Constitutional Law I: Cases and Doctrines on Philippine Territory

CONTENTS
ARTICLE I (pp. 2-4)

ARTICLE II (pp. 5-18)
CONSTITUTIONAL
ARTICLE VI (pp. 18-58)

LAW I

A COMPILATION OF
CASES AND DOCTRINES

E. L. VILLAMIEL
ALS Block G | 2021

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
ALS BLOCK G 2021 | VILLAMIEL
CASES AND DOCTRINES CONTINENTAL SHELF 200nm (underwater) from

baseline; according to Petroleum
Article I. The National Territory Act, absolute sovereignty;
according to UNCLOS, limited
Sec. 1. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all sovereignty over shelf for
the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over exploration and exploitation of
which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its natural resources
terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the EXTENDED CONTINENTAL SHELF 350nm from baseline; overlaps
seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The with neighboring states; should file
waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, a claim; per UNCLOS, we have
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal limited sovereignty over shelf for
waters of the Philippines. exploration of natural resousrces

INTERNAL WATERS Absolute sovereignty; waters UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (UNCLOS):
around, between, and connecting 1. Archipelagic State – constituted wholly by one or more
the islands of the archipelago, archipelagos and may include other islands
regardless of breadth and 2. Archipelago – group of islands, including parts of islands,
dimensions, including waters in interconnecting waters, and other natural features which are so
bays, rivers, and lakes. Rights: closely interrelated that such form an intrinsic geographical
1. Right of Archipelagic economic and political entity, or which historically have been
Sealanes Passage regarded as such
2. Right of Innocent Passage
3. Right to Fish by MAGALLONA v. ERMITA
Traditional Foreigners August 16, 2011 | RA 9522 (New Baselines Law of 2009)
TERRITORIAL SEA 12nm from the baseline (UNCLOS);
Paris Treaty (221.8 miles West, GIST: Petitioners Magallona et al assailed RA 9522’s constitutionality as it
283.18 miles East) reduces PH maritime territory, which is a violation of Art I of the 1987
CONTIGUOUS ZONE 24nm from the baseline; limited Constiutiton. That, even what was set by the Treaty of Paris was abandoned
jurisdiction over customs, fiscal, in adopting the said Baseline Law. More importantly, petitioners forward
immigration, or sanitary laws that 9522’s classification of the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) as well as the
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE 200nm (above seabed) from the Scarborough Shoal as a “regime of islands” results in the loss of a large
baseline; per UNCLOS, we have maritime area which essentially prejudices the livelihood of fishermen living
limited sovereignty over along the waters. SC dismissed the petition, ruling that such baseline law is
exploration, exploitation, and not a means to acquire or lose territory.
management of natural resources,
whether living or non-living; but DOCTRINE: What controls when it comes to acquisition or loss of territory is
accdg to RP Law, we have absolute the international law principle on:
sovereignty
Page 2 of 58

1. Occupation – territory may have never belonged to any state essentially caused permanent and irreparable harm to the coral
abandoned by any previous state or sovereignty. There should be reef system
an intention to occupy in a peaceful and continuous manner
2. Accretion – added through natural causes DOCTRINE: UNCLOS comprehensively governs parties’ respective rights to
3. Cession – state transfers its territory from one state to another maritime areas in the South China Sea. Any claims contrary to UNCLOS is
4. Prescription – continued and long time possession (peaceful, deemed invalid.
public, and long time)
Regarding the KIG, SC held that with these islands being able to generate
their own maritime zones, they in fact contributed to the increased
maritime area of the PH in consonance with RA 9522.

IN THE MATTER OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION
July 12, 2016 | Sovereignty over Several Maritime Features in the South
China Sea

GIST: This case revolves around the dispute between PH and China on the
legal basis of maritime rights and entitlements in the South China Sea, the
geographic features found in the maritime area, and the lawfulness of
certain actions performed by China in it’s exercise of “sovereignty” over the
South China Sea, as far as the following are disputed:
1. China’s historic right claim (nine-dashed line) – Tribunal ruled that
China’s historic right claim is bereft of legal basis
2. Geologic Features in the Spratlys – Tribunal ruled that none of the
geologic figures (rocks and islands) in the Spratlys are capable of
human habitation or economic life of its own so as to be entitled to
a 200nm EEZ
3. China-Occupied Geologic Features in Spratlys – Tribunal ruled that:
a. High tide elevation reefs are entitled to 12nm territorial
sea
b. Low tide elevation reefs are not entitled to territorial sea
4. Scarborough Shoal – Tribunal ruled that, the Scarborough Shoal is
a high tide elevation and as such, is entitled to 12nm territorial sea;
it is a traditional fishing ground of various fishermen from the
region and China CANNOT prevent Filipino fishermen from fishing
5. Harm to the Environment – Tribunal ruled that China violated its
obligations under UNCLOS for having dredged and built islands on
reefs, having prevented harvest of endangered species, which

Page 3 of 58

Article II. Declaration of Principles and State Policies others. SC ruled that such provisions are not self-executory and therefore,
without other proof as to how these constitutional guarantees are
KILOSBAYAN v. MORATO (MR) breached, it shall remain valid.
November 16, 1995| Legal Value of Article II
DOCTRINE: As a general rule, the provisions of the Constitution are
GIST: In a previous ruling of the SC, the Contract of Lease for certain considered self-executing, and do not require future legislation for their
equipment between the PCSO and the PGMC was invalidated, for reasons enforcement. For if they are not treated as such, the mandate of the
that it was in contravention with the PCSO charter. Now, an Equipment fundamental law can easily be nullified by Congress. This provides for
Lease Agreement was entered instead, but was likewise assailed as being exceptions, as some provisions of Article II are categorized as not self-
the same as the former Contract of Lease. Petitioners invoked Article II executing.
Sections 5 (maintenance of peace and order), 12 (rearing of the youth for
civic efficiency and development), 13 (vital role of the youth in nation- BCDA v. COA
building, and 17 (promotion of total human liberation and development) as August 6, 2002 | Not source of rights
ground to render the said ELA as unconstitutional. SC denied the MR, the
provisions of the Constitution being invoked by the petitioners are not self- GIST: Petitioners in this case assail RA 7227, which created the BCDA and
executing, they do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights, provided for a compensation and benefit scheme for its employees, and the
and they merely serve as guide for the legislature in their lawmaking. board of directors. Such provision referring to the year end benefits (YEB) of
the board of directors and consultants was being attacked for being contrary
DOCTRINE: Whether or not a provision in itself is self-executing depends on to Art II of the Constitution, particularly Secs: 5 (maintenance of peace and
the way it is formulated. Time and again, the Court has ruled that generally, order), and 18 (labor as a primary economic force). SC ruled that such claims
provisions of Article II are not self-executing. They are merely statements of are without merit, for the provisions invoked are not source of rights.
principles and policies. To give them effect, legislative enactment is However, as far as the YEB is concerned, it must be noted that the board of
required. They do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights directors are not salaried officials of the government, and therefore they are
but guidelines for legislation not entitled to YEB. As for the consultants, YEB and other benefits are
granted in addition to salaries. Being fringe benefits, they must only be paid
TONDO MEDICAL v. CA when basic salary is paid. Since in this case BCDA does not pay them basic
July 17, 2007 | Not self-executory provisions salary, they are likewise not entitled to YEB.

GIST: DOH launched a Health Sector Reform Program (HSRA) which DOCTRINE: By its very title, Article II is a statement of general ideological
essentially provides government hospitals fiscal autonomy, which involved principles and policies, it is not a source of enforceable rights. Moreover, it
collection of user fees and restructuring. Petitioners assail the program for was previously held in the Tondo Medical case, that Sections 5 and 18 are
inaccessible to economically disadvantaged Filipinos. That, it is not self-executing provisions.
discriminating and is violative of equal protection of the law. To support
their claim, petitioners invoke the following provisions of Article II: Sections
5 (maintenance of peace and order, protection of life x x), 9 (just and
dynamic social order), 10 (social justice in all phases of national
development), 11 (dignity of every human person), 13 (vital role of youth in
nation-building), 18 (labor as a primary social economic force), among
Page 4 of 58

Sec. 1. The Philippines is a democratic and Republican State. Sovereignty itself mentions that it is in fact, a public corporation. As regards its sovereign
resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. function, which is the most important characteristic in determining if an
office is public, the SC ruled that VFP’s core duty of protecting war veterans
ACCFA v. CUGCO being that of promotion of social justice, is a sovereign function, hence VFP
November 29, 1969 | Unincorporated Government Function is a public corporation. (in short, it may be controlled and supervised by the
DND)
GIST: ACCFA, a government agency, entered into a CBA with the Supervisor’s
Association (ASA) and the Worker’s Association (AWA), but a protest DOCTRINE: Such delegation of sovereign function is the most important
occurred when there were alleged violations and non-implementation of characteristic in determining whether a position is a public office or not.
the said agreement. Eventually, the Union filed a complaint against Such portion of sovereignty of the country, either legislative, executive, or
petitioner for unfair labor practices, violation of the CBA, the right to self- judicial, must attach to the office for the time being, to be exercised for the
organization, discrimination against members in the matter of promotions public benefit.
and refusal to bargain. With CIR’s grant that the Union be an Exclusive
Bargaining Unit (EBU), ACCFA (now ACA) assailed its jurisdiction. SC ruled JAVIER v. SANDIGANBAYAN
that, with the ACA performing government functions now and not September 11, 2009 | Private sector
ministrant, then it cannot have an EBU, as Sec 11 of RA 876, the governing
law for ACA, prohibits strikes against the government. GIST: RA 8047 (Book Publishing Industry Development Act) has for its goals
the promotion and continuance of the development of the book publishing
DOCTRINE: The growing complexities of modern society have rendered the industry through active participation of the private sector. To achieve this
traditional classification of government functions (constituent or ministrant) purpose, the law provided for the creation of the National Book
quite unrealistic. The difference between constituent and ministrant: Development Board (NBDB), composed of 5 government officers and 6 from
1. Constituent (required) – compulsory functions which constitute the the private sector. With Javier, an appointee from the private sector, given
very bonds of society (8 were enumerated in Bacani v. NACOCO); travel authority to attend a Book Fair in Spain, to which she did not go to,
such as determination of contractual rights of individuals she is being asked to remit her travelling expenses. With her failure to do so,
2. Ministrant – optional functions of government intended for a case was filed against Javier before the Sandiganbayan, to which she assail,
achieving a better life of the community; such as public works for lack of jurisdiction since she comes from the private sector. SC dismissed
the case and ruled that Javier is a public officer to the extent of her
VFP v. REYES performance of her duty for the benefit of the public, as far as the NBDB is
February 28, 2006 | Government; sovereign function concerned.

GIST: VFP assails the control and supervision that DND exercised over them DOCTRINE: The NBDB is a statutory government agency and persons who
and claims that it is not a GOCC under the DND, but a private one. VFP participated therein, even if they come from the private sector, are public
further claims that it does not posses elements to qualify as a public office, officers to the extent that they are performing their duty for the benefit of
their funds are not public funds, VFP is a private, civilian federation for the public.
veterans voluntarily formed by veterans themselves, the Admin Code did
not mention VFP as a public corporation, and that DBM declared it as a non-
government organization and that they are not given funds from it. SC
dismissed the case, citing constitutional provisions and the fact that RA 2640
Page 5 of 58

MIAA v. CA
July 20, 2006 | Government instrumentality vested with corporate powers; DOCTRINE: A GOCC is a stock or non-stock corporation vested with
not GOCC governmental functions relating to public needs that are owned by the
government directly though its instrumentalities.
GIST: MIAA assails the removal of the Office of the Government Corporate
Counsel (OGCC) of their real estate tax exemption provided for under Sec 21 PHIL SOCIETY v. COA
of the Local Government Code (LGC). SC held that MIAA is a government September 25, 2007 | Quasi-public corporation; private but with public
instrumentality vested with corporate powers to perform efficiently character; charter test not applicable
government functions, and not a GOCC. It is not organized as a stock or a
non-stock corporation and has no capital dividends. Moreover, the real GIST: Phil Society, created by Act No. 1285, is created for protecting animal
property of MIAA are owned by the Republic; it is a property of public rights and welfare, and is authorized to arrest people who display cruelty to
domain. MIAA does not have members, which is required, if it were to be animals, as well as entitle them to a 50% share of the collected penalty
considered as a non0stock corporation. Despite MIAA being a juridical imposed to those arrested. Commonwealth Act 148 lessened their arrest
person, subject to the withdrawal of tax exemptions per Sec. 193 of the power, as well as their privilege to retain portion of the penalty. EO 63 was
Local Government Code, they are still exempted from real estate tax, as such later issued by Quezon, which completely removed their arresting power.
taxing powers do not extend to the national government, its agencies, and When COA moved to audit the petitioners, they filed a case claiming that it
instrumentalities. is a private corporation and therefore not within the ambit of the COA. SC
ruled that Phil Society is indeed a private corporation. The charter test is not
DOCTRINE: A GOCC has the following characteristics: applicable to them as the same is not retroactive, and shall not be applied
1. Organized stock or non-stock corporation in determining whether or not a corporation was public or private. Likewise,
2. Has capital dividends it is clear that a corporation or entity is public just because it is impressed
3. Has members required in a non-stock corporation with public interest. Such is called a quasi-public corporation.
4. Property is not owned by the Republic
DOCTRINE: Charter test – the test used to determine whether a corporation
FUNA v. MECO is government owned or controlled, or private in nature. Is it created by its
February 4, 2014 | Sui generis entity own charter for the exercise of a public function, or by incorporation under
the general corporation law?
GIST: Manila Economic and Cultural Office (MECO) is a corporate entity The fact that a corporation is created for the public good does not render its
entrusted by the PH Government to foster friendly relations with Taiwan. privacy it might be considered a quasi-public corporation that render public
Upon Funa’s request that the same be audited by the COA, the latter issued services and supply public wants.
a memorandum stating that MECO is not audited by the same. Funa went
to court, claiming that COA neglects its constitutional duties of not auditing SERANA v. SANDIGANBAYAN
GOCCs and government instrumentalities (according to him, MECO is a January 22, 2008 | Government functions exercised through state
GOCC). SC ruled in the negative. MECO is a sui generis entity, it has consular universities
function and corporate objectives in relation to our OFWs in Taiwan. A non-
stock corporation and the mere performance of public functions is not GIST: Serana is an appointed student regent of UP, to which funds were
sufficient to consider MECO a GOCC. One vital requirement is that it has to given for their project to renovate the Vinzons Hall Annex. With such project
be owned by the government, which in this case, is not present. failing to materialize, succeeding student regent Bugayong et al. filed a
Page 6 of 58

complaint for malversation of public funds and property with the 2. That which is established and maintained by the military forces
Ombudsman, who recommended the case to the Sandiganbayan. Sereno who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of
now claims that Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over the case as war
she is not a public officer as she merely represented her peers when she was 3. That which is established as an independent government by
a student regent. She even said she didn’t receive compensation from the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against a parent
government. SC ruled against her petition and said that the Sandiganbayan state
has jurisdiction over the case. With the administration of UP being a
sovereign function and the same being maintained by the government, a LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PUNO
student regent is held to be a public officer. June 29, 1992 | Government; revolution

DOCTRINE: Sereno is within the ambit of Sec 4(A)(1) of PD 1606 which GIST: In light of the EDSA Revolution which brought reorganization of the
defines who are those who are public officers, as she performs a function entire government including the judiciary, Assoc. Justice Puno assails the
similar to that of a board of trustee. That, compensation is not an essential reorganization of the judiciary as mandated by EO 33, which was issued by
element of public office. It is the investment of sovereign power to one Pres. Cory Aquino. He claims that, contrary to his supposedly ranking with
individual that makes him a public officer. reference to the Intermediate Appellate Court (rank 11), he was placed
down to rank 26. SC ruled that such EO, establishing the CA, is valid. The CA
CO KIM CHAM v. VALDEZ TAN KEH is a new entity, it is distinct from the Intermediate Appellate Court, that
September 27, 1945 | Government; de facto existed prior to EO 33.

GIST: Following Gen. Douglas McArthur’s proclamation that invalidates and DOCTRINE: A revolution is defined as the complete overthrow of the
nullifies laws, regulations, and processes of any government in the PH, the established government in any country or state by those who were
court refused to take cognizance of the case under the defunct state of the previously subject to it.
Republic of the PH in absence of a law granting such authority. A case was
therefore filed to question whether the proceedings during the Japanese REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN
period would still apply or continue after the said occupation. SC ruled in the July 21, 2003 | Rights not operative during interregnum
affirmative, and said that governments established in the PH under the
names of the PH Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines GIST: The AFP Anti-Graft Board investigated the “unexplained wealth” of
during the Japanese military occupation or regime were de facto Major General Ramas, and a search warrant was issued for the residence of
governments. It is classified as a de facto government of the second kind or his alleged mistress (Dimaano). Communications equipment, jewelry, land
a government of paramount force. Judicial acts and proceedings of courts of titles, money, and weapons and ammunition were seized. Ramas denied
justice of those governments, were good and valid, and with respect to the allegations, and Dimaano assumed ownership of the seized items. In this
international law principle of postliminy, it remained good and valid after case, Ramas claims a violation of his rights under the Bill of Rights, to which
the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines. petitioner counters: during the interregnum (which was the time when the
property was obtained from the residence), the Bill of Rights was not
DOCTRINE: Kinds of de facto government: operative. SC agreed, but held that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
1. That Government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were still effective, which
force or by voice of majority, rightful legal government and essentially accorded Filipinos almost the same rights available from the Bill
maintains itself against the will of the latter
Page 7 of 58

of Rights of the 1973 Constitution. The items seized not specified in the Sec. 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy,
search warrant were deemed inadmissible in evidence. adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of
the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice,
DOCTRINE: During the interregnum, a person could not invoke any freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations.
exclusionary right under the Bill of Rights because there was neither a
Constitution nor a Bill of Rights then. Nevertheless, the Filipino people TAÑADA v. ANGARA
continued to enjoy, under the ICCPR and the UDHR, almost the same rights May 2, 1997 | Tax and treaties; GATT-WTO
found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution.
GIST: Petitioners assail the validity of the General Agreement of Tariffs and
Trade (GATT-WTO) as it requires the placement of nationals and products of
member countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products. In the
same manner, the claim that such agreement violates the mandate of the
Constitution to develop a self-reliant and independent national economy
effectively controlled by Filipinos (aka Filipino First Policy). SC upheld the
agreement’s validity, following the doctrine of incorporation. GATT-WTO,
being an international agreement, must be complied with by the PH in the
virtue of pacta sunt servanda.

DOCTRINE: By the doctrine of incorporation, a country is bound by the
generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered to
be automatically part of our own laws. One of the oldest and most
fundamental rules in international law is pacta sunt servanda (international
agreements must be performed in good faith). A treaty engagement is not a
mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on parties.

BAYAN v. ZAMORA
October 10, 2000 | Tax and treaties; VFA

GIST: The US and the PH entered into the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)
after conducting the Military Bases Agreement (MBA) and the Mutual
Defense Treaty (MDT). Note, the VFA was approved by FVR together with
Ambassador Hubbard, after the exchange of notes of US Defense Assistant
Secretary for Asia Pacific and the Foreign Affairs Secretary of the PH. Estrada
ratified the treaty during the same year through the Secertary of Foreign
Affairs. Petitioners now assail the binding effect of such treaty. SC held that
by virtue of Art. 2 Sec. 2, upon ratification of the VFA, such treaty is binding.
With the generally accepted principles of international law rendered to be
part of the law of the land, under the principle of pacta sunt servanda, every
Page 8 of 58

treaty in force is binding upon parties to it, and must be complied with in BAYAN v. ROMULO
good faith. February 1, 2011 | RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement; Notes

