Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Learning
Lupangco v. CA
forbidding examinees from attending review classes; CPA Board Exam - The assailed
resolution is not only unreasonable and arbitrary but it infringes on the examinees right to
liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. PRC has no authority to dictate on the reviewees as to
how they should prepare themselves for the licensure examinations. They cannot be restrained
from taking all the lawful steps needed to assure the fulfilment of their ambition; The assailed
resolution also infringes on the academic freedom of schools; PRC cannot interfere with the
conduct of review that review schools and centers believe would be best enable their enrollees to
meet the standards required before becoming a full-fledged public accountant. Unless the means
and methods of instruction are clearly found to be inefficient, impractical or riddled with
corruption, review schools and centers may not be stopped from helping out their students.
granting of honors - Schools of learning are given ample discretion to formulate rules and
guidelines in the granting of honors for purposes of graduation. This is part of academic
freedom. Within the parameters of these rules, it is within the competence of universities and
colleges to determine who are entitled to the grant of honors among the graduating students. Its
discretion on this academic matter may not be disturbed much less controlled by the courts
unless there is grave abuse of discretion in its exercise.
Reyes v. CA
admission to the UP College of Medicine; 70, 90 cut-off, NMAT; UC wanted to admit them,
UPCM did not want to - Any entrance requirement that may be imposed by the College Faculty
must bear the UCs approval; The right and power to fix admission requirements is clearly
vested by law in the University Council; The UC has the final say in the admission requirements
provided that it conforms with the law, rules and regulations of the university.
Tan v. CA
refusal of admission to Grace Christian High School - Private schools are subject to reasonable
regulation and supervision of the State, but they may also have the right to establish reasonable
rules
and regulations for the admission, discipline and promotion of students.
*Dissenting opinion of Justice Cruz: the academic freedom of the school to choose its students
should NOT be stretched beyond its constitutional limits.
Miriam College v. CA
Libog article; student press freedom; schools academic freedom - Academic freedom includes
the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its aims and objectives, and how best to
attain them free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public
welfare calls for some restrain; SC has upheld the right of the students to free speech in school
premises; However, this right is not absolute. It must always be applied in light of the special
characteristics of the school environment; The power of the school to investigate, like the power
to suspend or expel, is an inherent part of academic freedom of institutions of higher learning
guaranteed by the Constitution.
Cario v. CHR
striking of teachers - CHR has adjudicative power (it may investigate i.e. receive evidence and
make findings of facts as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and political
rights; cannot be likened to a judicial function; CHR has merely the power to investigate; it
cannot try and resolve on the merits (adjudicate)
EPZA v. CHR
CHR is a creation of the Constitution although it is not on the same level as the Constitutional
Commissions. In essence, its power is only investigative.
SUFFRAGE
Romualdez v. RTC
domicile; residence In election cases, the Court treats domicile and residence as synonymous
terms thus: the term residence as used in election law is synonymous with domicile which
imports not only an
intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in the place. Domicile denotes a
fixed, permanent residence. In order to acquire a new domicile by choice, there must concur:
SSSEA v. CA
right to strike At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right
to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are
prohibited form striking by express prohibition of MC No. 6 and as implied in EO 180
Republic v. CA
national parks committee; right to strike; civil service The committee is a government agency
and
its employees are covered by civil service rules and regulations; While the committees
employees are allowed under the 1987 Constitution to organize and join unions of their choice,
there is yet a law permitting them the right to strike.
De Vera v. NLRC
illegal dismissal Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal must rest on some basis
Dual Citizenship
Valles v. COMELEC
Australian citizenship; governor of Davao Oriental - Philippine law on citizenship adheres to
the principle of jus sanguinis. Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the
parents regardless of the place of his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli which
determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of the place of birth; The signing into law of
the 1935 Constitution has established the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for acquisition of
Philippine citizenship; The mere fact of a person is a holder of an Australian passport and has an
ACR are not acts constituting an
effective renunciation of citizenship and dont militate against her claim of Philippine
citizenship; For candidates with dual citizenship, it is enough that they elect Philippine
citizenship upon the filing of their
certificate of candidacy to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship; A declaration to
support and defend the Constitution is effective renunciation of foreign citizenship.
Mercado v. Manzano
candidates for vice-mayor of Makati -Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The
former arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more
states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states. Dual allegiance refers
to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or
more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is a result of an individuals
volition;
Under our Constitution, it is possible for the following classes of citizens of the Philippines to
possess dual citizenship:
a. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle
of jus soli
b. Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their
fathers country such children are citizens of that country
c. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latters country the former are considered
citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced their Philippine
citizenship
Calilung v. Datumanong
constitutionality of the Dual Citizenship Law (RA 9225) What RA 9225 does is dual
citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who has lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country; On its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance;
By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces his
foreign citizenship
Loss of Citizenship
Yu v. Defensor Santiago
Portuguese passport Yus act of applying for a Portuguese passport despite his naturalization
as a Philippine citizen and his act of declaring his nationality as Portuguese in commercial
documents, constitute an EXPRESS renunciation of his Philippine citizenship acquired through
naturalization; Philippine citizenship is not a commodity or ware to be displayed when required
and suppressed when convenient
Frivaldo v. COMELEC
governor-elect of Sorsogon; American citizenship; repatriation Loss of naturalized Philippine
citizenship did not and could not have the effect of automatic restoration of ones Philippine
citizenship; mere filing of certificate of candidacy wherein Frivaldo claimed that he is a natural
born citizen is
not a sufficient act of repatriation; repatriation requires an express and unequivocal act;
Labo v. COMELEC
mayor of Baguio City; Australian citizenship; bigamous marriage Res judicata does not
apply to questions of citizenship;
Aznar v. COMELEC
disqualification of Osmea; American citizenship Aznar failed to present direct proof that
Osmea
had lost his Filipino citizenship by any of the modes provided by law; The fact the Osmea was
both a Filipino and an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino;