaz, G. R. No. 84818, December 18, 1989 -Maceda vs. Energy Regulatory Board, G. R. No. 95203-05 & 95119-21, December 18, 1990 D. Governmental or Proprietary Functions -Blaquera vs. Alcala, G. R. No. 109406, September 11, 1998 Administrative Adjudication
A.

Constitutional Provisions

1. Cardinal Primary Rights -Ang Tibay vs. CIR, G. R. No. 46496, February 27, 1940 -Danan vs. Aspillera, G. R. No. L-17305, November 28, 1962 -Air Manila vs. Balatbat, G. R. No. L-29064, April 29, 1971 -Villa vs. Lazaro, G. R. No. 69871, August 24, 1990 -Lupo vs. Administrative Action Board, G. R. No. 89687, September 26, 1990
B. 1.

Notice and Hearing

When required -Vigan Electric vs. Public Service Com., G. R. No. L-19850, January 30, 1964
| Page

-Macabuhay vs. Manuel, G. R. No. L-40872, December 15, 1978 -Ricamara vs. Subido, G. R. No. L-28801, June 25, 1980 -Mabuhay Textile Mills, Corp. vs. Ongpin, G.R. No. L-67784, February 28, 1986 When not Required -Suntay vs. People, G. R. No. L-9430, june 29, 1957 -De Bisschop vs. Galang, G. R. No. L-18365, may 31, 1963 -Assistant Executive Secretary vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 7671, January 9, 1989
2.

3. Rules of Procedure -Goseco vs. Court of Industrial Relations, G. R. No. 46673, September 13, 1939 -Phil. Lawyers Assn. vs. Agrava, G. R. No. L-12426, Februrary 16, 1959 -Maribojoc vs. Pastor de Guzman, G. R. No. L-14724, October 26, 1960 4.Form of Judgement -Tacloban Electric vs. Medina, G. R. No. L-24362, February 26, 1968 -Serrano vs. Public Service Commission, G. R. No.L-24165, August 30, 1968 -Gracilla vs. Court of Industrial Relations, G. R. No. L-24489, September 28, 1968 5. Board to deliberate collectively not individually -Arocha vs. Vivo, G. R. No. L-24844 & L-24853, October 26, 1967 6. Promulgation of Judgment -Neria vs. Commissioner of Immigration,, G. R. No. L-24800, May 27, 1968 -Lianga Bay Logging CO. vs. Lopez Enage, G. R. No. L-30637, July 16. 1987 7. Evidence must be substantial -Police Commission vs. Lood, G. R. No. L-34367, February 24, 1984 -Meralco vs. National Labor Commission, G. R. No. L=60054, July 2, 1991 -Banco Filipino vs. Monetary Board, Central Bank, G. R. No. 70054, December 11, 1991 8. Decision Making -Zambales Chromite Mining Co., vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-49711 -De Leon vs. Heirs of Reyes, G. R. No. L-74687, November 12, 1987 -Mison vs. Commission on Audit, G. R. No. 91429, July 13, 1990 -Aquino-Sarmiento vs. Morato, G. R. No. 92541, November 13, 1991, November 7, 1979 9. Administrative Appeals -Administrative Code of 1987, Chapter 4, Book 7, Secs. 19-24 -Meris vs. Cuesta, G. R. No. L-28780, February 18, 1970 -Mendez vs. Civil Service Commission, G. R. No. 95575, December 23, 1991 -Fabian vs. Desierto, G. R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998 -Miralles vs. Go, G. R. No. 139943, January18, 2001 B. Jurisdiction and Competence -RCPI vs. Board of Communications, G. R. No. L-43653 & L-45378, November -Guerzon vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-77707, August 8, 1988 -Gordon vs. Veridiano II, G. R. No. L-55230, November 8, 1988 -Tejada vs. Homestead Property Corporation, G. R. No. 79622, September 29, 1989 -Albano vs. Reyes, G. R. No. 83551, July 11, 1989 -Lao Gi vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 81798, December 29, 1989 C. Objectivity and Impartiality -Nuclear Free Philippines vs. National Power Corp., G. R. Nos. L-68474 & L-70632, February 11, 1986 D. Administrative and judicial proceedings arising from the same facts
| Page