DOCTRINE: Ratification is generally an executive act undertaken by the head GIST: Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the RP-US Non-Surrender
of state or of the government, as the case may be, through which the formal Agreement, as far as the exchange of notes, E/N BFO-028-03 is concerned.
acceptance of the treaty is proclaimed. A state may provide in its domestic Such note was finalized by Ambassador Ricciardone with the US Embassy.
legislation the process of ratification of the treaty. In our jurisdiction, the Such agreement is basically that of which aims to protect what it refers to
power to ratify is vested in the President and not, as commonly believed, in and defines as persons of the PH and the US from harassment suits that
the legislature. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding might be brought against them in international tribunals. Petitioners claim
its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. that there was grave abuse by respondents in concluding and ratifying the
Agreement by mere exchange of notes. SC ruled that such exchange is within
SAGUISAG v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY the scope of the doctrine of incorporation, which is as explained by Art 2 Sec
January 12 and July 26, 2016 | Tax and treaties; EDCA 2 of the Constitution, is where the PH accepts generally accepted principles
of international law as part of the law of the land. With the exchange of
GIST: Petitioners assail the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement notes being synonymous with executive agreements in the scope of
(EDCA), entered into by both PH and the US, for being violative of certain international law, the court deemed it as a valid medium in concluding the
Constitutional provisions. EDCA entails the use of US of the agreed locations assailed agreement.
of the PH territory. In such areas, the US shall conduct security operation
exercises, joint and combined training activities, and humanitarian disaster DOCTRINE: The doctrine of incorporation is where the PH adopts generally
relief activities. Such agreement is being assailed due to the fact that the accepted principles of international law and international jurisprudence as
Senate did not concur to ratify the said agreement. SC held that EDCA is part of the law of the lands and adheres to the policy of peace, cooperation,
constitutional, it is an executive agreement. As such, it need not be and amity with all nations.
submitted to the Senate for concurrence, as compared to such requirement
for a treaty. EDCA merely involves adjustments in the detail in the DEUTSCHE BANK v. CIR
implementation of the MTD and the VFA—existing treaties between the PH August 23, 2013 | Pacta sunt servanda; Tax treaty
and the US, which were accordingly concurred by the Senate and have met
the requirements as mandated by the Constitution. GIST: At the onset, petitioner filed with the BIR Large Tax Payers Assessment
and Investigation Division an administrative claim for refund or issuance of
DOCTRINE: Executive Agreements need not be concurred by Senate. The its tax credit certificate for the overpayment it made of its Branch Profit
President can enter into executive agreements on foreign military bases Remittance Tax (BPRT), at around Php 22.5M. Along with it was a request to
troops or facilities: the International Tax Affairs Division (ITAD) for a conformation of its
1. If such agreement is not the instrument that allows entry of such entitlement to a preferential tax rate of 10%, mandated under the RP-
2. If it merely aims to implement an existing law or treaty Germany Tax Treaty. Upon BIR’s inaction, petitioners raised it to the CTA,
who denied it on the ground that the tax treaty relief was not first filed
before the ITAD, hence a violation of Revenue Memo No. 1-2000. SC ruled
that petitioner must not be denied of their claims. By virtue of the
aforementioned treaty, the preferential rate of 10% BPRT must be granted
to them.
Page 9 of 58

