SYLLABUS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW

(As of August 2018)

NORHABIB BIN SUOD S. BARODI

Assistant Dean, MSU College of Law
Main Campus, Marawi City

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
(STRUCTURE AND POWERS OF GOVERNMENT)

1. THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

Constitutionalism. Constitutional government. Constitutional authoritarianism and Republicanism.

The Principle of Supremacy of the Constitution. Social Contract Doctrine. The right to revolt. Effects
of revolution on the prevailing Constitution.

Maria Carolina P. Araullo, et. al. v. Benigno Simeon Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014
Villavicencio v. Lucban, 39 Phil. 778 (1919)
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003
Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668, September 15, 1989
Manila Prince Hotel Corporation v. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408 [1997]
Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v. Corazon Aquino, G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986

Q1: What is a constitutional government?

Q2: Is constitutionalism indispensable to the survival of a civilized society?

Q3: If a military coup d’ etat topples the existing government, is the resulting government a
constitutional government?

Q4: Is the principle of supremacy of the Constitution absolute?

Q5: Is the right to revolt a constitutional right?

Q6: Can you claim a Bill of Rights even in the absence of a Constitution?

Constitutional interpretation. Structural parts of the 1987 Constitution. Authorship. Essential Parts
of a good written Constitution. Self-executing and non-self-executing provisions.

De Castro v. JBC, March 17, 2010

Manila Prince Hotel Corporation v. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408 [1997]
Francisco v. The House of Representatives, 415 SCRA 44 (Nov. 10, 2003)
Pamatong v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004.

Q1: The Supreme Court may effectuate changes in the Constitution. True or False.

Q2: How come that even those who were born after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution
are also considered authors of the Constitution?
 Q3: What are the rules in interpretation of the Constitution? See Francisco v. The House of
Representatives, supra.

Amendments and revisions. Definitions and distinctions. Quantitative test and Qualitative test. Steps
in the amendatory process. Doctrine of Proper Submission.

Lambino v. Comelec, 505 SCRA 160 [2006]

Santiago v. Comelec, G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997
Javellana v. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 30

Q1: Is there such a thing as irrepealable constitution?

Q2: May the ratification of the proposal be valid even if the ratification did not comply with
the requirement of the prevailing Constitution?

2. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

National territory. Archipelagic doctrine. Philippine archipelagic baselines. The concept of regime of
islands. Philippine Baseline Law (R.A. 9522)

Assignment: Read Saguisag v. Executive Secretary Ochoa, G.R. No. 212426, MR

Resolution dated July 26, 2016 (penned by then CJ Sereno) on the salient
points of the ruling of the PCA in Republic of the Philippines v. The
People’s Republic of China.

Read Magallona v. Ermita, 655 SCRA 476 (2011)

Q1: How is the Archipelagic doctrine articulated in the definition of our national territory?

Q2: Why is a defined territory necessary?

Q3: Is the definition of national territory necessary for a state to assert in international law that
it has territory?

Q4: Why did Congress adopt the “regime of islands” principle in the enactment of R.A. 9522?

The Doctrine of State Immunity. Basis. The Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty. Applicability to foreign
governments. How waived. The Restrictive Doctrine of State Immunity. Suits against Government
Agencies. Suits against public officials. Suability vs. liability. Garnishment of government funds. Extent
of the waiver. Remedies if government fails to satisfy judgment.

Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency, Inc. v. U.P., G.R. No. 185918, April 18, 2012
US v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487
US v. Rodrigo, consolidated decision with US vs. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644
Indonesia v. Vinzon, 2003
Most Rev. Pedro D. Arigo, et. al. vs. Scott Swift in his capacity as Commander of the of the US 7th
Fleet, Mark A. Rice in his capacity as Commanding Officer of the USS Guardian, Pres. Benigno S.
Aquino III in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP, et. al, G.R. No. 206510, Sept. 16,
2014.
Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers (AMCOW) v. GCC Approved Medical
 Centers Association, G.R. No. 207132, December 6, 2016
Republic v. Villasor, G.R. No. L-30671, November 28,1973
University of the Philippines v. Hon. Dizon and Stern Builders, 679 SCRA 54
Holy See v. Rosario, G.R. No. 101949, December 1, 1994
Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Judge Fermi, G.R. No. L-52179, April 8,1991
Minucher v. Court of Appeals
Torio v. Fontanilla, 85 SCRA 599
Municipality of Makati v. IAC
Amigable v. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360
Ministerio v. CFI of Cebu, 40 SCRA 464

Q1: Why is state immunity also referred to as the Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty?

Q2: May the State validly invoke the doctrine of state immunity even if it is not expressly
provided in the Constitution?

Q3: May foreign governments invoke state immunity before Philippine courts? Why?

Q4: What are the remedies of the claimant if the government fails to satisfy the judgment?

Q5: Is a foreign government sued in a Philippine court under obligation to invoke its immunity
from suit by the filing of the proper pleading or motion before said court?

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES. Function of the Declaration of

Principles and State Policies.

Manila Prince Hotel Corporation v. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408 [1997]

Tanada v. Angara, G. R. No. 118295 [1997]
Pamatong v. Comelec, 2004
Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 [1993]

Q1: Is Article II necessary to the 1987 Constitution?

PRINCIPLES

Sovereignty and Republicanism. Features and manifestations of republicanism. Rule of majority.

Forms of government. Presidential v. Parliamentary. Unitary v. Federalism.

Macquiling v. Comelec, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013 (On the abandonment of the doctrine of
rejection of second placer)

Q1: Why is it that the nominal designation of ‘Presidential’ form of government is derived
from the term ‘President’ considering that the Office of the President is just one of the co-equal
branches of government?

Adherence to International law. Renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy. Adoption

of customary international law. Examples. Incorporation clause vs. transformation clause (Note: This
will be tackled exhaustively in Public International Law). Adherence to policy of peace, freedom, and
amity.

Kuroda v. Jalandoni, 83 Phil. 171 (1949)

 Agustin v. Edu, 88 SCRA 195, 213 (1979)

Supremacy of Civilian Authority. How institutionalized. Manifestations

Gudani v. Senga, G.R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006

IBP v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 (2000)

Defense of the State.

Sec. 4, Art. II: “The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The
Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens
may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal military or civil service.”

Separation of Church and State. Meaning of inviolability of Church and State. Rationale.

Correlate with freedom of religion.

STATE POLICIES

Philippine foreign policy/relations. Paramount considerations. Independent foreign policy. Nuclear-

free policy. Exception

Bayan v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000

Lim v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 151445, April 11, 2002
Magallona v. Ermita, 655 SCRA 476 (2011)

Q1: What does the right to self-determination mean in the context of Section 7, Article II?
(Read The Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel, G.R. No. 208566, October 14,
2008)

Promotion of Social justice and human rights. Definition of social justice in Calalang v. Williams.
Dignity of human person. Full respect for human rights. Correlate with Article XIII of the 1987
Constitution. The Commission on Human Rights.

Q1: Is the 1987 Constitution effective and efficient in the protection of human rights?

Sanctity of family life. Protection of the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.

James Imbong, et. al. v. Hon. Paquito Ochoa, G. R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014 (consolidated
decision on the RH Law)

Right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Doctrine of intergenerational responsibility. Writ of

Kalikasan. Requisites for issuance.

Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792 (1993)

Laguna Lake Development Authority v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120865-71, December 7, 1995
MMDA v. Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. No. 171947-48, December 18, 2008.
Segovia v. The Climate Change Commission, G. R. 211010, March 7, 2017
Resident marine mammals of Tanon Strait joined in and represented herein by human beings Gloria
Estenzo Ramos and Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio, in their capacity as legal guardians and as
responsible stewards of God’s creations v. Secretary Angelo Reyes, et. al., G.R. No. 180771, April
21, 2015
 Indigenous cultural communities

Cruz v. Secretary, G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000.

Cariño v. Insular Government, 212 US 449

3. Principle of separation of powers. Concept. Purpose. Justiciable and the Political Questions. 2 types
of political questions. Examples. Effect of expanded judicial power. Principle of Blending of Powers.
Principle of Checks and Balances. Delegation of powers. Instances of Permissible Delegation. Tests
for valid delegation.

Explain the principle of separation powers in the context of the following cases:

Belgica v. Hon. Exec. Sec. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, Nov. 19, 2013
Vinuya, et. al. v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010.
MMDA v. Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. No. 171947-48, December 18, 2008.

Explain the political question doctrine in the context of the following cases:

Vinuya, et. al. v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010.
AMCOW v. GAMCA (Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers (AMCOW) v. GCC
Approved Medical Centers Association, G.R. No. 207132, December 6, 2016)
Baguilat v. Speaker Alvarez, G.R. No. 227757, July 25, 2017
Padilla v. Congress of the Philippines, G.R. No. 231671, July 25, 2017
Tanada vs. Cuenco
Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA 659

4. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Who may exercise legislative power. Houses of Congress.

Composition. Qualifications. Term of office. Term limit. Vacancy. Salary. District representatives and
questions of apportionment. Gerrymandering. Party-list system (R.A. 7941). Philosophy and nature
of the party-list system. Guidelines for screening Party-List Participants. Inviolable parameters to
determine the winners in a Philippine-style party-list election. Legislative privileges, inhibitions and
disqualifications. Incompatible Office. Forbidden Office. Sessions of Congress. Meaning of “in
session”. Kinds of sessions. Quorum and voting majorities. Discipline of members. Bodies attached
to Congress. Composition. Nature. Powers.