-Office of the Court Administrator vs. Enriquez, Adm. Matter No. P-89-290, January 29, 1993 E. Rules of Evidence -Halili vs. Floro, G. R. No. L-3465, October 25, 1951 -Buan vs. Pampanga Bus Co., G. R. No. L-7996-99, May 31, 1956 -Rizal Light & Ice Co., Inc vs. Mun. of Morong, Rizal, G. R. No. L-20993 & L-21221, September 28, 1968 F. Fes judicata -DOJ Opinion No. 143-60 -DOJ Opinion No. 23-52 -DOJ Opinion No. 91-58 -Ipekdjian Merchandising Co. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, G. R. No. L-15430 -Ong Se Lun vs. Board of Immigration, G. R. No. L-6017, September 16, 1954 -Commissioner of Immigration vs. Fernandez, G. R. No. L-22696, May 29, 1964 -Meris vs. Cuesta, G. R. No. L-28780, February 18, 1970 -San Luis vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 80160, June 26, 1989 G. Constitutional Prohibition -Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution, Sec. 14 H. Administrative settlement of dispute between government offices -Phil. Veterans Investment Development Corporation vs. Velez, G. R. No. 84295, July 18, 1991 Administrative Enforcement and Sanctions A. Methods of Enforcement a. Investigation -PD 1296, Sec. 185(i) -PD 902-A, Sec. 6(e), Sec. 6(b) -PD 442, as amended, Arts. 218(b), (d), 229 -Public Service Act (CA 146), as amended, Sec. 39 -RA 1267, Sec. 8 -Guevarra vs. Comelec, G. R. No. L-12596, July 31, 1958 -Masangkay vs. Comelec, G. R. No. L-13827, September 28, 1962 -Carmelo vs. Armando Ramos, G. R. No. L-17778, November 30, 1962 -Cabal vs. Kapunan, Jr., G. R. No. L-19052, December 29, 1962 -Pascual Jr. vs. Board of Medical Examiners, G. R. No. L-25018, May 26, 1969 -Matute vs. CA, G. R. Nos. L-26751, L-26085 & L-26106, January 31, 1969 -Central Bank vs. Cloribel, G. R. No. L-26971, April 11, 1972 -Evangelista vs. Jarencio, G. R. No. L-29274, November 27, 1975 b. Summary Powers -Churchill vs. Rafferty, G. R. No. 10572, December 21, 1915 c. Administrative Sanctions -CA 146, Sec. 21, 16 (a), 16 (n) -CA 466, as amended -CA 613 -RA 1937 -Civil Aeronautics Board vs. Philippine Air Lines, G. R. No. L-40245, April 30, 1975 d. Judicial Action

| Page

-CA 83, Sec. 31 (e) -Act 3428 -RA 2382, Sec. 29, Medical Act of 1959 -Pastoral vs. WCC, G. R. No. L-12903, July 31, 1961 -Fuentes vs. Binamira, G. R. No. L-14965, August 31, 1961 A. Constitutional Provisions -Sec. 1, Article III, 1987 Constitution -1987 Administrative Code 1. Finality of Administrative Action -King Integrated Security Services, Inc., et al vs. Galo S. Gatan, G. R. No. 143813, July 7, 2003 -Cosmos Bottling Corp. vs. NLRC, et al, G. R. No. 146397, July 1, 2003 -Republic of the Philippines Represented by Energy Regulatory Board vs. Meralco, G. R. Nos 141314 & 141369, April 9, 2003 -Manuel vs. Villena, G. R. No. L-28128, February 27, 1971 -San Miguel vs. Secretary of Labor, G. R. No. L-39195, May 16, 1975 -Roberto Dollar Cp. vs. Tuvera, G. R. No. L-58910, July 5, 1983 2. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies -PHIC vs. Chinese General Hospital, et al, G. R. No. 163123, April 15, 2005 -DAR vs. Apex Investment and Financing Corp., G. R. No. 149422, April 10, 2003 -Wenonah L. Marquez-Azarcon vs. Charito Bunagan, et al, G. R. No. 124611, March 20, 2003 -Gualberto Castro vs. Ricardo Gloria, G. R. No. 132174, August 20, 2001 -Joel Biton-Onon vs. Judge Nelia Yap Fernandez, G. R. 139813, January 31, 2001 -Heirs of Pedro Atega vs. Ernesto Garilao, G. R. No. 133806, April 20, 2001 -Gonzales vs. CA, G. R. No. 106028, May 9, 2001 -Cuevas vs. Bacal, G. R. No. 139382, December 6, 2000 -Paat vs. CA, G. R. No. 111107, January 10, 1997 -Carale vs. Abarintos, G. R. No. 120704, March 3, 1997 -Villaflor vs. CA, G. R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997 B. Modes of Judicial Review 1. Statutory -Sec. 11, Article XII, 1987 Constitution -Sec. 2 (2), Article XII, 1987 Constitution -RA 1267 as amended by RA 1409, Sec. 13 -CA 146, Sec. 36, as amended -CA 83, Sec. 35 -Rule 43, Sec. 4, Rules of Court -RA 165, Secs. 33, 61-62 -RA 1125, Secs. 11, 18 -Sotto vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. L-329, April 16, 1946 2. Non-statutory Methods -Lao Tang Bun vs. Fabre, G. R. No. L-1673, October 22, 1948 -Alejo vs. Garchtorena, G. R. No. L-2326, May 31, 1949 -Cornelio vs. CA, G. R. No. L-24334, September 30, 1969 3. Collateral Methods

| Page

-Article VIII, Sec. 5, 1987 Constitution -Article IX-A, Sec. 7, 1987 Constitution -SC Circular 1-91, February 27, 1991 -Revised Rules of Court -Lina vs. Carino, G. R. No. 100127, April 23, 1993 -Asset Privatization Trust vs. CA, G. R. No. 95336, July 12, 1991 -Rivera vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 95336, July 12, 1991 -Board of Commissioners (CID) vs. Dela Rosa, G. R. Nos. 95122-23, May 31, 1991 -Allied Broadcasting Center, Inc. vs. Republic of the Philippines, G. R. No. 91500, October 18, 1990 -Floreza vs. Ongpin, G. R. No. 81356, February 26, 1990 -Binamira vs. Garrucho, Jr., G. R. No. 92008, July 30, 1990 -Medrana vs. Office of the President, G. R. No. 85904, August 21, 1990 -Tesorero vs. Mathay, G. R. No. 69592, May 8, 1990 -Luz Farms vs. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, G. R. No. 86889, December 4, 1990 -Marcos vs. Manglapus, G. R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989 -Valmonte vs. Belmonte, Jr., G. R. No. 74930, February 13, 1989 -Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago, G. R. No. 83882, January 24, 1989 -Almine vs. CA, G. R. No. 80719, September 26, 1989 -Antonio vs. Taneo, Jr., G. R. No. L-38135, July 25, 1975 -Assistant Executive Secretary, CA, G. R. No. 76761, January 9, 1989 -Board of Medical Education vs. Alfonso, G. R. No. 88259, August 10, 1989 -Datiles and Company vs. Sucaldito, G. R. No. 42380, June 22, 1990 -Dionisio vs. Paterno, G. R. No. L-49654, July 23, 1980 -Filipinas Marble Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G. R. No. L-68010, May 30, 1986 -Garcia vs. The Board of Investments, Department of Trade and Industries, G. R. No. 92024, November 9, 1990 -Laurel vs. Garcia, G. R. No. 92013, July 25, 1990 C. Scope of Judicial Review -Dauan vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, G. R. No. L-19547, January 31, 1997 -Lovina vs. Moreno, G. R. No. L-17821, November 23, 1963 -Ang Tibay vs. CIR, G. R. No. 46496, February 27, 1940 1. Question of Law -Ortua vs. Singson Encarnacion, G. R. No. 39919, January 30, 1934, 59 Phil 440 -Lorenzo vs. McCoy, G. R. No. 5525, March 21, 1910 2. Question of Fact -RA 602, Sec. 7 (a) -CA 141, Sec. 4 -CA 103, Sec. 15 -CA 146, Sec. 35 -Benguet Exploration, Inc. Department of Agriculture, G. R. No. L-29534, February 28, 1977 -Insular Life Employees Association-NATU vs. Insular Life, G. R. No. L-25291, January 30, 1971 -Manuel vs. Villena, G. R. No. L-28218, February 27, 1971 -Rico vs. CA, G. R. No. L-25757, December 28, 1970 -Lim vs. Secretary of Agriculture, G. R. No. L-26990, August 31, 1970 3. Substantial Evidence Rule
| Page

