ARTICLE VIII 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
SECTION 1: JUDICIAL POWER
MARBURY v. MADISON Judicial review: authority of the court to inquire into the acts of the
branches of government or instrumentalities thereof. [ Read more HERE ]
SANTIAGO v. BAUTISTA Judicial function is an act performed by virtue of judicial powers; the
exercise of which is the doing of something in the nature of the action of the court. In order that a
special action of certiorari may be invoked in this jurisdiction, the following must exist:
a. That there must be a specific controversy involving the rights of persons or property;
b. Such controversy is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer for hearing and determination of
rights and obligations.
MANILA ELECTRIC v. PASAY TRANSIT The Supreme Court and its members should not and
cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining
to or connected with the administering of judicial functions. The power conferred on this court is
exclusively judicial, and it cannot be required or authorized to exercise any other. . . . Its jurisdiction
and powers and duties being defined in the organic law of the government, and being all strictly
judicial, Congress cannot require or authorize the court to exercise any other jurisdiction or power, or
perform any other duty And while it executes firmly all the judicial powers entrusted to it, the court
will carefully abstain from exercising any power that is not strictly judicial in its character, and which
is not clearly confided to it by the Constitution.
NOBLEJAS v. TEEHANKEE Judicial power does not include the power to discipline officers in
others branches of government with equal rank as that of a judge. This is beyond the judicial sphere.
RADIOWEALTH v. AGREGADO The preservation of Judiciarys integrity and effectiveness is
necessary. Corollary to this is the power of judiciary to maintain its existence. The quality of the
government depends upon the independence of judiciary and the officials of the government cannot
deprive the courts of anything which is vital to their functions. Furthermore, the prerogatives of this
court which the Constitution secures against interference include not only the powers to adjudicate
cases but all things that are REASONABLY necessary for the administration of justice. The purchase
of the necessary equipment would contribute to a more effective judiciary. Lastly, these are implied
and incidental powers that are as essential to the existence of the court as the powers specifically
granted to it.
IN RE LAURETA The Court's authority and duty under the premises is unmistakable. It must act to
preserve its honor and dignity from the scurrilous attacks of an irate lawyer, mouthed by his client, and
to safeguard the morals and ethics of the legal profession.
IN RE BORROMEO Judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces
or factors. They should not be subject to intimidation, the fear of civil, criminal or administrative
sanctions for acts they may do and dispositions they may make in the performance of their duties and
functions. Hence it is sound rule, which must be recognized independently of statute that judges are not
generally liable for acts done within the scope of their jurisdiction and in good faith. The Court has

repeatedly and uniformly ruled that a judge may not be held administratively accountable for every
erroneous order or decision he renders. The exercise of the power of contempt of the court is valid.
DIRECTOR OF PRISONS v. ANG CHO KIO The power to revoke a conditional pardon is within
the realm of the executive, and does not fall within the jurisdiction of the judiciary. Neither does the
judiciary have the power to give advisory opinions. Its main duty is to settle disputes and uphold
rights, in the absence of which it cannot render opinions, as this is not one of its functions.
ECHEGARAY v. SEC. OF JUSTICE The finality of a judgment does not mean the Court has lost all
its powers over the case. By the finality of the judgment, what the court loses is its jurisdiction to
amend, modify, or alter the same. The court still has jurisdiction to execute and enforce it. The power
to control the execution of its decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction. Supervening events may
change the circumstance of the parties and compel courts to intervene and adjust the rights of the
litigants to prevent unfairness.
Postponement of the date: The particulars of the execution itself are absolutely under the control of the
judicial authority, while the executive has no power over the person of the convict except to provide
for carrying out of the penalty and to pardon. The date can be postponed, even in sentences of death.
Under the common law this postponement can be ordered in 3 ways: (1) by command of the King (2)
by discretion of the court (3) by mandate of the law.
PCGG v. DISIERTO The Constitution has tasked this Court to determine whether or not there has
been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government, including the Office of the Ombudsman. Specifically, this Court
is mandated to review and reverse the ombudsmans evaluation of the existence of probable cause, if it
has been made with grave abuse of discretion.
DOMINGO v. SCHEER Although the courts are without power to directly decide matters over which
full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government
and are not empowered to execute absolutely their own judgment from that of Congress or of the
President, the Court may look into and resolve questions of whether or not such judgment has been
made with grave abuse of discretion, when the act of the legislative or executive department violates
the law or the Constitution.
ANGARA v. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL Judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review in
actual and appropriate cases and controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no one branch or
agency of the government transcends the Constitution, which is the source of all authority. The
Electoral Commission is an independent constitutional creation with specific powers and functions to
execute and perform, closer for purposes of classification to the legislative than to any of the other two
departments of the government; is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the National Assembly.
US v. NIXON The mere assertion of an intra-executive dispute does not defeat federal jurisdiction.
Furhtermore the attorney general had conferred upon the special prosecutor the unique tenure and
authority to represent the US and with this explicit power to contest the invocation of executive
privilege in seeking evidence deemed relevant to the performance of his duties. Actions of the
prosecutor are well within the scope of this express authority seeking specified evidence, which are
admissible and relevant ot the criminal case at hand. Thus the issue is of a type considered
traditionally justiciable, the fact that both officers are of the exec branch does not bar this.

MARCOS v. MANGLAPUS Given the expanded jurisdiction of the SC, it no longer cowers behind
the political question doctrine save for certain undeniable situations such as recognition of states or the
grant of pardons. The SC, in the face of the present controversy, has the duty of ascertaining whether or
not the Executive goes beyond the power vested by the Constitution. There exists a conflict between
the rights asserted by the Marcoses as opposed to the exercise of executive power by the President for
the preservation of national interest and security.
DAZA v. SINGSON The issue presented is justiciable rather political, involving as it does the legality
and not the wisdom of the act complained of, or the manner of filling the Commission on
Appointments as prescribed by the Constitution. Even if the question were political in nature, it would
still come within the powers of review under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon the SC by
ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 1, of the Constitution, which includes the authority to determine whether
grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction has been committed by any
branch or instrumentality of the government.
GARCIA v. BOI There is an actual controversy whether the petro-chemical plant should remain in
Bataan or be transferred to Batangas.
DJUMANTAN v. DOMINGO Being final arbiter, it has power to review the order of the Commission
of Immigration and Deportation, as a branch or instrumentality of the Government. GADELJ
MARIANO v. COMELEC A hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen into an actual case is not a
justiciable controversy which the court can take cognizance of. A hypothetical issue which rests on
many contingent events does not pose an issue ripe for adjudication.
PPI v. COMELEC Issue not ripe for judicial review due to lack of actual case or controversy.
SBMA v. COMELEC Courts may decide only actual controversies, not hypothetical questions or
cases. Judicial power has been defined in jurisprudence as "the right to determine actual controversies
arising between adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction". It is "the authority to
settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and demandable before
the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for violation of such rights". Thus, there can be no
occasion for the exercise of judicial power unless real parties come to court for the settlement of an
actual controversy and unless the controversy is such that it can be settled in a manner that binds the
parties by the application of existing laws.
TANADA v. ANGARA The court cannot look into the wisdom of the acts of the legislature.
ARROYO v. DE VENECIA The courts may only look into the constitutionality of the acts of
officials, and not if these acts conform to the internal rules of each branch of government (HoR rules).
CIR v. SANTOS The Constitution contemplates that the inferior courts should have jurisdiction in
cases involving constitutionality of any treaty or law, for it speaks of appellate review of final
judgments of inferior courts in cases where such constitutionality happens to be in issue. But this
authority does not extend to deciding questions, which pertain to legislative policy.
GARCIA-RUEDA v. PASCASIO While the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether
or not a criminal case should be filed, this Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's
action when there is an abuse of discretion, in which case Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may

exceptionally be invoked pursuant to SECTION I, ARTICLE VIII of the 1987 Constitution. In this
regard, "grave abuse of discretion" has been defined as "where a power is exercised in an arbitrary or
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to evasion
of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law.
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO v. GUINGONA The present constitution now fortifies the authority of the
courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments. It
speaks of judicial prerogative in terms of duty: Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice
to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a GADALEJ on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
the government.
TATAD v. DOE Judicial power includes not only the duty of the courts to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, but also the duty to determine whether
or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality of the government. The courts, as guardians of the Constitution, have
the inherent authority to determine whether a statue enacted by the legislature transcends the limit
imposed by the fundamental law. Where a statute violates the Constitution, it is not only the right, but
the duty of the judiciary to declare such null and void. The petitioner is not assailing the wisdom of the
law, but its constitutionality. Therefore, there is a justiciable controversy.
TELEBAP v. COMELEC A justiciable controversy has arisen as GMA allaged that said law violates
its rights against deprivation of property without just compensation and that it has sustained millions of
pesos in damages resulting therefrom.
MIRANDA v. AGUIRRE The term political question connotes what it means in ordinary parlance,
namely, a question of policy. It refers to those questions which under the Constitution are to be
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary authority has
been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned with issues
dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.
A purely justiciable issue implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or
omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law, for said breach of right.
CUTARAN v. DENR There is no justiciable controversy because the applications are still pending.
Hence, there is not government act to speak of and rule upon.
ESTRADA v. DISIERTO Review of the inability of the president to perform his duties and the
decision of Congress is no longer a political question. Courts cannot expand executive immunity from
suit. The 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine when it expanded
the power of judicial review of this court not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which
are legally demandable and enforceable but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of government. The judiciary has focused on the thou shall nots of the Constitution.
CAWALING v. COMELEC A political question is one in which the wisdom, expediency or justice of
the legislative enactment is being questioned. The courts cannot rule on the wisdom of the laws.
MONTESCLAROS v. COMELEC A proposed bill cannot be the subject of judicial review because
it is not a law. Judicial review may only be exercised after a laws has been passed, not before it.

JOHN HAY v. LIM The courts retain full discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition filed
directly to it if compelling reasons or the nature and importance of the uses raised, warrant. Remanding
the case to the lower courts would unduly prolong the case.
VELARDE v. SJS Requirements for declaratory relief sought by respondents are: 1) justiciable
controversy, 2)controversy is between people whose interests are adverse, 3) party seeking relief has a
legal interest in the controversy and 4) the issue is ripe for judicial determination.
A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicial
determination, not one which is merely one of conjecture or merely anticipatory. This petition failed to
allege an exsitng controversy or dispute between the petitioner and the named respondents.
PANGANIBAN v. SHELL The court cannot rule of feared hypothetical abuse: not an actual case or
controversy. There is not cause of action. No injury or encroachment of right legally enforceable or
demandable.
SMART v. NTC The court has jurisdiction over administrative issuances of agencies, which were
issued in the exercise of their quasi-legislative, and not quasi-judicial function.
BUAC v. COMELEC Recount of plebiscite ballots is exclusively within the realm of the Comelec:
not to be interfered with by the courts.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY v. COMELEC The court does not give advisory opinions. It can
nly rule on actual cases or controversies, involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable.
MACASIANO v. NHA Requisites for declaratory relief:
1) There must be a justiciable controversy;
2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; and
3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy.
TANO v. SOCRATES Court will not entertain direct resort unless redress desired cannot be obtained
in appropriate court and when there is exceptional circumstance to justify availment of remedy.
SECTION 2: POWER OF LEGISLATURE TO APPORTION JURISDICTION
MANTRUSTE v. CA The court is prohibited by law to interfere with, or block, a decision of an
executive agency.
MALAGA v. PENACHOS Courts are not barred from issuing restraining orders against government
entities, if the requirements and procedures set by law are followed.
SECTION 3: FISCAL AUTONOMY
IN RE CLARIFYING AND STRENGTHENING. The authority of the DBM to review the
plantilla and compensation of court personnel extends only to calling the attention of the Court on
what it may perceive as erroneous application of budgetary laws and rules on position classification.
SECTION 4: COMPOSITIONS AND SESSIONS

FORTRICH v. CORONA it is clear that only cases are referred to the Court en banc for decision
whenever the required number of votes is not obtained. Conversely, the rule does not apply where, as
in this case, the required three votes is not obtained in the resolution of a motion for reconsideration.
Hence, the second sentence of the aforequoted provision speaks only of case and not matter. The
reason is simple. The above-quoted ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 4(3) pertains to the disposition of cases
by a division. If there is a tie in the voting, there is no decision. The only way to dispose of the case
then is to refer it to the Court en banc. On the other hand, if a case has already been decided by the
division and the losing party files a motion for reconsideration, the failure of the division to resolve the
motion because of a tie in the voting does not leave the case undecided. There is still the decision
which must stand in view of the failure of the members of the division to muster the necessary vote for
its reconsideration. Quite plainly, if the voting results in a tie, the motion for reconsideration is lost.
The assailed decision is not reconsidered and must therefore be deemed affirmed.
PEOPLE v. DY The divisions of the Supreme Court are not different and distinct from the actual
tribunal. It can be said that the decisions promulgated by each division are actually decisions of the
Supreme Court en banc.
SECTION 5: POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT
PACU v. SEC. OF EDUCATION Before a case can be filed with the Supreme Court, the petitioners
must first exhaust all available administrative remedies, and it is encumbent upon them to prove that
their rights have been violated.
SOLICITOR GENERAL V. MMDA The court may suspend procedural rules to give way for
substantive justice. The requisite of having an actual case or controversy ripe for adjudication (in
invoking the courts power of judicial review) may be waived by the court in cases of transcendental
importance.
PIMENTEL v. HRET All remedies must first be exhaust before seeking recourse to the courts: if the
issue involves the rules of the HoR regarding the composition of HRET and the CA, then the proper
recourse is through the HoR, and not the courts.
GONZALES v. MACARAIG Members of congress have the requisite standing to raise constitutional
issues.
JAWORSKI v. PAGCOR Members of Congress have standing to file suits assailing the legality of
acts of other branches of government, or instrumentalities thereof.
PROVINCE OF BATANGAS v. ROMULO The crucial legal issue submitted for resolution of this
Court entails the proper legal interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions. Moreover, the
transcendental importance of the case, as it necessarily involves the application of the constitutional
principle on local autonomy, cannot be gainsaid. The nature of the present controversy, therefore,
warrants the relaxation by this Court of procedural rules in order to resolve the case forthwith.
BOARD OF OPTOMETRY v. COLET Only natural and juridical persons or entities authorized by
law may be parties in a civil action, and every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of
the real party in interest. Under ARTICLE 44 of the Civil Code, an association is considered a juridical
person if the law grants it a personality separate and distinct from that of its members. A real party in
interest under SECTION 2 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court is a party who stands to be benefited or injured

by the judgment on the suit, or the party entity led to the avails of the suit. Since OPAP, COA, ACMO,
and SMOAP were not shown to be juridical entities, they cannot be deemed real parties in interest.
CRUZ v. SEC. OF DENR Petitioners, as citizens, possess the public right to ensure that the national
patrimony is not alienated and diminished in violation of the Constitution. Since the government, as
the guardian of the national patrimony, holds it for the benefit of all Filipinos without distinction as to
ethnicity, it follows that a citizen has sufficient interest to maintain a suit to ensure that any grant of
concessions covering the national economy and patrimony strictly complies with constitutional
requirements. Thus, the preservation of the integrity and inviolability of the national patrimony is a
proper subject of a citizens suit.
In addition, petitioners, as taxpayers, possess the right to restrain officials from wasting public funds
through the enforcement of an unconstitutional statute. It is well-settled that a taxpayer has the right to
enjoin public officials from wasting public funds through the implementation of an unconstitutional
statute, and by necessity, he may assail the validity of a statute appropriating public funds. The
taxpayer has paid his taxes and contributed to the public coffers and, thus, may inquire into the manner
by which the proceeds of his taxes are spent. The expenditure by an official of the State for the
purpose of administering an invalid law constitutes a misapplication of such funds.
LIM v. EXEC. SEC. Though being lawyers does not grant these petitioners standing because of lack
of sufficient interest (IBP v ZAMORA) and there was no exercise of Congress spending powers to
warrant a taxpayers suit, this issue is one of transcendental importance (to the public), where the SC
can relax the standing requirements and allow the suit to prosper.
CHAVEZ v. PEA The petitioner has locus standi because of his invocation of his right to information
and to the equitable diffusion of natural resources is a matter of transcendental public importance.
Furthermore, since PEA did not conduct public bidding, there was no information released to the
public regarding the details of its disposition of property. Hence, any citizen can demand from PEA
this information at any time during the bidding process, but only upon the committees official
recommendation (because the right to info only attaches upon that moment).
TOLENTINO v. COMELEC Ordinarily, the petition will be dismissed because first, the petitioners
only assert a harm which is a generalized and not a particular interest. Second, there was no allegation
that taxpayers money was misused by the COMELEC in violation of specific constitutional
protections. However, because of the nature of the issues as being imbued with public interest (right of
suffrage) and one which will most likely arise again, the petitioners are granted standing to file.
AGAN v. PIATCO The petitioners are employees of service providers currently operating at the
MIAA and service providers who have contracts with MIAA. They will surely sustain direct injury
upon the implementation of the PIATCO contracts because they will be displaced by new
employees/service providers thus losing their means of livelihood. Furthermore, the issues posed in the
cases required a discussion of the BOT Law and its constitutionality.
TICHANGCO v. ENRIQUEZ Interest means a material interest in issue that is affected by the
questioned act or instrument, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest. It cannot be vague,
speculative or uncertain.
AIWA v. ROMULO Petitioners must show that they have sustained or will sustain a direct injury as a
result of the executive or legislative act being questioned. In the absence of such showing the case will
not prosper.

PIMENTEL v. EXEC. SEC The Rome Statute is merely intended to complement national criminal
laws and courts. Sufficient remedies are available under our national laws to protect our citizens
against human rights violations.
SENATE v. ERMITA The interest of the petitioner in assailing the constitutionality of laws must be
direct and personal. When the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact that he
is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest.
PUROK v. YUIPICO The general rule is that all actions must be prosecuted and defended by the real
parties in interest and in the name of the real party in interest. An association has the legal personality
to represent its members and the outcome case will affect their vital interest. Additionally, an
association has standing to file suit for its members despite its lack of direct interest if its members are
affected by the action.
HOLY SPIRIT v. DEFENSOR The petitioner association has legal standing to file the petition WON
it is the duly recognized association of homeowners in the NGC. There is no dispute that the individual
members of the HSPSAI are residents of the NGC. They are covered and stand to be benefited or
injured by the enforcement of the IRR (particularly as regards the selection process of beneficiaries and
lot allocation to qualified beneficiaries). Thus, the petitioner may assail the IRR if it believes it to be
unfavorable to the rights of its members. Furthermore, the petitioners have sustained injury because of
the enforcement of the IRR because they were disqualified and eliminated from the selection process
(of being considered as bona fide residents),
HENARES v. LTFRB The petitioners have standing to bring this issue to court. This petition focuses
on their fundamental legal right to clean air. This right is an issue of paramount importance for it
concerns the air they breathe and it is imbued with public interest. The consequences of the
counterproductive effects of a neglected environment due to motor vehicle emissions affect the wellbeing of everyone.
FRANCISCO v. FERNANDO Francisco has no standing because he did not show that he has
personally suffered some injury from the alleged illegal conduct of the government. He also did not
show that he had a sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of tax money. There is also
no transcendental importance because he did not show a clear disregard of a consti/statutory
prohibition. On the lack of legal basis, all other cities have each enacted anti-jaywalking ordinances.
Such fact serves as sufficient basis for MMDAs scheme. After all, the MMDA is an admin agency
tasked with the implementation of rules and regulations. Furthermore, the absence of an antijaywalking ordinance in Valenzuela does not detract from this conclusion because there was no proof
that the MMDA implemented the scheme in that city.
PEOPLE v. VERA It has been held that since the decree pronounced by a court without jurisdiction is
void, where the jurisdiction of the court depends on the validity of the statue in question, the issue of
the constitutionality will be considered on its being brought to the attention of the court by persons
interested in the effect to be given the statute. Also, it is true that as a general rule, the question of
constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity. There are exceptions. Courts, in the exercise
of sound discretion, may determine the time when a question affecting the constitutionality of a statute
should be presented. In civil cases, it has been held that it is the duty of the court to pass on the
constitutional questions, even if it was raised for the first time on appeal IF it appears that a
determination of the question is necessary to a decision of the case. As to the power of the court to

consider the constitutional question raised for the first time in these proceedings, the SC is of the
opinion is that the People of the Philippines and the Fiscal of the City of Manila is a proper party in
these proceedings. The rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a
substantial interest in the case. The enforcement of an invalid statute is detrimental to public interest.
Thus, the state has standing to sue.
MIRASOL v. CA The present case was instituted primarily for accounting and specific performance.
The CA correctly ruled that PNBs obligation to render an accounting is an issue which can be
determined without having to rule on the validity of PD 579. It is not the lis mota of the case.
MATIBAG v. BENIPAYO The earliest opportunity is to raise it in the pleadings before a competent
court that can resolve the same.
LA BUGAL v. RAMOS The earliest opportunity requirement should not be taken to mean that the
question of constitutionality must be immediately raised after the execution of the act complained of.
That the question of constitutionality has not been raised before is not a valid reason for refusing to
allow it to be raised later.
ARCETA v. MANGROBANG The constitutional question is not the lis mota in the case. To justify a
laws nullification, there must be a clear breach of the Consti and not one which is speculative.
ESTARJA v. RANADA The law requires that the question of constitutionality be raised at the earliest
opportunity. In this case, Estarija raised the issue of constitutionality in his MR to the OMB. Verily, the
OMB has no jurisdiction to entertain questions on the constitutionality of a law. Thus, when petitioner
raised the issue of constitutionality before the CA, the constitutional question was raised at the earliest
opportunity. Furthermore, this court may determine when a constitutional issue may be passed upon.
BAKER v. CARR Political questions are those questions under the Constitution, are to be decided by
the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been
delegated to the legislative/executive branch of the government. Cases which are political in nature as
follows:
a. Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department
(issues of foreign affairs and executive war powers, parliamentary rules and regulations)
b. A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue
c. Impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial
discretion (WISDOM)
d. Possible infringement of separation of powers
e. An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made*
f. Potentiality of embarrassment from many pronouncements by various departments on one question *
Significantly in the Philippines, since the Constitution empowers the SC to check for GADLEJ of other
branches, the question is not political even if there is the presence of e and f.
OMENA v. PENDATUN The resolution was unanimously approved by the Congress and such
approval amounted to the suspension of Congress rules, which can be done by unanimous consent
(therefore they can take up matters already dealt with). In conclusion, the courts may not interfere with
internal rules and regulations of the Congress unless Constitutional rights are violated.
ARROYO v. DE VENECIA The wisdom of house rules (procedure) cannot be judicially determined
out of respect for the separation of powers.

DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO v. GUINGONA The Senate may determine its rules when it comes to voting
for the minority leader as it is not constitutionally provided for. Only the manner of electing the Senate
President and House Speaker is provided for in the Constitution. Each House shall choose such
officers as it may deem necessary.
ICMC v. CALLEJA The determination of immunities accorded to international organizations has been
held to be a political question conclusive upon the courts in order not to embarrass a political
department of the Government. If a plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized by the executive, it is
the duty of the courts to accept the same. These organizations are granted immunities to prevent
control or interference from the local host government (unimpeded performance).
TANADA v. ANGARA Where an action of the legislative branch is alleged to have infringed the
Constitution, it becomes the judiciarys duty to settle the dispute. The Constitution must be upheld. The
SC stresses, though, that the Court will not review the wisdom (reasons why) the Senate concurred in
the WTO agreement or pass upon the merits of trade liberalization as a policy espoused by the WTO. It
will also not rule on the propriety of the governments policy of removing taxes, subsidies and other
import barriers. It will only check if Senate committed GADLEJ/violated the Constitution in ratifying
the WTO agreement.
GARCIA v. CORONA The court is bound to respect the legislative finding that deregulation is the
policy answer to the problem of high oil prices.
LIANG v. PEOPLE Slandering a person could not be covered by the immunity agreement because our
laws do not allow the commission of a crime (defamation) in the name of an official duty. The
imputation of theft cannot be part of official functions. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations, a diplomatic agent, enjoys immunity from crim jurisdiction of the receiving state except in
the case of an action relating to any commercial/professional activity exercised by the agent in the
receiving state outside his official functions.
DE AGBAYANI v. PNB This is merely to reflect awareness that precisely because the judiciary is the
governmental organ which has the final say on whether or not a legislative or executive measure is
valid, a period of time may have elapsed before it can exercise the power of judicial review that may
lead to a declaration of nullity. It would be to deprive the law of its quality of fairness and justice then,
if there be no recognition of what had transpired prior to such adjudication. The actual existence of a
statute, prior to such a determination [of unconstitutionality], is an operative fact and may have
consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial
declaration.
CHAVEZ v. PEOPLE It is only in cases where the penalty is death that the RTC must forward the
records of the case to the SC for automatic review. Since the petitioners did not file an appeal, the
decision of their conviction and sentence to RP is final and unappealable.
PEARSON v. IAC The SC has CONCURRENT jurisdiction with the IAC (now CA) and CFI (now
RTC) to issue extraordinary writs. Parties should seek proper relief from lower courts before going to
the SC. If the CA or RTC can competently issue extraordinary writs, the principle of hierarchy of
courts must be preserved.

PEOPLE v. MATEO To ensure utmost inspection before the penalty of death, RP or LI is imposed, the
Court now deems it wise to provide in these cases a review by the CA before the case is elevated to the
SC. The need for an intermediate review by the CA is merely a procedural matter that is
Constitutionally vested in the SC.
CEBU WOMENS CLUB v. DE LA VICTORIA A party may directly appeal to the SC from a decision
of the trial court only on pure questions of law. The petition does not involve pure questions of law
because a question of law arises when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain
set of facts as distinguished from a question of fact which occurs when the doubt or difference arises as
to the truth or falsehood of the facts.
PEOPLE v. GUTIERREZ It is within the power of the courts to determine the most suitable place of
the trial. The Judicial Power vested in the SC and it connotes certain inherent attributes necessary for
an effective administration of justice. One of these inherent powers is that of the transfer of trial of
cases from one court to another.
FIRST LEPANTO v. CA Review of BOI decisions first to CA.
LINA v. PURISIMA If in any case elevated to this Court for the correction of any supposed procedural
error of any lower court, it should be found that indeed there has been a mistake, and it further appears
that all the facts needed for a complete determination of the whole controversy are already before the
Court, the SC may at its option dispense with the usual procedure of remanding and instead resolve
the pertinent issues and render final judgments on the merits.
IN RE: CUNANAN Congress may repeal, alter and supplement the rules promulgated by the SC but
the authority and responsibility over the admission of attorneys remain vested in the SC.
IN RE: AGROSINO The practice of law is a personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral
character, with special educational qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.
JAVELLANA v. DILG These merely prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts
of interest between the discharge of public duties and the private practice of law, and do not infringe on
the SCs power and authority to promulgate rules regarding the practice of law.
BUSTOS v. LUCERO Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates
rights as opposed to remedial law, which prescribes the method of enforcing rights/obtain redress for
invasion. As applied to criminal law, substantive law is that which declares what acts are crimes and
prescribes the punishment for committing them, as distinguished from procedural law which provides
or regulates the steps by which one who commits a crime is to be punished. Preliminary investigation
is eminently remedial (being the first step taken in a criminal prosecution). The curtailment of the right
of an accused in a prelim investigation to cross examine the witnesses who had given evidence for his
arrest does not offend the Constitution. Prelim investigation is not an essential part of due process (it
may suppressed entirely). Finally,nit is inevitable that the SC in making rules should step on
substantive rights, and the Constitution must be presumed to tolerate if not expect such incursion as
does not affect the accused in a harsh and arbitrary manner but operates only in a limited and
substantial manner to his disadvantage. It has the power to adopt a general and complete system of
procedure.

SANTERO v. CFI OF CAVITE A substantive law, gives the surviving spouse and to the children the
right to receive support during liquidation, such right cannot be impaired by the Rules of Court, which
is a procedural rule.
PNB v. ASUNCION A procedural rule cannot amend a substantive law.
DAMASCO v. LAQUI Philippine jurisprudence considers prescription of a crime or offense a loss or
waiver by the State of its right to prosecute an act prohibited/punished by law. While it is the rule that
an accused who fails to move to quash before pleading, is deemed to waive all objections, yet this rule
cannot apply to the defense of prescription, which under Art 69 of the RPC extinguishes criminal
liability.
CARPIO v. SULU RESOURCES When the SC, in its exercise of its rule-making power, transfers to
the CA pending cases involving a review of a quasi-judicial bodys decisions [MABs], such transfer
only relates to procedure and it does not impair substantive rights because the aggrieved partys right to
appeal is preserved and what is changed is only the procedure by which the appeal is to be made or
decided.
LAND BANK v. DE LEON A petition for review, not an ordinary appeal, is the proper procedure in
effecting appeal from decisions of Special Agrarian Courts in cases involving the determination of just
compensation to the landowners concerned.
PEOPLE v. LACSON If a criminal case is provisionally dismissed without express consent, the new
rule would not apply. In this case, the 11 informations in criminal cases were filed with the RTC which
was well within the two year period therefore the MR is granted and the RTC is directed to proceed
with the criminal cases.
PLANTERS v. FERTIPHIL Retroactive application is only allowed if no vested rights are impaired. In
the case, at the time PPI filed its appeal in 1992, all that the rules require for the perfection of its appeal
was the filing of a notice of appeal. PPI complied with this requirement when it filed a notice of
appeal. Thus, the 1997 Rules of CivPro which took effect on 1997 and required docket fees cannot
affect PPIs appeal which was already perfected in 1992.
IN RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS Disbarment due to violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 as well as
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest
and immoral conduct/uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession).
TAN v. BAUSCH SC has authority to transfer jurisdiction through Administrative Order.
TAN v. COMELEC Review of rules of quasi-judicial bodies.