Sema vs. Comelec, 558 SCRA 700 (2008)

Atong Paglaum, Inc. represented by its President, Mr. Alan Igot v. Comelec, G.R. No. 203766, April
2, 2013 [Consolidated decision on 54 petitions] (Justice Carpio)
Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec, G.R. No. 136781 and Companion Cases, Oct. 6, 2000
Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. Comelec, G.R. No.
179271, April 21, 2009, Resolution dated July 8, 2009.
Aksyon Magsasaka-Partido Tinig ng Masa (AKMA-PTM) v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207134, June
16, 2015
People v. Jalosjos, G.R. No. 132875, February 3, 2000
Osmena v. Pendatun, 109 Phil. 863
Pobre v. Santiago, A.C. No. 7399, August 25, 2009
Adaza v. Pacana, 135 SCRA 431
Avelino v. Cuenco, 83 Phil. 17
Arroyo v. De Venecia, 277 SCRA 268, Aug. 14, 1997
Regina Ongsiako Reyes v. Comelec, 2013
Bondoc v. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792
 Tanada v. Cuenco, 100 Phil. 1101

5. POWERS OF CONGRESS. Classification of powers of Congress in general. Process of lawmaking.

Origin of bills. One subject one title rule. Rider. Three readings on separate days rule. Enrolled bill
doctrine v. Journal. Bill presentment. Veto power of the President. Doctrine of Inappropriate Provision.
Bicameral Conference Committee. The Power of Appropriation. Meaning of appropriation law and
its classification. Automatic reappropriation. Executive impoundment in relation to appropriation.
Prohibition against transfer of appropriations. Doctrine of augmentation. Requisites.
Congressional oversight powers and functions. Definition. Three categories of congressional
oversight powers and functions. Legislative contempt. Question Hour vs. Legislative Investigation.
Legislative veto. Non-legislative powers of Congress. Informing function. The power of impeachment.

James Imbong, et. al. v. Hon. Paquito Ochoa, G. R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014 (consolidated
decision on the RH Law)
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance, 235 SCRA 630
Agripino A. De Guzman, Jr., et al. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 129118, July 19, 2000
Arroyo v. De Venecia, 277 SCRA 268, Aug. 14, 1997
Astorga v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-23475 April 30, 1974
Bengzon v. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133
Gonzales v. Macaraig
Belgica v. Executive Secretary Ochoa, supra.
Philippine Judges Ass’n v. Secretary Prado, 227 SCRA 203
Maria Carolina P. Araullo, et. al. v. Benigno Simeon Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014
Philconsa v. Enriquez, 1994
Macalintal v. COMELEC
Senate v. Ermita
Matibag v. Benipayo
Arnault v. Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29 [1950]
Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA 767
Standard Charter Bank v. Senate Committee on Banks
Neri v. Senate Committees,
ABAKADA Guro Party-list v. Executive Secretary Purisima, 469 SCRA 14, August 2008
Macalintal v. Comelec, 405 SCRA 719
2018 Atio case (on legislative contempt, not yet posted in SC website as of this writing)

Assignment: Summarize the process of lawmaking from introduction to presentment

involving a Bicameral Conference Committee bill.

6. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. The President and the Vice President. Qualifications. Manner of
election. Term of office. Term limit. The Presidential Electoral Tribunal. Rules of Succession. Removal
through impeachment and quo warranto. Privileges, inhibitions and disqualifications. Powers of
the President. Executive and administrative powers in general. Power of appointment.
Classification. Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Special constitutional limitations on
the President’s appointing power. Midnight appointments. Power of removal. Power of control and
supervision. Doctrine of qualified political agency. Power over Local government units. Military
powers. Constitutional limitations. Pardoning power. Nature and limitations. Doctrine of non-
diminution or non-impairment of the President’s power of pardon by acts of Congress. Amnesty vs.
pardon. Diplomatic power/Foreign relations powers. Borrowing power. Delegated powers.
Residual powers. Emergency powers.

Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March 2, 2001, en Banc [Puno]

Republic of the Philippine v. Chief Justice Sereno, 2018
 Senate v. Ermita
Neri v. Senate Committees
National Electrification Admi’n v. CA
Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989
The Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel, G.R. No. 208566, October 14, 2008
Atty. Cheloy Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President, G. R. No. 203372, June 16, 2015,
(Consolidated decision)
Arturo de Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, March 17, 2010
Binamira v. Garrucho, 188 SCRA 154
Valencia v. Peralta, 8 SCRA 692
Matibag v. Benipayo,
Manalo v. Sistoza, 312 SCRA 239, Aug. 11, 1999, En Banc [Purisima])
Tarrosa v. Singson (232 SCRA 553),
Lacson v. Romero, 84 Phil. 740
Pimentel v. Ermita,
De Rama v. CA,
Biraogo v. PTC of 2010
Domingo v. Zamora,
Atty. Sylvia Banda, et.al v. Ermita, GR 1666620, April 20, 2010
MEWAP v. Romulo
DENR v. DENR Region XII Employees (2003)
City of Iligan v. Director of Lands
Lacson-Magallanes vs. Pano
Gascon vs. Arroyo, 178 SCRA 582
Gloria vs. CA, 2000
Maria Carolina P. Araullo, et. al. v. Benigno Simeon Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014
Fortun v. Arroyo (Martial Law in the Province of Maguindanao)
Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 231658, July 4, 2017 (May 2017 Martial Law Cases)
Lagman v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 235935, February 6, 2018 (Martial Law Extension)
Fortun v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 190293, March 20, 2012
Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Ronaldo B. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, Aug. 15, 2000, En
Banc [Kapunan])
David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006
Kulayan v. Tan, G.R. No. 187298, July 3, 2012
Montenegro v. Baker,
Lansang v. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448
Enrile v. Morales
Lacson v. Perez,
Sanlakas vs. Reyes
Aquino vs. Military Commission No. 2, 63 SCRA 546
Olaguer vs. Military Commission No. 34, 150 SCRA 144
Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal, petitioner, Alfredo Lim, petitioner-intervenor v. Comelec and Joseph
Ejercito Estrada, G. R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015
People v. de Garcia
Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96, Jan. 19, 1999, En Banc
In Re: Wilfredo Sumulong Torres, 251 SCRA 709, Dec. 29, 1995
Espuelas v. Provincial Warden of Bohol

7. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. Concepts: Judicial power. Judicial review. Requisites of judicial

review. Moot questions. Effects of declaration of unconstitutionality. Operative fact doctrine. The
Supreme Court. Composition. Qualifications of Members of SC. En banc and division cases.
Expansion of SC appellate jurisdiction by Congress. Appointments to the Judiciary. Judicial and Bar
Council. Composition. Functions. Safeguards of judicial independence.
 Republic of the Philippines v. Chief Justice Sereno, 2018.
Conchita Carpio Morales, in her capacity as the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Jejomar
Erwin S. Binay, Jr., G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015.
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, 643 SCRA 90
(2011)
Vargas v. Rilloraza
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary
David v. Arroyo
People v. Vera
Matibag v. Benipayo
Araullo v. Aquino, DAP case
Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice
Estipona v. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017
Chavez v. JBC, 2013
Ferdinand Villanueva v. JBC, G.R. No. 211833, April 7, 2015
Umali v. JBC, G.R. No. 228628, July 25, 2017
Aguinaldo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 224302, November 29, 2016, and the JBC Motions Resolutions
dated February 21, 2017 and August 8, 2017

8. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS. Constitutional safeguards to ensure independence of

commissions. Powers and functions of each commission. Jurisdiction of each constitutional
commission. Review of final orders, resolutions and decisions. Rendered in the exercise of quasi-
judicial functions. Rendered in the exercise of administrative functions

9. NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY. Regalian Doctrine. Nationalist and citizenship

requirement provisions. Exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources. Franchises,
authority and certificates of public utilities. Acquisition, ownership and transfer of public and private
lands. Practice of professions. Organization and regulation of corporations, private and public.
Monopolies, restraint of trade and unfair competition.

10. EDUCATION, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE AND SPORTS. The Concept of
Academic Freedom. Definition. Constitutional history. Basis. Aspects. State power to regulate
educational institutions. Constitutional right to select a profession or course of study. Essential
freedoms subsumed in academic freedom.

Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 348 SCRA 265, 288, Dec. 15, 2000, 1st Div.
[Kapunan]
Licup, et al. v. University of San Carlos [USC]
Capitol Medical Center, Inc., et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.
University of San Agustin, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 230 SCRA 761, 774-775, March 7, 1994
[Nocon]
Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 263
Isabelo, Jr. v. Perpetual Help College of Rizal, Inc., 227 SCRA 591, 595 [1993]
Ateneo de Manila University v. Capulong, 222 SCRA 643, 660 [1993]
Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology, 68 SCRA 277, 285 [1975]
Tangonan v. Pano, 137 SCRA 245 [1985]
Garcia v. Loyola School of Theology, 68 SCRA 277 [1975]
Isabelo, Jr. v. Perpetual Help College of Rizal, Inc., 227 SCRA 595-597, Nov. 8, 1993, En Banc
First Class Cadet Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia v. The Superintendent of the PMA, et. al, G.R. No. 211362,
Feb. 24, 2015
Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, et al.
 UP v. CSC, G.R. No. 132860, April 3, 2001

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
(BILL OF RIGHTS)

11. Fundamental powers of the State and the Bill of Rights. Introduction to Bill of Rights and the
Fundamental Powers of the State.

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003

INHERENT POWERS

Police Power. Concept. Application and limits. Requisites for valid exercise. Eminent domain.
Concept. Application and limits. Requisites for valid exercise. Concept of “public use”. Just
compensation. Determination. Effect of delay. Abandonment of intended use and right of repurchase.
Requisites of taking in eminent domain. Power of taxation. Concept. Application and limits.
Requisites for valid exercise.