-RA 602, Sec. 7 (a) -RA 1267, Sec. 13, as amended by RA 1409 -Seven-up Bottling vs. Workmens Compensation Commission, G. R. No. L-31284, June 11, 1975 Additional Cases: -Mollaneda vs. Umacob, G. R. No. 140128, June 6, 2001 -Kenneth Neeland vs. Ildefonso Villanueva, A. M. No. P-99-1316, August 31, 2001 -Estelito Remolona vs. Civil Service Commission, G. R. No. 137473, August 2, 2001 -Ofelia Artuz vs. CA, Civil Service Commission and Rene Bornales, G. R. No. 142444, September 13, 2001 -Lacsasa M. Adiong vs. CA, G. R. 136480, December 4, 2001 -Summary Dismissal Board of the Regional Appellate Board, PNP, Region VI, Iloilo City vs. C/Insp. Lazaro Tarcita, G. R. No. 130442, April 6, 2000 -Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators vs. Philippine Coconut Authority, G. R. No. 110526, February 10, 1998 -David B. Corpuz vs. CA, G. R. No. 123989, January 26, 1998 -Tomas Cosep vs. People of the Philippines, G. R. No. 110353, May 21, 1998 -Zosimo Dimaandal vs. COA, G. R. No. 122197, June 26, 1998 -Eduardo Nonato Joson vs. Ruben D. Torres, G. R. No. 131255, May 20, 1998 -Sangguniang Bayan of San Andres vs. CA, G. R. No. 118883, January 16, 1998 -Sergio V. Eamiguel vs. Edilberto Ho, A. M. No. 98-1263-P, March 6, 1998 -Philippine Bank of Communication vs. Torio, A. M. No. P-98-1260, January 14, 1998 -Felix P. Uy vs. CA, G. R. No. 126337, February 12, 1998 -Vinta Maritime vs. NLRC, G. R. No. 113911, January 23, 1998

| Page

ELECTION LAWS I. Introductory Concepts a. Elections and the Right to Vote a.1. Constitutional and Philosophical Bases Article II, Section 1, 1987 Constitution 1. People vs. San Juan, 22 SCRA 505 2. Punos Separate Opinion, Macalintal vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003; Read also Carpios Separate Opinion 3. Punos Dissenting Opinion, Tolentino vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 148334, January 21, 2004 a.2. Who May Exercise Article V, Sections 1 and 2, 1987 Constitution a.3. Electoral System Article IX, (c) (6), Section 6, 1987 Constitution b. Definition of Terms b.1. Plebiscite b.2. Initiative b.3. Referendum b.4. Amendment b.5. Revision RA 6735 1. Lambino vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006 2. Punos Dissenting Opinion, Tolentino vs. COMELEC, supra c. Governing Laws 1. International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Sec. 25 2. Omnibus Election Code, as amended among others by RA 8189, RA 8436, RA 9369, RA 6646, RA 7166, RA 9006 3. RA 9189 (Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, Macalintal vs. COMELEC, supra II. Election Process and/or Proceedings a. Registration of Voters 1. RA 8189 (Voters Registration Act of 1996) 2. COMELEC Resolution Number 8514 (12 November 2008 Kabataan Party List vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 189868, December 15, 2009 a.1. Who may register (Sections 9 and 14); Who may not register (Section 11) a.2. Challenges to the right to register; Exclusion and Inclusion Cases (Sections 18, 32, 34) a.2.1. Jurisdiction, Section 33
| Page