(Some of the cases below are relevant and should be correlated with due process)

Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK), et. al., v. Quezon City, as represented by
Mayor Herbert Bautista, City of Manila, as represented by Mayor Joseph Estrada, and Navotas
City, as represented by Mayor John Rey Tiangco, G.R. No. 225442, August 8, 2017
Land Bank of the Phils. v. Eugenio Dalauta, G.R. No. 190004, August 8, 2017.
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc., 328 SCRA 836,
843-844, March 27, 2000, 1st Div.
Imbong vs. Ochoa, constitutionality of R.A. 10354
PRC vs. De Guzman, et al., June 21, 2004
Taxicab Operators v. Bot, 119 SCRA 597
Agustin v. Edu, 88 SCRA 195
Ermita-Malate Hotel v. Mayor of Manila, July 31, 1967
Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343 (1989)
Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155
Justice Emilio Gancayco v. City Government of Quezon City & Metro Manila Commission, G.R.
No. 177933, October 11, 2011
Stone vs. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814
Powell vs. Pennsylvania
De la Cruz v. Paras, 123 SCRA 569
White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, January 20, 2009
City Government of Quezon City v. Ericta, 122 SCRA 759
Republic of the Philippines, DOTC, MIAA v. Hon. Jesus Mupas and PIATCO (and companion
cases) G.R. No. 181892, September 8, 2015
Office of the Solicitor General v. Ayala Land, Inc., G.R. No. 177056, September 18, 2009
Hacienda Luisita Inc., v. Luisita Industrial Park Corporation, G.R. No. 171101, July 5, 2011, and
Resolution dated November 22, 2011
Bensley v. Mountainlake Water Co., 13 Cal., 306 and cases cited [73 Am. Dec., 576]
Republic vs. Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336
 Apo Fruits v. LBP, G.R. No. 164195, 2010
Sy v. Local Gov’t of Quezon City, 697 SCRA 621 (2013)
City of Manila v. Lagulo, 455 SCRA 308 (2005)
Republic v. Ortigas, 717 SCRA 601 (2014)
Teresita M. Yuhuico v. Hon. Jose L. Atienza., et al., G.R. No. 164282, October 12, 2005, citing
Republic v. Lim, G.R. No. 161656, June 29, 2005

BILL OF RIGHTS. Structure. Powers of government and the Bill of Rights. Hierarchy of rights

DUE PROCESS. Meaning. Procedural and substantive due process. Distinction. Requisites of
procedural due process. Void-for-vagueness doctrine. Overbreadth doctrine. Due process and appeal,
plea bargaining, preliminary investigation.

Mosqueda, et al., v. Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association, G.R. No. 189185, August
16, 2016
Philippine Blooming Mills Employee Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., 51
SCRA 189
Corona v. United Harbor Pilots Association of the Philippines, 283 SCRA 31 (1997)
Tañada vs. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 (1985)
Mayor Emmanuel L. Maliksi v. Comelec and Homer T. Saquilayan, G.R. No. 203302, April 13,
2013
Francis Jardeleza v. Sereno, G.R. No. 213181, August 19, 2014
Manila Memorial Park v. DSWD Secretary, G.R. No. 175356, December 3, 2013
Surigao del Norte Electric Coop v. ERC, G.R. No. 183626, October 4, 2010
Abraham Tolentino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 187958, April 7, 2010
Heirs of Bugarin v. Republic, G.R. No. 174431, August 6, 2012
Ynot v. IAC, G.R. No. 74457, March 20, 1987
Ang Tibay v. CIR, 69 Phil. 635 (1940)
Gamboa v. Chan, G.R. No. 193636, July 24, 2012
Heirs of Bugarin v. Republic, G.R. No. 174431, August 6, 2012
Tua v. Mangrobang, G.R. No. 170701, January 22, 2014.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY. Section 9,

Article III. Non-impairment of contracts (Section 10, Article III)

Goldenway Merchandising Corporation v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 195540, March 13, 2013
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. WMC Resources Int’l Pty. Ltd., 507 SCRA 315 (2006)
Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., 582 SCRA 254 (2009)
Bank of Phil. Islands v. SEC, 541 SCRA 294 (2007)
Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814

Q1: When is there an impairment of contract?

EQUAL PROTECTION. Concept. Valid classification. Requisites fof valid classification. Standards
of judicial review. Strict Scrutiny Test. Intermediate Scrutiny Test. Rational Basis Test.

Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, G.R. No. L-14078, March 7, 1919

Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City, 22 SCRA 603
Obergefell vs. Hodges, 2015 US case on same sex marriage
Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et. al., G. R. Nos. 212140-41, January
21, 2015
Delgado v. CA, November 10, 1986
Consulta vs. People, February 12, 2009
 Tecson v. Comelec, March 3, 2004
Philippine Judges Association v. Prado,227 SCRA 703
Zambales Chromite Mining v. CA, 94 SCRA 261
Anzaldo v. Clave, 119 SCRA 353
Lumiqued v. Exenea, 282 SCRA 125
Jose Atienza et al v. Comelec and Manuel Roxas II, Franklin Drilon and Nereus Acosta, G.R. No.
188920, February 16, 2010
Louis “Barok” C. Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission Of 2010, G.R. No. 192935 :
December 7, 2010
Taxicab Operators vs. BOT, September 30, l982
Gumabon vs. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420

Article:

Same-Sex Marriage: Exploring the Implications of Obergefell v. Hodges on the Philippines’

Muslim Law of Marriage and the 1987 Constitution (25 (2) 2017 IIUMLJ 197 - 227) by Norhabib
Bin Suod S. Barodi. Available at http://iium.edu.my

RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. Concept. Search and

Arrest. Requirements for issuance of warrant. Probable cause. Kinds of probable cause. Valid
warrantless arrest. Valid warrantless search. Requisites of plain view search, search of moving vehicle,
Terry search, search incident to lawful arrest, consented search. Exclusionary right/rule

Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383

World Wide Web Corporation v. People, G.R. No. 203335, January 13, 2014
Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014
PLDT v. Alvarez, 718 SCRA 54 (2014)
People v. Cogaed, 731 SCRA 427 (2014)
Luz v. People, G.R. No.197788, February 29, 2012
Lucas v. Lucas, 650 SCRA 667 (2011)
People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 547
Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800
Lopez vs. Commissioner, 65 SCRA 336
Waterous Drug Corp. v. NLRC
Leviste v. Judge Alameda, RTC Makati, G,.R. No. 182677, August 3, 2010
P. vs. Villanueva, 110 SCRA 465
Tambasen v. People, July 14, 1995 and People vs. CA, 216 SCRA 101,
Mustang Lumber v. CA, 257 SCRA 430
Gozo v. Tac-An, 300 SCRA 265
People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999
Soliven & Beltran v. Makasiar, November 18, 1988
Bache vs. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823
Pendon vs. CA, Nov. 16, 1990
Juan Ponce Enrile v. Judge Jaime Salazar, et al., G.R. No. 92163, June 5, 1990
Century Fox vs. CA, 164 SCRA 655
Dr. Nemesio Prudente v. The Hon. Executive Judge Abelardo M. Dayrit, RTC 33, Manila & People
of the Philippines, GR No. 82870, December 14, 1989
Pendon vs. CA, Nov. 16, 1990
People v. Montilla, 284 SCRA 703 (1998)
Veroy v. Layague, 210 SCRA 97
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1
Manalili v. Court of Appeals
People v. Claudio, 160 SCRA 646
 People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626
Manalili v. People, October 9, 1997
People v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401
Nolasco v. Pano, 139 SCRA 541
Pp vs. Burgos, 144 SCRA
Espano v. Ca, 288 SCRA 588
People v. Aminnudin y Ahni, 163 SCRA 402 (1988)
People v. Belen Mariacos, G.R. No. 18861, June 16, 2010
People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597 (1993)
People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 25
People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 547
People v. Go, 354 SCRA 338
People v. Mengote, G.R. No. 87059, June, 1992
People v. Sevilla, 339 SCRA 625 (2000)

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY. Facets of privacy right. Zones of privacy. Intrusion,

when allowed. Writ of habeas data. Data Privacy Act of 2012 (R.A. 10173). Anti-Photo and Video
Voyeurism Act of 2009 (R.A. 9995), Human Security Act of 2007 (Sec. 7, R.A. 9372). Anti-Wire
Tapping Law (R.A. 4200). The right to be forgotten.

Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, 737 SCRA 92 (2014)

Lee v. Ilagan, G.R. No. 203254, October 8, 2014
James Imbong, et. al. vs. Hon. Paquito Ochoa, G. R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014 (consolidated
decision on the RH Law)
Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014
De Lima v. Gatdula, 691 SCRA 226 (2013)
Gamboa v. Chan, 677 SCRA 385 (2012)
Ople vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 141, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998
Ayer Productions v. Capulong, 160 SCRA 861
Griswold vs. Connecticut, 81 U.S. 479
Morfe vs. Mutuc, 22 SCRA 424 (1968)
People of the Philippines v. Andre Marti, 193 SCRA 57
Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 667, February 10, 1996
Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No. 157870, November 3, 2008
KMU v. Ermita, & Bayan Muna v. Ermita, April 19, 2006 & June 20, 2006
Sabio v. Gordon, G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006

THE GUARANTEED/PROTECTED/GREAT FREEDOMS

Freedom of Expression and Free Speech. Concept and scope. Prior restraint. Subsequent punishment.
Content-based and content-neutral regulations. Tests of valid governmental interference. Facial
challenges. Commercial speech. Heckler’s veto

Jose Jesus Disini, et. al. vs. The Sec. of Justice, et. al., G. R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014
(Consolidated decision)
The Diocese of Bacolod rep. by Most Rev. Navarra vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 205728, January 21,
2015
Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Dy, G.R. No.170270, April 2, 2009
1-United Transport Koalisyon v. Comelec, G.R. No. 206020, April 14, 2015
SWS and Pulse Asia v. Comelec, G.R. No. 208062, April 7, 2015
Abrams vs. US, 250 US 616
Chavez vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 16338, February 15, 2008
David v. Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160
 Near vs. Minnesota, 1931
Grosjean vs. American Press Co.
Adiong v. Comelec, G.R. No. 103956, March 31, 1992
Sanidad v. Comelec, 181 SCRA 529 (1990)
Soriano vs. Laguardia, 587 SCRA 79 (2009)
Osmena vs. Comelec
Pablito V. Sanidad v. Comelec, G.R. NO. 90878, January 29, 1990
Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Mayor Atienza, G,R. No. 175241, February 24, 2010
De la Cruz vs. Ela, 99 Phil. 346
US v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)
Grosjean v. American Press Co.
Newsounds Broadcasting Network vs. Hon. Ceasar Dy, April 2, 2009
GSIS v. Villaviza, 625 SCRA 669 (2010)
Bro. Eliseo Soriano vs. MTRCB, April 29, 2009
Ayer Production v. Judge Capulong, Juan Ponce Enrile, et al., 160 SCRA 861
New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
Miller v. California
Pita vs. CA, 178 SCRA 362
US v. Bustos
In Re: Column of Ramon Tulfo (Tulfo’s Sangkatutak na Bobo column on the SC decision in
Valmonte v. de Villa)
Gesite vs. CA, 444 SCRA 28
Philippine Press Institute v. Comelec
Telecommunications and broadcast attorneys of the Phils. v. Comelec
Cabansag v. Fernandez
American Communications Ass’n v. Douds
Lagunzad vs. Gonzales, 92 SCRA 476
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan
Friedman vs. Rogers
Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp vs. Public Service Commission
Roe vs. Crawford
Hill vs. Colorado

Freedom of the press. The four (4) aspects of press freedom. The right to information. Limitations
and exceptions. Publication of laws and regulations. Access to court records. Right to information
relative to: a. Government contract negotiations, and b. Diplomatic negotiations.

Francisco Chavez v. Raul Gonzales, et. al., G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008
Chavez v. PCGG, 299 SCRA 744, December 9, 1998
Reyes v. Bagatsing, G.R. No. 65366, November 9, 1983
GMA Network v. Comelec, G.R. No. 205357, September 27, 2014
The Diocese of Bacolod rep. by Most Rev. Navarra vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 205728, January 21,
2015
SWS v. Comelec, G.R. No. 147571, May 5, 2001
Re: Request for copy of 2008 SALN, PDS, CV of the Justices of the SC and officers and employees
of the Judiciary, A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC, June 13, 2012
Re: Request of Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism for the 2008 SALN and PDS of the
CA Justices, A.M. No. 09-8-07, June 13, 2012:
Province of North Cotabato v. GRP (MOA-AD Case)
Akbayan v. Thomas Aquino, July 16, 2008 (The JPEPA Case)
Antolin v. Domondon, G.R. No. 165036, July 5, 2010

Freedom of association, assembly and forming unions

 Primicias v. Fuguso, L-1800, January 27, 1948
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union, 59 SCRA 54 (Sept. 12, 1974)
Ang Ladlad [LGBT---Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender] Party v. Comelec, G.R. No.
190582, April 8, 2010
Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union, 1974
United Pepsi Cola Union v. Laguesma, 288 SCRA 15
Manila Public School Teachers Association v. Laguio, 200 SCRA 323
Bayan v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006

Freedom of religion. Concept. Two aspects of Freedom of Religious Profession and Worship. Non-
establishment clause. Concept and basis. Acts permitted and not permitted by the clause. Tests to
determine violations of the non-establishment clause. Free exercise clause. Tests in determining
violations. Clear and Present Danger Test. Compelling State Interest Test. Conscientious Objector Test

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. _____June 4, 2018
Re: Letter of Tony Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the Hall of Justice of Quezon City,
A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, March 7, 2017
Valmores v. Achacoso, G.R. No. 217453, July 19, 2017
Estrada vs. Escritur, 408 SCRA 1 and 492 SCRA 1, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1
American Bible Society v. City of Manila, 101 Phil. 386 (1957)
School prayer case [Engel v. Vitale]
Islamic Da’wah Council of the Phils. v. Office of the Executive Secretary, 405 SCRA 497
Ang Ladlad [LGBT---Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender] Party v. Comelec, G.R. No.
190582, April 8, 2010
Ebralinag v. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, 219 SCRA 256, March 1, 1993
Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope, 59 SCRA 54
People v. Lagman & Zosa, 38 O.G. 1676,
Schenck vs. US
Welsh vs. US

Liberty of abode and of travel. Limitations. Right to travel. Watch-list and hold departure orders.
Return to one’s country

Villavicencio v. Lucban, 39 Phil. 778 (1919)

Caunca vs. Salazar
Phil. Ass’n of Service Exporters v. Drilon, 246 Phil. 393, 399 (1988)
Ferdinand Marcos, et al. v. Hon. Raul Manglapus, et al., G.R. NO. 88211, September 15, 1989 and
the Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration dated October 27, 1989
Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals, 142 SCRA 149
Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633 (1993)
Office of Administrative Services-Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Ignacio Macarine,
A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770, July 18, 2012
Arroyo v. De Lima, G.R. No. 199034, April 17, 2018

RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS. Availability. Requisites. Waiver. Requisites of valid confession. Expanded

Miranda doctrine or the Mahinay doctrine

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

People v. Bariquit, 341 SCRA 600
People v. Base, 385 Phil. 803 (2000)
 People v. Patunga, 354 SCRA 413
People v. Marcos Jimenez, G.R. No. 82604, December 10, 1991
People v. Juanerio, 267 SCRA 608
People v. Matos-Viduaya, September 11, 1990,
People v. Mahinay, February 1, 1999
People v. Chavez, G.R. No. 207950, September 22, 2014
People v. Abola, G.R. No. 195850, February 16, 2015
People v. De La Cruz
People v. Tuanico, G.R. No. 185710, January 10, 2010
People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465
People v. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010
Lumanog v. People, G.R. No. 182555, September 7, 2010 (Rolando Abadilla Case)

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Criminal due process. Meaning

Bail. Basis. When available. Exceptions to the right to bail. When is bail a matter of right and when is
it a matter of discretion. Factors to consider in granting bail.

Juan Ponce Enrile Vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and the People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
213847, AUG. 18, 2015
Villasenor vs. Abano, 21 SCRA 312
People v. Fitzgerald
Marcos vs. Cruz, 67 and 70 Phil.
U.S. v. Judge Purganan and Mark Jimenez, 389 SCRA 623
Mejoff v. Director of Prisons
Government of HongKong v. Felixberto Olalia, Jr.
People vs. Jalosjos
Villasenor vs. Abano, 21 SCRA 312
Section 9, Rule 114 of the December 1, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure

Presumption of innocence

People v. Malbog, 342 SCRA 620, October 12, 2000

Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008
People v. Saturno, 355 SCRA 578
Dumlao vs. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392
People v. Sapia Andongan, G.R. No. 184595, June 29, 2010

Right to be heard and Assistance of counsel

People v. John Hilario, G.R. No. 161070, April 14, 2008

People v. Nadera, 324 SCRA 490

Right to be informed

Malabanan v. Sandiganbayan, and companion cases, August 2, 2017

People v. Crisologo, 150 SCRA 653
People v. Resavaga, 159 SCRA 426

Right to speedy, impartial and public trial. Requisites

 Jaime Bernat v. Sandiganbayan, May 20, 2004

Right of confrontation

De la Cruz v. Papa, December 8, 2010

People v. Valero, 112 SCRA 661
People v. Bundalian, 117 SCRA 718
People v. Seneris, 99 SCRA 92

Compulsory process

Trials in absentia

Self-incrimination clause. Scope and coverage. Application and exceptions. Immunity statutes. Kinds:
Transactional immunity and use immunity

Chavez vs. CA, 24 SCRA 663

Atty. Manuel Laserna v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No. 158633, November 3, 2008
Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294,
Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62
Social Justice Society v. PDEA, November 3, 2008

Involuntary servitude and political prisoners

James Imbong, et. al. vs. Hon. Paquito Ochoa, G. R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014 (consolidated
decision on the RH Law)
Aclaracion vs. Gatmaitan, 64 SCRA 131
Caunca vs. Salazar

Excessive fines and cruel and inhuman punishments

Leo Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice

People v. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647
Lito Corpuz v. People of the Philippines, April 29, 2014

Non-imprisonment for debts

Double jeopardy. Requisites. Motions for reconsideration and appeals. Dismissal with consent of
accused

Javier v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 193150, January 23, 2017

Lejano v. People, People v. Hubert Webb, et. al., January 18, 2011
People v. Judge Relova, 148 SCRA 292
Ivler v. Judge Pedro, Presiding Judge, METC 71 of Pasig City, G.R. No. 172716, Novermber 17,
2010
Dayap v. Sendiong, January 29, 2009
People v. Balisacan, 17 SCRA 1119

Ex post facto laws and bills of attainder

Habeas corpus, habeas data, writ of amparo

12. CITIZENSHIP. Definition. Kinds. Usual modes of acquiring citizenship. Filipino citizens under the
1987 Constitution. En masse Filipinization. Caram Provision. Roa doctrine. Citizenship of foundlings.
Dual citizenship and dual allegiance. Election of Philippine citizenship. Doctrine of Indelible
Allegiance. Three ways by which an alien may become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization.
Questions of citizenship. Citizenship and res judicata. Loss and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.