a.2.2. Rules, Section 32 a.2.3. Nature and Effect of Proceedings, Domino vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 134015, July 19, 1999 a.2.4. Annulment of Book of Voters (Section 39) b. Certificates of Candidacy COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 (6 October 2009) COMELEC Resolution No. 8692 (5 November 2009) b.1. Who may file 1. Residence, construed: Gayo vs. Verceles, G. R. No. 150477, February 28, 2005 2. Tecson vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004 3. Tess Dumpit-Michelena vs. Boado, G. R. No. 1631619-20, November 17, 2005 4. Limbano vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 186006, October 16, 2009 (en banc) 5. Social Justice, vs. PDEA, G. R. No. 157870, November 3, 2008 b.2. When and where filed Sec. 7, RA 7166 Sec. 11, RA 8436, Sec. 13, RA 9369 b.3. Effect of filing Sec. 66, BP 881 Sec. 67, BP 881 Sec. 14, RA 9006 1. Quinto vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 189698, December 1, 2009, Read Dissents of CJ Puno, J. Carpio, J. Carpio-Morales 2. Quinto vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 189698, February 22, 2010, Read Dissent of J. Nachura b.4. Disqualification Sec. 68, BP 881 1. Trinidad vs. COMELEC, 315 SCRA 175, G. R. No. 135716 b.4.1. Ministerial Duty to receive COC Sec. 76, BP 881 b.4.2. Petition to deny due course or cancel certificate of candidacy Sec. 79, 80, 95-97, 262, 264, 269, BP 881; Secs. 5 & 7, RA 6646 1. Salcedo II vs. COMELEC, 312 SCRA 447 COMELEC Resolution No. 8696 (11 November 2009) 1. Panliqui vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 188671, February 24, 2010 b.5. Nuisance Candidate b.5.1. Definition Sec. 69, BP 881 RA 6646
| Page

1. Pamatong vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004 b.5.2. Who may file 1. Tecson vs. COMELEC, supra b.5.3. Procedure Sec. 5, RA 6646 COMELEC Resolution No. 8696, (November 11, 2009) b.6. Substitution Sec. 77, BP 881 b.7. Withdrawal of Certificate of Candidacy 1. Monsale vs. Nico, G. R. No. L- 2539, May 28, 1949 b.8. Multiple certificates of candidacy Sec. 73, BP 881 b.9. Lone Candidate law RA 8295 c. Campaign and Election Propaganda Sec. 3, BP 881, as amended by Sec. 5, RA 7166 Sec. 3, RA 9006 1. National Press Club vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 102653, March 5, 1992 c.1. Election Campaign, defined Sec. 79, BP 881 Sec. 13, RA 9369 1. Lanot vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 164858, November 16, 2006 2. Penera vs. COMELEC and Andanar, G. R. No. 181613, September 11, 2009 (en banc); G. R. No. 181613, November 25, 2009 c.2. Prohibited Forms Sec. 85 of BP 881 c.3. Surveys and Exit Polls 1. SWS vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 147571, May 5, 2001 2. ABS-CBN vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 133486, January 28, 2000 d. Conduct of Elections RA 8346 RA 9369 1. Information Technology vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 159139, January 13, 2004 2. Roque vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 188456, September 10, 2009
| Page

3. COMELEC Resolution No. 8739 (December 29, 2009) 4. COMELEC Resolution 8786 (March 4, 2010) d.1. Board of Election Inspectors d.2. Casting of Votes d.3. Counting of Ballots d.4. Election Disputes 1. COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 (March 22, 2010) d.4.1 Failure of Elections d.4.1.1. Grounds Sec. 6, BP 881 Sec. 4, RA 716 1. Canicosa vs. COMELEC, 282 SCRA 512 2. Batabor vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 160248, July 21, 2004 3. Carlos vs. Angeles, 346 SCRA 571 (2000) 4. Dibaratun vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 170365, February 2, 2010 d.4.2 Pre-Proclamation Cases a. Definition of Pre-proclamation cases Part II, COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 Compare with Secs. 241, 243, BP 881; Sec. 15, RA 7166 1. Belac vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 145802, April 4, 2001 2. June Sebastian vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 159369, March 3, 2004 3. Bandala vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 136282, February 15, 2000 4. Dagloc vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 154442-47, December 10, 2003 Sec. 15, RA 7166 But exception to exception: Sandoval vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 133842, January 26, 2000 b. Distinguished from other remedies 1. Ampatuan vs. Comelec, G. R. No.149803, Jan. 31, 2002 2. Sarangani vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 1555560,-62, Nov. 11, 2003 3. Lucman vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 166229, June 29, 2005 4. Trinidad vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 134657, December 15, 1999 c. Procedure for raising objections Sec. 20, RA 7166 d. Jurisdiction over per-proclamtion cases 1. Milla vs. Balmores- Laxa, G. R. No. 151216, July 18, 2003 d.4.3 Election contests Part III. Comelec Resolution 8804 a. Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction President and Vice- President- Supreme Court Senator- SET Congressman- HRET Regional/ Provincial/ City Offices- COMELEC Municipal Offices- RTC Barangay Offices- MTC 1. Barbers vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 165691, June 22, 2005 b. Appellate Jurisdiction
| Page