Poe-Llamanzares v. Comelec, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016 (Grace Poe case)
Maria Jeanette Tecson v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004 (FPJ case)
Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, Bar Matter No. 914, Oct.
1, 1999, En Banc
Edison So v. Republic
Chiongbian v. De Leon, G.R. No. L-2007, January 3, 1949
Tranquilino Roa v. Insular Collector of Customs, G.R. No. 7011, October 30, 1912
Mercado v. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, May 26, 1999, En Banc
Eusebio Eugenio Lopez v. Comelec (2008) reiterated in Jacot vs. Dal and Comelec (2008)
Macquiling v. Comelec, July 2, 2013
Bengzon III v. HRET
Frivaldo v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727

13. LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

GENERAL PRINCIPLES. The Concept of Public Office and Public Officer. Classification of
public offices. Modes of acquiring title to public office. Modes and kinds of appointment. Eligibility
and qualification requirements. Who may prescribe qualifications to office. Disabilities and inhibitions
of public officers. Powers and duties of public officers. Rights of public officers. Liabilities of public
officers. Preventive suspension and back salaries. Illegal dismissal, reinstatement and back salaries.
Immunity of public officers. De facto officers. Legality of acts of De Facto Officers. How to question
title of de facto officer. Liabilities of de facto officer. Termination of official relation. The Civil
Service. Scope. Appointments to the civil service. Personnel actions. Accountability of public
officers. Impeachment. Ombudsman Act (R.A. 6770). Functions. Sandiganbayan. Ill-gotten wealth.
Term limits.

RA 6713: Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
Pertinent provisions of R.A. 7160 (LGC of 1991)
Laurel v. Civil Service Commission, 203 SCRA 195
Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy, G.R. No. 135805, April 29,1999
Debulgado v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 111471, September 26, 1994
Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139792, November 22, 2000,
Cruz vs. Joven, 350 SCRA 70
Conchita Carpio Morales, in her capacity as the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Jejomar Erwin S.
Binay, Jr., G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015.
Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 116418, March 7, 1995
Mathay, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
Administrative Code of 1987. Article 203 of the RPC.
RA 3019
Piclaro vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 110544, Oct. 16, 1995…but in Cruz: Preclaro vs. Sandiganbayan,
247 SCRA 454
Manila Terminal Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, L-1881, May 9, 1949
People vs. Penese, 81 Phil 398
Menzon vs. Petilla, 197 SCRA 251
Monroy vs. CA, 20 SCRA 620
Mendoza vs. Allas, 302 SCRA 623,
Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary
Malaluan vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 120193, March 6, 1996
FLORES, ET. ALS vs. HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, Executive Secretary, and RICHARD J. GORDON,
respondents, G.R. No. 104732, June 22, 1993
Cuyegkeng vs. Cruz, 108 Phil. 903
Frivaldo vs. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727
National Amnesty Commission vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 156982, Sept. 8, 2004
Civil Liberties Union Vs. The Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 83896, 1991 Feb 22, En Banc)
Adaza vs. Pacana
Appari vs. Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA 231
Binamira vs. Garrucho, 188 SCRA 154
Bermudez v. Torres, 311 SCRA 733, Aug. 4, 1999, 3rd Div. [Vitug]
Marohombsar vs. Alonto, 194 SCRA 391
Achacoso vs. Macaraig, 195 SCRA 235,
De Leon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127182, Jan. 22, 2001
Pimentel vs. Ermita
Sarmiento III v. Mison
Bautista v. Salonga (172 SCRA 160)
Quintos-Deles v. Constitutional Commission (177 SCRA 259)
Calderon v. Carale (208 SCRA 254)
Datu Michael Abas Kida vs. Senate of the Philippines, G. R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011
Manalo v. Sistoza, 312 SCRA 239, Aug. 11, 1999, En Banc [Purisima])
Tarrosa v. Singson (232 SCRA 553)
Matibag vs. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, 2002 Apr 2, En Banc
Summers vs. Ozaeta, decided on October 25, 1948
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Marohombsar vs. Court of Appeals
Arturo de Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council, March 17, 2010
De Rama vs. CA
Mitra vs. Subido, G.R. No. L-21691, Sept. 15, 1967
Aytona vs. Castillo, 4 SCRA 1
Ong vs. Office of the President, G. R. No. 184219, January 30, 2012
Maturan v. Maglana, 113 SCRA 268, reiterated in Province of Camarines Sur v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 104639, July 14 1995]
Lecaroz vs. Ferrer, G.R. No. 77918, July 27, Alfredo Cuadra vs. Teofisto Cordova, G.R. No. L-11602,
April 21, 1958
Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, 209 SCRA 637
Gloria v. de Guzman, G.R. No. 116183, October 6, 1995,
Sinon v. Civil Service Commission, 215 SCRA 410
Orcullo v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 138780, May 22, 2001
Meram vs. Edralin, 154 SCRA 238 citing Samson vs. CA, 145 SCRA 654, 658-659
Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) v. Venus, G.R. No. 163782, March 24, 2006,
General v. Roco, G.R. Nos. 143366 & 143524, January 29, 2001
Dimayuga v. Benedicto, G.R. No. 144153, January 16, 2002
Montecillo v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 131954, June 28, 2001,
Javier vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-39451, Feb. 20, 1989
Tomali v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 110598, December 1, 1994
University of the Philippines and Alfredo de Torres v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 132860, April
3, 2001
Aquino v. Civil Service Commission, 208 SCRA 240, reiterated in Medalla v. Sto. Tomas, 208 SCRA
351, and Uy v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 343].
Province of Camarines Sur vs. CA, 246 SCRA 281
Debulgado vs. CSC, 237 SCRA 184 reiterated in Mathay vs. CSC, G.R. No. 130214, August 9, 1999
De los Santos v. Mallare, 87 Phil 289; Salazar v Mathay 73 SCRA 275
Civil Service Commission and PAGCOR v. Salas, G.R. No. 123708, June 19, 1997
Civil Service Act of 1959,
R.A. 2260 was enacted on June 19,1959
Montecillo v. Civil Service Commission
Pacete v. Chairman, Commission on Audit, 185 SCRA 1
Borres v. Court of Appeals, 153 SCRA 120
Central Bank v. Civil Service Commission, 171 SCRA 744
Uy v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 343
Lapinid v. CSC, 197 SCRA 106
Guieb v. CSC, 229 SCRA 779
Mauna v. CSC, 232 SCRA 388
Panis v. Civil Sen/ice Commission, G.R. No. 102948, February 2, 1994
Divinagracia v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 110954, May 31, 1995
PalmaFemandez v. de la Paz, 160 SCRA 751
Quisumbing v. Judge Gumban, 193 SCRA 520
Chato v. Natividad, G.R. No. 113843, June 2, 1995
Cuevas v. Bacal, G.R. No. 139382, December 06, 2000; General v. Roco, G.R. Nos. 143366 & 143524,
January 29, 2001
Monsanto v. Factoran, 170 SCRA 190
Sabello v. Department of Education, Culture & Sports, 180 SCRA 623
Garcia v. Chairman, Commission on Audit, G.R. No. L-75025, September 14, 1993
Republic v. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 721
Padolina v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 133511, October 10, 2000,
Pastor v. City of Pasig, G.R. No. 146873, May 09, 2002
Carino v. Daoas, G.R. No. 144493, April 09, 2002
Floriza vs. Ongpin, 182 SCRA 692
Lamb v. Phipps, 22 Phil 456
Aristorenas v. Molina, A.M. No. P-94-1030, July 4, 1995
Co Unjieng vs. Patstone, 42 Phil. 818
First Philippine Holdings Corporation v. Sandiganbayan, 253 SCRA 30,
Angchangco v. Ombudsman, 268 SCRA 301
Lopez, Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 1405219, September 6, 2001
Sharp International Marketing v. Court of Appeals, 201 SCRA 299,
BF Homes v. National Water Resources Council, 154 SCRA 88,
DENR vs. DENR Region XII Employees (2003)
Gonzales v. Chavez, 205 SCRA 817
Sharp International Marketing v. Court of Appeals, 154 SCRA 88
Nunez v. Averia, 57 SCRA 726
Dimaandal v. Commission on Audit, 291 SCRA 322
Director of Commerce and Industry vs. Concepcion, 43 Phil. 384
Manalo v. Gloria, G.R. No. 106692, September 1, 1994
Commission on Human Rights Employees Association v. Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No.
155336, November 25, 2004
Santiago v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 146824, November 21, 2007].
Ligot v. Mathay
Nitafan v. Tan, 152 SCRA 284
Intia v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 131529, April 30, 1999
Central Bank Employees Association v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 148208, December 15,
2004
De Jesus v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 127515, May 10, 2005
Gloria v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 131012, April 21, 1999
Constantino-David v. Pangandaman-Gania, G.R. No. 156039, August 14, 2003].
Civil Service Commission v. Gentallan, G.R. No. 152833, May 9, 2005
Municipality of Jasaan, Misamis Oriental v. Gentallan, G.R. No. 154961, May 9, 2005
Balitaosan v. Secretary, DECS, G.R. No. 138238, September 2, 2003,
Brugada v. Secretary of Education, G.R. No. 14233243, January 31, 2005
Cristobal vs. Melchor
Garcia vs. Chairman, COA
Madrigal vs. Lecaroz, 191 SCRA 20
Meram v. Edralin, 154 SCRA 238. Luego v. Civil Service Commission
Maleniza v. Commission on Audit, 179 SCRA 408
Request of CTA Presiding Judge Alex Reyes, 216 SCRA 728
Peralta v. Civil Service Commission, 212 SCRA 425
Profeta v. Drilon, 216 SCRA 777
GS/S v. Civil Service Commission, 245 SCRA 179
Conte v. Commission on Audit, 264 SCRA 19
Belicena v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 143190, October 17, 2001
Cena v. Civil Service Commission, 211 SCRA 179
Raborv. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 111812, May 31, 1995,
In Re: Gregorio Pineda, 187 SCRA 469]. See also Cruz v. Tantuico, 166 SCRA 670.
GSIS v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 125982, January 22, 1999
Request of Clerk of Court Tessie L. Gatmaitan For Payment of Retirement Benefits of CA Associate
Justice Jorge S. Imperial, A.M. No. 97-77-RET, August 26, 1999
Gamogamo v. PNOC Shipping & Transport Corp., G.R. No. 141707. May 07, 2002
Domingo v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 112371, October 7, 1998
Sobremento vs. Enrile, 117 SCRA 618
Te vs. CA, 346 SCRA 327
Office of the Court Administrator v. Enriquez, 218 SCRA 1
Blaquera v. Alcala, G.R. No. 109406, September 11, 1998.
Aberca v. Ver, 160 SCRA 601
Alvarado vs. Laquindanum, 245 SCRA 501
Mocles vs. Maravilla, 239 SCRA 188
Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001
Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393
Forbes v. Chuoco Tiaco, 16 Phil 534
Albert vs. Gangan, 353 SCRA 673
Chavez v. Sandiganbayan, 193 SCRA 282,
Shauf v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 713
Wylie v. Rarang, 209 SCRA 357
Rama v. Court of Appeals, 148 SCRA 496,
Pilar v. Sangguniang Bayan of Dasol, Pangasinan, 128 SCRA 173,
Alinsugay v. Court of Appeals, 148 SCRA 521,
Garcia vs. Mojica, G.R. No. 139043, Sept. 10, 1999
Gloria v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131012, April 21, 1999
Alonzo v. Capulong, G.R. No. 110590, May 10, 1995
Plaza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138464, January 18, 2008
Hagadv. Gozo-Dadole, G.R. No. 108072, December 12, 1995
Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 11625960, February 20, 1996
De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 126183, March 25, 1999
Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy, G.R. No. 135805, April 29, 1999
Pastor v. City of Pasig, G.R. No. 146873, May 9, 2002
Vicente Garcia v. Chairman, Commission on Audit, G.R. No. L- 75025, September 14, 1993
Astraquillo v. Manglapus, 190 SCRA 280
Osmena v. Comelec, 199 SCRA 750
Ortiz v. Comelec, 162 SCRA 812; In Re: Retirement of Justice Britanico, 173 SCRA 421
Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 130872, March 25, 1999
Ortiz v. Comelec, 162 SCRA 812
Joseph Ejercito Estrada v. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738, March 2,2001
Collantes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169604, March 6, 2007
Joson v. Nario, 187 SCRA 453]. See also Sangguniang Bayan of San Andres
Catanduanes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118883, January 16, 1998
Gamboa v. Court of Appeals (1981)].
 36(b) of the Civil Service Law which enumerates the grounds for the suspension or dismissal of officers
and employees in the Civil Service. Read also RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of
Public Officials), particularly Sec. 5, on duties, and Sec. 7, on prohibited acts and transactions.
Floreza v. Ongpin, 182 SCRA 692
Palma-Fernandez v. de la Paz, 160 SCRA 715
Orcino v. Civil Service Commission (1990)
Tanjay Water District v. Quinit, G.R. No. 160502, April 27, 2007
Procedure in disciplinary cases. Read Sec. 38, PD 807 and Sec. 48, Chapter 3, Book V, Administrative
Code of 1987.
Baroy v. Peralta, 287 SCRA 1; Dagsa-an v. Conag, 290 SCRA 12
Sandoval v. Manalo, 260 SCRA 611
Re: Absence Without Official Leave of Darlene A. Jacoba, A.M. No. 98- 8-246-RTC, February 15, 1999,
the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sec. 35, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules of the Civil Service,
which provides that officers and employees who are absent for at least 30 days without approved leave
are considered on Absence Without Leave (AWOL) and shall be dropped from the service after due
notice.
Adiong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136480, December 4, 2001
Presidential Ad-hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto, G.R. No. 130140, October
25, 1999

14. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

General principles. Administrative agencies. Definition. Manner of creation. Kinds. Powers of

administrative agencies. Quasi-legislative (rule-making) power. Kinds of administrative rules and
regulations. Requisites for validity. Quasi-judicial (adjudicatory) power. Administrative due process.
Administrative appeal and review. Administrative res judicata. Fact-finding, investigative, licensing,
and rate-fixing powers. Judicial recourse and review. Doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction.
Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Doctrine of finality of administrative action.

Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998

Blaquera v. Alcala, 295 SCRA 366, 425, Sept. 11, 1998, En Banc
Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission
De la Llana v. Alba
Bagaoisan vs. National Tobacco Administration, G.R. No. 152845, August 5, 2003
Yazaki Torres Manufacturing vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130584, June 27, 2006
People vs. Rosenthal and Osmena
People vs. Maceren
Metropolitan Traffic Command vs. Gonong
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. CA
De Jesus v. COA
US vs. Ang Tang Ho
Theoren V. Lacson vs. The Hon. Exec. Secretary
Ang Tibay vs. CIR
Cabal v. Kapunan; Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners
Reyes v. Zamora
Ysmael v. Deputy Executive Secretary
Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. CA
Villaflor v. CA, 280 SCRA 287
Teotico vs. Ageda
PHIC vs. Chinese General Hospital and Medical Center
Smart Communication vs. NTC
Sunville Timber vs. Abad
Antolin vs. Domondon
 Carale v. Abarintos, 269 SCRA 132)
Paat v. CA, 266 SCRA 167 [1997]
Paredes vs. CA
Jariol vs. Comelec

15. ELECTION LAWS

Election. Definition. Purpose. Suffrage. Objective of suffrage. Substantive and procedural

requirements.

Voters. Registration of voters. Nature of voter’s registration. System of continuing registration.

Qualification of voters. Disqualification of voters. Inclusion and exclusion proceedings.

Commission on Elections. Composition. Qualifications of members. Powers and functions of

COMELEC in general. Political parties. Jurisdiction of the COMELEC over political parties.
Registration.

Candidates and Certificate of Candidacy. Qualifications of candidates. Filing of certificates of

candidacy. Ministerial duty of COMELEC to receive certificate. Effect of filing. Filing of two
certificates of candidacy. Lone candidate (Republic Act No. 8295). Substitution of candidates.
Withdrawal of candidates. Disqualifications of candidates under the Omnibus Election Code.
Disqualifications under Section 40 of LGC of 1991

Remedies and jurisdiction in election law. Remedies before the election. Petition for
disqualification. Nuisance candidates. Petition not to give due course to or cancel a certificate of
candidacy. Doctrine of Rejection of the Second Placer. Petition to declare failure of elections.
Instances when COMELEC may declare a failure of elections. Conditions. Pre-proclamation
controversy. Definition. Issues involved. Lagumbay doctrine. Qualification of the rule on statistical
improbability. Jurisdiction over election contests. Kinds of election contests. Election protest. Quo
warranto. Distinctions between election protest and quo warranto. Distinctions between quo warranto
in elective and appointive office.

Campaign. Premature campaigning. Prohibited contributions. Lawful and prohibited election

propaganda. Limitations on expenses. Statement of contributions and expenses.

Board of Election Inspectors and Board of Canvassers. Composition. Powers.

Prosecution of election offenses. Jurisdiction over election offenses

Kabataan Party-lis, et. al. v. Comelec, G.R. No. 221318, December 16, 2015
Maruhom vs. Comelec, May 5, 2000
Akbayan-Youth v. COMELEC, 355 SCRA 318, Mar. 26, 2001
Sec. 8, RA 8189 of The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996
Go vs. Ramos, Sept. 4, 2009
The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996
Pundaodaya vs. Comelec, Sept. 17, 2009
Marcita Mamba Perez v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133944, Oct. 28, 1999
Torayno, Sr. v. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 574, Aug. 9, 2000
Omnibus Election Code, BP 881
RA 8436
Loong vs. Comelec
Datu Michael Abas Kida, et al vs. Senate of the Philippines, et. al, October 18, 2011
 Frivaldo vs. Comelec, 1996
RA 9225
Cordora vs. Comelec, 2009
Mercado vs. Manzano
Valles vs. Comelec, 2000
LOPEZ vs. Comelec, 2008
Sobejana-Condon vs. Comelec, August 10, 2012
Marquez vs. Comelec
Caasi vs. CA
RA 9369
ELEAZAR QUINTO vs. COMELEC (2010)
Lanot vs. Comelec, 2006, [Lanot doctrine]
Penera vs. Comelec, Nov. 25, 2009
Villanueva vs. Comelec, Dec. 4, 1985
Ong vs. Alegre, January 2, 2006
Miranda v. Abaya, G.R. No. 136351, July 28, 1999
Republic Act No. 9006
Federico vs. Comelec, 2013
Monsale vs. Nico, May 28, 1949
Go vs. Comelec, 2001
Martinez III vs. HRET, 2010
Salcedo II vs. COMELEC
Loong vs. Comelec
Victorino Salcedo II v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 135886, Aug. 16, 1999, En Banc [Gonzaga-Reyes]
Lluz vs. Comelec, 2007
Jalosjos, Jr. vs. Comelec, 2012
ARATEA VS. COMELEC
RA 6646 of the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987
Topacio vs. Paredes, 1912
Grego vs. Comelec
Macquiling v. Comelec, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013
Cayat v. Comelec
Banaga, Jr. v. COMELEC, 336 SCRA 701, July 31, 2000
Pasandalan vs. Comelec
Mitmug v. COMELEC, 230 SCRA 54, Feb. 10, 1994
Datu Michael Abas Kida, et. al vs. Senate of the Philippines, et. al, October 18, 2011
Abayon vs. Comelec and Daza
RA 8436 as amended by RA 9369
Lagumbay vs. Comelec, 1966
Ilarde vs. Comelec

16. LAW OF PUBLIC CORPORATIONS

Public corporations. Concept. Distinguished from government-owned or controlled corporations.

Classifications. Quasi-corporations. Municipal corporations. Elements. Nature and functions.
Requisites for creation, conversion, division, merger or dissolution. De jure and de facto municipal
corporations

Principle of local autonomy. Meaning. Local autonomy under the 1987 Constitution. Rationale .
Forms of Decentralization

Local government units. Definition, nature and functions. Beginning of corporate existence
Powers of local government units (LGUs). Sources of powers of LGUs

Police power (general welfare clause). Meaning and nature. Two branches. Limitations. Eminent
domain. Meaning and nature. Requisites. Limitations. Taxing power. Meaning and nature. Requisites.
Limitations. Closure and opening of roads

Legislative power. Composition of Sanggunians. Powers of the Sanggunians

Enactment of ordinances and resolutions. Requisites for valid ordinance. Sessions. Quorum.
Approval of ordinances. Review by a mother LGU of acts of component LGUs. Two kinds. Review of
component city and municipal ordinances or resolutions by the sangguniang panlalawigan.
Requirement of Posting and Publication for the Effectivity of Ordinances or Resolutions

Local initiative and referendum. Definition. Distinctions. Indirect initiative. Procedure . Limitations
on local initiative

Engr. Oscar A. Marmeto v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 213953, September 26, 2017

Corporate powers. To sue and be sued. Nature of this power. Suability and liability. Representation
by private lawyers. Exceptions. To acquire and sell property. To enter into contracts. Requisites.
Effect of failure to comply with requisites. Ultra vires contracts

Liability of LGUs. Liability for contracts. Doctrine of Implied Municipal Liability. Liability for torts
and damages. Liability for defective public works. Enforcement of monetary judgment. Personal
liability of officials

Settlement of boundary disputes

Local elective officials. Qualifications. Disqualifications. Prohibitions. Manner of election. Term of

office. Holdover principle. Three-term limit. Vacancies and rules on succession.

Discipline of local officials. Elective officials. Grounds. Jurisdiction. Preventive suspension. Removal.
Administrative appeal. Doctrine of condonation. Appointive officials

Recall. Meaning. Ground. How initiated. Limitations of recall

Film Development Council of the Phils. vs. Colon Heritage Realty Corporation and Film Development
Council of the Philippines vs. City of Cebu and SM Prime Holdings, Inc., G. R. Nos. 203754 and 204418,
June 16, 2015.
Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal, petitioner, Alfredo Lim, petitioner-intervenor vs. Comelec and Joseph Ejercito
Estrada, G. R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015
Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs. City of Lapu-lapu and Elena T. Pacaldo, G.
R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015
James Imbong, et. al. vs. Hon. Paquito Ochoa, G. R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014 (consolidated decision
on the RH Law)
Villafuerte vs. Robredo, G. R. No. 195390, December 10, 2014
Kulayan vs. Abdusakur Tan, G. R. No. 187298, July 3, 2012
Limbona vs. Mangelin
Pimentel vs. Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, July 19, 2000,
Kida v. Senate, supra.
Belgica v. Exec. Sec. Ochoa, supra, on the Principle of Local Autonomy
Bara Lidasan vs. Comelec
Municipality of San Fernando, La Union vs. Judge Fermi
Pelaez vs. Auditor General
Sema vs Comelec
League of Cities of the Philippines vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 176951, February 15, 2011
Mariano vs. Comelec, 242 SCRA 211
Rodolfo G. Navarro vs. Executive Secretary Ermita, G.R. No. 180050, February 10, 2010
Tan v. Comelec
Miranda v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 133064, Sept. 16, 1999.
Umali v. Comelec, G.R. No. 203974, April 22, 2014
Malabang vs. Benito, 27 SCRA 533
Sultan Osop Camid vs. Office of the President, G.R. No. 161414, January 17, 2005
Binay vs. Domingo, 201 SCRA 508 (1991)
MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village
Parayno vs. Mun. of Calasiao, Pangasinan
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. vs. City Mayor of Manila. [G.R. No. L-
24693, July 31, 1967
Tano v. Socrates, 1997
Justice Emilio Gancayco v. City Government of Quezon City & Metro Manila Commission, G.R. No.
177933, October 11, 2011
Rural Bank of Makati vs. Municipality of Makati, 2004
Arrastre, Inc. vs. Hon. Villarflor, 531 Phil. 30 and Rimando vs. Naguilian Emission Testing Center, Inc.,
G.R. No. 198860, July 23, 2012.
De la Cruz vs. Paras, 123 SCRA 569, cited in Largo, p.117 to 118
White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009,
Villavecincio vs. Lukban
City Government of Quezon City v. Ericta, 122 SCRA 759
Balacuit v. CFI of Agusan del Norte, 163 SCRA 182
Zoomzat, Inc. vs. People, G.R. No. 135535, Feb. 14, 2005
Batangas CATV vs. CA, 2004
Municipality of Paranaque v. V.M. Realty Corporation,
Republic vs. Lim, G.R. No. 161656, June 29, 2005,
NPC v. City of Cabanatuan
City Gov’t of Quezon City vs. Bayan Telecom
Estanislao vs. Costales
BASCO vs. PAGCOR (Basco Doctrine)
Drilon vs. Lim
Pilapil vs. CA, 216 SCRA 33
Ramos vs. CA
Municipality of Pililla, Rizal v. CA
City of Naga v. CA
Hon. Quisumbing vs. Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia, 2008
Province of Cebu vs. IAC
City of Manila vs. Genero Teotico, 1968
Guilatco vs. City of Dagupan
Municipality of San Fernando, La Union vs. Judge Fermi
Torio vs. Fontanilla
City of Manila vs. IAC
Municipality of Paoay vs. Manaois
Municipality of Makati vs. CA
Chavez vs. SB
Rama vs. CA, 147 SCRA 496
RRI the LGC of 1991
Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties, 234 SCRA 255
Lagcao v. Labra
Negros Oriental II Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete
 Zamora vs. Governor Caballero
De los Reyes v. Sandiganbayan
Garcia vs. Comelec
Frivaldo vs. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727 (landmark case)
Coquilla vs. COMELEC
Co vs. Electoral Tribunal of the House
MORENO vs. COMELEC, August 10, 2006
Grego v. Comelec
Salalima vs. Guingona, Jr.
Osorio vs. Comelec, 2004
Mercado vs. Manzano
The Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003 (R.A. 9225)
Eusebio Eugenio Lopez vs. Comelec (2008) reiterated in Jacot vs. Dal and Comelec (2008)
MAQUILING vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013
Marquez vs. Comelec, April 18, 1995
Rodriguez vs. Comelec, 1996
Javellana v. DILG
Flores v. Drilon
Sambarani v. COMELEC
Adap v. Comelec
Montesclaros v. Comelec
Sambarani vs. Comelec, 2004
BORJA Jr. vs. Comelec and Mayor Capco, leading case
Lonzanida v. Comelec, [followed Borja vs. Comelec]
Francis Ong vs. Joseph Stanley Alegre and Comelec, January 23, 2006
Rivera vs. Comelec and Morales
Socrates vs. Comelec, 2002
Mendoza vs. Comelec, Dec. 17, 2002
Latasa vs. Comelec, Dec. 10, 2003
Aldovino vs. Comelec, Dec. 23, 2009
Abundo, Sr. vs. COMELEC, 2013
Victoria vs. Comelec, 1994
Menzon vs. Petilla
Farinas vs. Court of Appeals, April 19, 1996
Gamboa vs. Aguirre
People vs. Bustamante, 105 Phil. 64
Regidor vs. Chiongbian
Salalima vs. Guingona
Ganzon vs. CA
Malinao vs. Reyes
Yabut vs. Office of the Ombudsman
Hagad vs. Gozo-Dadole
Malinao vs. Reyes
Garcia vs. Pajaro, 2002
Garcia vs. Comelec
Evardone vs. Comelec
Paras vs. Comelec
Angobung vs. Comelec
Claudion vs. Comelec

17. Public International Law

1. General Principles

a. Definition and divisions of International law

b. Distinctions with Municipal law
Emphasis on differences
1) Functions of international law
2) Sanctions of international law
3) Enforcement of international law
c. Conflict between municipal law and international law: how resolved
1) Dualism
2) Monism
d. Specific situation of conflict between Municipal law (including the Constitution) and
international law
1) Supremacy of constitution and pacta sunt servanda
2) Article 27, VCLT of 1969
3) Article 47, VLCT of 1969
e. How does international law become part of domestic law?
1) Doctrine of Incorporation
2) Doctrine of Transformation
Kuroda v. Jalandoni
Agustin v. Edu
f. Three theories of international law
1) Consensual theory
i. Customary international law
Key concept: Opinio juris sive necessitates (Opinio juris)
2) Command theory (John Austin)
i. Is international law a true law?
3) Natural theory