From MTC/ RTC- to COMELEC Nature of COMELECs decision final and executory Sec. 22, RA 7166 1. Rivera vs. Comelec, 199 SCRA 178 From COMELEC- to Supreme Court Rules 64 and 65, Rules of Civil Procedure From Electoral Tribunal- to Supreme Court Rule 65, Rules of Civil Procedure c.1 Procedure Sec. 254, BP 881 1. Miro vs. Comelec Resolution 8804 c.2 Effect of Death 1. De Castro vs. Comelec, 267 SCRA 806 e. Criminal Offenses 1.1 Vote buying 1.2 Transfer of government employees 1.3 Unauthorized entry into polling place 1.4 Conspiracy to bribe voters III. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS a. Composition and Qualifications Art. IX, C, Sec 1(1) Art. VII, Sec. 13, par. 2 1. Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210 b. Appointment and term of office of commissioners Art. IX, C, Sec. 1(2) b.1 Disqualifications Art. IX, A, Sec. 4 b.2 Salary Art. XVIII, Sec. 17 Art. IX, A, Sec. 3 b.3 Appointment of personnel Art. IX, A, Sec. 4 b.4 Removal Art. XI, Sec. 2 c. Functions 1. Baytan vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 153945, February 4, 2003 2. Taule vs. Santos, G. R. No. 90336, August 12, 1991 c.1 Enforce election laws Art, IX (c), Sec. 2(1), Section 10 c.2 Describe administrative questions pertaining to elections, except the right to vote Art. IX (c), Sec. 2(3) c.3 Petition for inclusion or exclusion of voters Art. IX (c), Sec. 2(6) c. 4 Prosecute election law violators Art. IX (c), Sec. 2(6) BP Blg. 881, Sec. 265 EO 134, Sec. 11, Feb. 27, 1987
| Page

1. De Jesus vs. People, 120 SCRA 760 2. Comelec vs. Tagle, G. R. No. 148948, Feb 17, 2003 3. People vs. Basilla, G. R. No. 83938-40, November 6, 1989 4. People vs. Inting, G. R. No. 88919, July 25, 1990 5. People vs. Delgado, G. R. No. 93419-32, September 18, 1990 c.5 Recommend pardon, amnesty, parole or suspension of sentence of election law violators Art. IX (c), Sec. 2(5) c.6 Deputize law enforcement agents and recommend their removal for violation of its orders Art. IX (c), Sec. 2(4); (8) 1. People vs. Basilla, G. R. No. 83938-40, November 6, 1989 c.7 Registration of political parties, organizations and coalitions and accreditation of citizens arms Art. IX (c), Sec. 2(5) Art. IX (c), Sec. 6,7,8 Art. VI, Sec 5(2) 1. Veterans Federation Party vs. Comelec, 342 SCRA 244 2. Bagong Bayani- OFW vs. Comelec 147589, June 26, 2001 In the matter of Petition for the Registration of Ang Ladlad LGBR Party for the Party- List System SPP Case No. 09-228(PI), November 11, 2009 3. Ang Ladlad LGBT vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 190582, February 16, 2010 c.8 Regulation of public utilities and media of information Art. IX (c), Sec. 4; Sec. 9 1. NPC vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 102653, March 5, 1992 Comelec, G. R. No.147571, May 5, 2001 c.9 Rule- making Art. IX A, Sec. 6 1. Aruelo, Jr. vs. CA 227 SCRA 311 2. Lokin vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 179431-32, June 22, 2010 c.10 Adjudicatory Art. IX c, Sec. 2(2) and (3) 1. Javier vs.Comelec, 144 SCRA 194 2. Canicosa vs. Comelec, 282 SCRA 512 (1997) 3. Lazatin vs. Comelec, G. R. No. L-80007, January 25, 1988 4. Lazatin vs. HRET, G. R. No. 84297, December 8, 1988 Motion for reconsideration, In division: Roces vs. HRET. 5. Mendoza vs. Comelec, G. R. No.188308, October 15, 2009 c.11 Review of Discussions Art. IX, C, Sec. 2(2) Art. IX A, Sec. 7 1. Flores vs. Comelec, 184 SCRA 484 2. Garces vs. 259 SCRA 99 d. Fiscal Autonomy Art. IX, A, Sec. 5 IV. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE

2.

SWS

vs.

| Page

a. Peoples choice as fundamental consideration, 2nd Placer Rule 1. Geronimo vs. Ramos, 136 SCRA 435, 446, (1985) 2. Labo vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 86564, August 1, 1989 3. Domino vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 134015, July 19, 1999 4. Ocampo vs. Crespo, G. R. No. 158466, June 15, 2004

PART II LAWS ON PUBLIC OFFICERS I. INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS a. Public office and public officers Art. XI, 1987 Constitution Sec. 2b, RA 3019 Art. 203, Revised Penal Code 1. Concerned Citizens of Laoag City vs. Arzaga, AMO No. P. 94-1067, Jan 30, 1997 2. Laurel vs. Desierto, G. R. No. 145368, April 12, 2002 3. Segovia vs. Noel, 47 Phil. 543 4. Cornejo vs. Gabriel, 41 Phil. 188, 1920 5. Abeja vs. Tanada, G. R. No. 110272, August 30, 1994 b. Kinds of public officers De Jure De Facto 1. Sampayan vs. Daza, G. R. No. 103903, September 11, 1992 2. General Manager of PPA vs. Monserate, G. R. No. 129616, April 17, 2002 c. Who may be public officers: Eligibility and Qualifications c.1 Who may prescribe qualifications c.2 Time of possession of qualifications 1. Frivaldo vs. Comelec, 257 SCRA 731 c.3 Usual Qualifications Art. VI, Secs. 2 and 6, 1987 Constitution Art. VII, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution Art. IX(b), (c), Section 1(1), 1987 Constitution Section 22, Book V, EO 292 Art. III, Section 5, 1987 Constitution 1. Maquera vs. Borra, G. R. No. L-24761, Sep 7, 1965 2. Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs, G. R. No. 157870, Nov 3, 2008 c.4 Disqualifications c.4.1 Under the Constitution c.4.2 Under Local Government Code c.4.3 Other Laws c.5 Effect of pardon Art. 36, Revise dPenal Code 1. Monsanto vs. Factoran, G. R. No. 78239, Feb 9, 1989 2. Garcia vs. Chairman of Commission on Audit, G. R. No. 75025, Sep 14, 1993 d. Formation of Relations d.1 By election d.2 By appointment

| Page

1. Central Bank of the Philippines vs. Civil Service Commission, G. R. No.80455-56, April 10, 1989 d.2.1 Appointment and distinguished from designation 1. Santiago vs. COA, G. R. No. 92284, July 12, 1991 2. Sevilla vs. Santos, G. R. No. 884948, June 9, 1992 d.3 Next- in- rank rule 1. Santiago, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission, G. R. No. L-69137, Aug 5, 1986 d.4 Discretion of Appointing Authority 1. Lapinid vs. CSC, G. R. No. 96298, May 14, 1991 2. Luego vs. Civil Service Commission, G. R. No. L-69137, Aug 5, 1986 e. Assumption and Term of Office 1. Borromeo vs. Mariano, 41 Phil. 322 e.1 Doctrine of Hold-over f. Code of Conduct RA 6713 II. POWERS, DUTIES, PRIVILIGES AND PROHIBITIONS a. Source of power Art. II, Sec. 1, 1987 Conatitution b. Scope of authority b.1 Doctrine of necessary implication 1. Lo Cham vs. Ocampo, 77 Phil 636, 638(1948) c. Kinds of authority c.1 Discretionary Misniterial 1. Aprueba vs. Ganzon, 18 SCRA 8(1966)-(22) G. R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000 2. First Phil Holdings Corporation vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 88345, February 1, 1996 d. Right sand Priviliges d.1 Right to office d.2 Right to compensation Art. VI, Sec 10, 1987 Constitution Art. VII, Section 6 Art. VIII, Section 8 Art. IX-B, Section 8 d.3 Presidential Immunity from Suit d.4 Doctrine of Offical Immunity 1. Farolan vs. Solmac Marketing, G. R. No. 83589, March 13, 1991 2. Tuzon vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 90107, August 21, 1992 d.5 Preference in Promotion d.6 Leave of absence d.7 Retirement Pay e. Prohibitions Sections 5(3), 8, Art. IX-B, 1987 Constitution III. LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