2. Sources of obligations in International law

Article 38, Statute of the ICJ

a. International treaties and conventions

1) Treaty
(i) Definition under the VCLT of 1969
(ii) Other definitions
(iii) Kinds of treaties
(iv) Treaty v. Executive Agreements
(v) Functions of treaty
(vi) Requisites for the validity of treaty
(vii) Validation of treaty
(viii) Adoption of treaty
(ix) Principle of jus cogens in relation to treaty
(x) Distinction between signing and ratification
(xi) Grounds for invalidating a treaty
(xii) Making of treaties
(xiii) Several means by which consent of a state may be expressed
(xiv) Reservations to treaty
(xv) Entry into force of treaty
(xvi) Ways by which a treaty may be entered into by the government under the 1987
Constitution
(xvii) Distinctions between treaty and executive agreement
(xviii) Interpretation of treaties
(xix) Termination of treaties
 Key concept: Rebus sic stantibus
(xx) Authority to abrogate a treaty
(xxi) Succession to treaties
a. Clean slate rule
b. Exceptions

b. Customary International Law

1) Definition
2) Two elements of international customs
Key concepts:
(i) Opinio juris sive necessitates or Opinio juris
(ii) Instant custom
(iii) Theory of Regional custom
(iv) The Persistent Objector rule
3) Examples of custom
4) Application

c. The general principles of law recognized by civilized nations

1) Examples
2) Application

d. Judicial decisions, generally of international tribunals, the most authoritative being the
International Court of Justice
1) Examples
2) Application

e. Writings of publicists, these are teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various
nations
1) Requirements
2) Examples
3) Application

3. Important Concepts

a. Concept of ex aequo et bono

b. Jus cogens and Obligations erga omnes
1) Examples
2) Articles 53, 64, 71 VCLT

4. Personality in International law

a. Subjects of international law

Subject and object distinguished. (Read p. 27, Isagani Cruz, International Law, 2003 Edition)
1) States
(i) Elements of state under the 1933 Montevideo Convention
(ii) Concept of recognition of states
Two theories
(iii) Principle of state continuity
(iv) Extinction of the State
(v) Succession of States and its consequences
 (vi) Succession of governments
2) International organizations
(i) Examples
3) Individuals
4) Corporations

b. The United Nations

Read: Charter of the United Nations
1) Organs of the United Nations
i) Composition
ii) Functions and powers

5. Fundamental rights of states

a. Rights to sovereignty and independence

1. Breaches of sovereignty and independence
2. Remedies
b. Right to property (territorial integrity) and jurisdiction

1. Jurisdiction of States
2. Bases of jurisdiction:
1) Territoriality principle (Objective territoriality [in Nachura])
(i) National territory
Modes of acquisition of territory
(ii) Archipelagic doctrine
Purpose
2) Nationality principle and statelessness
3) Protective principle (Security principle)
4) Universality principle
5) Passive personality principle
3. Conflicts of jurisdiction
4. Air territory (aerial domain or air space)
1) Extent
2) Outer space

5. Jurisdiction over persons and economic activity

1) Extradition under international law
a. Extradition vs. deportation
b. attentat clause
c. Rule of double criminality
d. Principle of Specialty
e. Philippine Extradition Law (PD 1069)
f. Extradition in relation to due process
g. Extradition proceeding vs. criminal proceeding
h. Extradition and the right to bail

6. Immunity from Jurisdiction

1) State immunity

7. Doctrine of state responsibility

1) State responsibility in relation to treatment of aliens
 a. Examples
b. Acts of government officials/(state organs like the three great branches of
government)
c. Liability of state for injuries and damages sustained by the alien while in the territory
of the State
d. Acts of private individuals

2) Judicial settlement and Arbitration

a. Concept of recognition of compulsory jurisdiction of states
b. Binding effect of ICJ decisions

c. RIGHT TO EXISTENCE AND SELF-PRESERVATION

1. DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW in connection with the right to
existence and self-preservation
a. Use of force
b. Concept of pre-emptive self-defense or anticipatory self-defense

d. RIGHT OF EQUALITY
1. Principle of sovereign equality of all its members
a. Application

e. RIGHT OF DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE OR LEGATION

1. Diplomatic and consular immunity
a. Personal inviolability
b. Inviolability of premises and archives
c. Remedies

LAW OF THE SEA

1. Archipelagic states

a. Archipelagic waters
1) Extent
2) Straight baseline method
3) Concept of regime of islands
b. Archipelagic sea lanes passage

2. Maritime territory (fluvial and maritime domain)

a. Internal waters
b. Territorial sea
1) Extent
2) Right of innocent passage
c. Contiguous zone
d. Exclusive economic zone
e. Continental shelf
1) Extended continental shelf

3. High seas
a. General theory of criminal jurisdiction
4. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

Air territory (aerial domain or air space)

1. Extent
2. Outer space

Jurisdiction over persons and economic activity

1. Extradition under international law

a. Extradition vs. deportation
b. attentat clause
c. Rule of double criminality
d. Principle of Specialty
e. Philippine Extradition Law (PD 1069)
f. Extradition in relation to due process
g. Extradition proceeding vs. criminal proceeding
h. Extradition and the right to bail

Immunity from Jurisdiction

1. State immunity
2. Diplomatic and consular immunity
a. Personal inviolability
b. Inviolability of premises and archives
c. Remedies

STATE RESPONSIBILITY IN RELATION TO TREATMENT OF ALIENS

1. Doctrine of state responsibility

a. Examples
b. Acts of government officials/(state organs like the three great branches of government)
c. Liability of state for injuries and damages sustained by the alien while in the territory of the State
d. Acts of private individuals

DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW in connection with the RIGHT TO

EXISTENCE AND SELF-PRESERVATION

1. Use of force
a. Concept of pre-emptive self-defense or anticipatory self-defense

2. Judicial settlement and Arbitration

c. Concept of recognition of compulsory jurisdiction of states
d. Binding effect of ICJ decisions

SPECIAL TOPICS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. International Criminal Court

a. Rome Statute
b. Crimes over which ICC has jurisdiction
 c. Principle of Complementarity
1) Instances when case can be brought before the ICC
2. International Humanitarian Law and neutrality
a. Primary sources of IHL
b. Categories of armed conflicts
1) International armed conflicts
2) Internal or non-international armed conflict
3) War of national liberation
c. Core international obligations of states in International Humanitarian Law
1) Legality of the threat or use of Nuclear Weapons
d. Principles of International Humanitarian Law
1) Principle of distinction
2) Principle of necessity
3) Principle of proportionality
4) Principle of precaution
5) Treatment of civilians
6) Prisoners of war

3. Law on neutrality

International Human Rights Law

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
3. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Nationality and statelessness

1. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Madrid Protocol and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property

Intellectual Property Association of the Philippines v. Hon. Paquito Ochoa, et. al., G.R. No.
204605, July 19, 2016.

International environmental law

1. Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration

International economic law

Saguisag v. Executive Secretary Ochoa, G.R. No. 212426, January 12, 2016 and the MR Resolution on
July 26, 2016
New Baselines Law [RA 9522 (2009)]
Magallona vs. Ermita, Constitutionality of RA 9522 (Baseline Law)
Kuroda vs. Jalandoni
Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh, 75 Phil. 113 (1945)
The Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel, G.R. No. 208566, October 14, 2008
Pimentel vs. Executive Secretary
Abaya vs. Ebdane, 513 SCRA 720
Abbas vs. Comelec
Lim vs. Executive Secretary, April 11, 2002
Pharmaceutical vs. DOH, October 9, 2007
Bayan vs. Zamora
 Nicolas vs. Romulo, February 11, 2009 (Daniel Smith Case)
Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (United Kingdom v. Iceland)
Danube Dam Case (Hungary v. Slovakia)
Asylum Case (Colombia vs. Peru, 1950, ICJ)
The Case of the Paquete Habana (American Case, 1900)
Legality of the Use of a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (Advisory Opinion of the ICJ,
1996)
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (1969)
Case Concerning Preah Vihear Temple (Cambodia vs. Thailand, ICJ, 1962)
Chorzow Factory Case (Permanent Court of International Justice, 1928)
Corfu Channel Case (ICJ, 1949)
Saudi Arabia vs. Arabian American Oil Company, 1963)
Texaco v. Libya, 1978
Filartiga vs. Pena-Irala (60 F. 2d 876, 1980)
Attorney-General of the Government of Israel vs. Eichmann (36 I.L.R. 227, 1962)
Western Sahara Case
Island of Palmas Case
Government of Hong Kong v. Muñoz, G.R. No. 207342, August 16, 2016
First Mark Jimenez Case, October 17, 2000 (Sec. of Justice vs. Hon. Ralph Lantion)
Government of Hong Kong vs. Olalia, April 19, 2007

REFERENCES:

Suarez, Political Law Reviewer

Bernas, The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer
Antonio B. Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law
Isagani A. Cruz, Philippine Political Law
Isagani A. Cruz, Constitutional Law
Isagani A. Cruz, International Law
Isagani A. Cruz, International Law Reviewer
Carlo L. Cruz, The Law of Public Officers
Jose Agaton R. Sibal, The Law on Public Offices and Officers
Carlo L. Cruz, Philippine Administrative Law
Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., The Local Government Code Revisited
Daryl Bretch M. Largo, The Essentials of Local Government Law in the Philippines
Jose Agaton R. Sibal, Local Government Code
Ruben E. Agpalo, Comments on the Omnibus Election Code
De Leon and De Leon, Jr., The Law on Public Officers and Election Law

Other references:

PALS Notes
Sandoval Notes on Political Law and International Law
Dean Sedfrey Candelaria Notes on PIL

The professor reserves the right to amend or modify the foregoing syllabus as exigencies may
warrant. Any person using this material is reminded that a systematic arrangement of ideas like the
arrangement of topics and subtopics, even lifted from other writers provided there is proper citation, is
copyrightable. Hence, in using this course syllabus, proper citation should also be made whenever
necessary. This course syllabus is in no way claimed as an authoritative piece of work on the subject.
Comments and suggestions will be highly appreciated.

Prepared by:

NORHABIB BIN SUOD S. BARODI

Assistant Professor