| Page

a. Presumption of Good Faith and Regulatory in the Performance of Duties Sections 38 and 39, Administrative Code 1. Farolan vs. Solmac Marketing, G. R. No. 83589, March 13, 1991 2. Tuazon vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 90107, August 21, 1992 3. Philippine Racing Club, et al, vs Arsenio Bonifacio, et al., G. R. No. L-11910, August 31, 1960 b. Kinds of Liability b.1 Nonfeasance b.2 Misfeasance b.3 Malfeasance c. Three-Fold Liability Rule 1. San Luis vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 80160, june 26, 1989 2. Chavez vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 91391, January 24, 1991 3. Domingo vs. Rayala, G. R. No. 155831, February 18, 2008 d. Liability of Superior Officers for Acts of Subordinates 1. Cesa vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G. R. No. 166658, April 30, 2008 2. Arias vs, Sandiganbayan, 180 SCRA 309 IV. TERMINATION OF RELATIONS a. Modes of Termination General b. End of Term 1. Fernandez vs. Ledesma, G. R. No. L-18878, March 30, 1963 2. Hernandez vs. Villegas, G. R. No. L-17287, june 30, 1965 c. Retirement 1. Beronilla vs. GSIS, G. R. No. L-21723, November 26, 1970 d. Abolition Office 1. Busacay vs. Buenaventura, 94 Phil 1033 2. Manalang vs. Quitoriano, G. R. No. L-6898, April 30, 1954 3. Facundo vs. Pabalan, G. R. No. L-17746, January 31, 1962 4. Cruz vs. Primicas, 23 SCRA 998 e. Reorganization 1. Dario vs. Mison, G. R. No. 81954, August 8, 1989 2. Dela Llana vs, Alba, 112 SCRA 294 Section 11, Art VIII, 1987 Constitution f. Abandonment 1. Summers vs. Ozaeta, G. R. No. L-1534, October 25, 1948 g. Incompatible Office h. Resignation i. Removal j. Others j.1 Recall j.2 Prescription 1. Unabia vs. City Mayor, 99 Phil 253 j.3 Failure to Assume Office Section 11, BP 881 V. ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINE a. Over Presidential Appointees a.1 Exceptions 1. Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464 2. Dolalas vs. Ombudsman- Mindanao, G. R. No. 118808, December 24, 1996
| Page

b. Over Non-Presidential Appointees Section 46, Book V, EO 292 c. Over Elective Officials c.1 Article XI, 1987 Constitution c.2 Sections 60-69, local Government Code d. The Ombudsman d.1 Jurisdiction 1. OMB vs. CA, G. R. No. 160675, June 16, 2006 2. Remolana vs. CSC, 362 SCRA 804 3. Acop vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 248 SCRA 566 4. Camanag vs. Guerrero, G. R. No. 121017, February 17, 1997 d.2 Power to Investigate Administrative Charges d.2.1 Concurrent with the Office of the President 1. Hagad vs. Dadole, 241 SCRA 242 d.2.2 Concurrent with DOJ 1. Honasan vs. DOJ Panel of Investigating Prosecutors, G. R. No. 159747, April 13, 2004 d.2.3 Power to investigate cases of ill-gotten wealth after Feb. 25, 1986 1. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, September 24, 1994 d.2.4 Ombudsman for the Military 1. Agbay vs. Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, G. R. No. 134503, July 2, 1999 d.3 Preventive Suspension 1. Lastimosa vs.Vasquez, G. R. No. 116801, April 6, 1995

| Page