DOCTRINE: Tax treaties are entered into to reconcile the national as it was used in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) as
legislations of the contracting parties and in turn, help the taxpayer avoid matters of self defense. Baikatan is a step on adhering to the Mutual
simultaneous taxations in two different jurisdictions. There is nothing in the Defense Treaty that was earlier agreed upon. Moreso, such agreement is
RMO which would indicate a deprivation of entitlement to a tax treaty relief compliant with Sec 2 Art 2 of the Constitution, where the PH renounces war
for failure to comply. CTA’s outright denial of the relief is not in harmony and adopts generally accepted principles of international law.
with the objectives of the contracting state.
DOCTRINE: From the perspective of public international law, a treaty is
CBK Power v. CIR favored over municipal law pursuant to the principle of pacta sunt servanda.
January 14, 2015 | Pacta sunt servanda Further, a party to a treaty is not allowed to invoke provisions of its internal
law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. However it must be
GIST: CBK Power entered into loans with several foreign banks for financing taken into account that provisions of a treaty are always subject to
its development and operation of the Caliraya, Botocan, and Kalayaan qualification or amendment by a subsequent law, or that it is subject to the
hydroelectric power-generating plants in Laguna. Later on, CBK filed for the police power of the state.
refund of its excess final withholding taxes allegedly erroneously withheld
and collected for the years 2001 and 2002 with the BIR. With CTA decreasing SHANGRI-LA v. DEVELOPERS
the amount to be refunded by CBK in compliance with the requirements set March 31, 2006 | Intellectual property rights
by the BIR, the petitioners filed the present case. SC ruled that such act of
BIR is not in consonance with the tax treaty; it cannot add a requirement GIST: Petitioners filed with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks, and
that isn’t found in the income tax treaties signed by the PH before a taxpayer Technology Transfer (BPTTT) a petition to cancel the registration of the mark
can avail of the said amounts. The obligation to comply with a tax treaty and the logo as issued by the Developers Group of Companies (DGCI) on the
must take precedence over the objective of an internal memorandum. Not ground that the same was illegally obtained and appropriated for the latter’s
only is the additional requirement illogical, but is also an imposition that is restaurant business. DGCI on the other hand claims that ever since, they
not found at all in any applicable tax treaties. have had the prior and exclusive use of the logo and mark in question for its
restaurants. SC ruled that, insofar as the ownership of the mark and logo is
DOCTRINE: The time-honored international principle of pacta sunt servanda concerned, it would do injustice to adjudge the petitioners as infringing their
ademands the performance in good faith of treaty obligations on the part of own created mark. The SC recognized the equal footing of municipal law
the states that enter into the agreement. In this jurisdiction, treaties have (Intellectual Property Code) and international law (Paris Convention), and
the force and effect of law. that what shall be considered is the use of the logo and the mark in the
Philippines. However, in consideration of the time as to when DGCI applied
LIM v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY for the trademark, it was RA 166 which was in effect, which contradicts what
April 11, 2002 |Balikatan Exercises; International law in municipal law is indicated in the Paris Convention, which mandates recognition of
internationally known marks or devises. With the IPC having no retroactive
GIST: Petitioner Lim assails the constitutionality of the Balikatan 02-1, the effect, the SC is indeed bound to rule in favor of the petitioners as it will be
largest combined training operations involving the PH and the US, which is contrary to RA 166 if it ruled for the respondents.
an avenue for conceptualization of new techniques. Petitioners likewise
sought to clarify the meaning of the term “activities” in the said agreement DOCTRINE: The fact that international law has been made part of the law of
and that if it is in harmony with the VFA. SC dismissed the case and upheld the land does not by any means imply the primacy of international law over
the constitutionality of the said agreement. “Activities” must be interpreted national law in the municipal sphere. Under the doctrine of incorporation as
Page 10 of 58

applied in most countries, rules of international law are given a standing convention states that state parties should take appropriate measures to
equal not superior, to national legislative enactments. diminish infant and child mortality, among others. DOH then issued the
assailed Administrative Order No. 2006-0012, or the Revised Implementing
MIJARES v. RANADA Rules and Regulations of the Executive Order No. 51 (RIRR), which includes
April 12, 2005 | Recognition of foreign judgments; Alien Torts Act the prohibition on advertisements of breastmilk substitutes. This is assailed
for having expanded the coverage of EO 51. SC held that it indeed expand
GIST: After a class suit (over 10,000 HR victims) was instituted in the District the provisions of the law, as it created the RIRR based on the WHA
Court of Hawaii against the Marcos Estate for human rights violations in Resolutions and not on the EO itself, which included the prohibition of
relation to the Alien Torts Act, a final judgment of over $2B was awarded. formula milk advertisements. With the WHA Resolution as merely a soft law,
With claims that such decision must be recognized and enforced in the PH it cannot be considered as part of the law of the land that can be
pursuant to Sec 50 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a petitioner filed a implemented by executive agencies without the need of a law enacted by
complaint in the RTC for its enforcement. The same was assailed by the legislature.
respondents for failure to pay the correct filing fees. SC ruled that judgment
of the said decision may be enforced here. Regarding the filing fees, the case DOCTRINE: Soft law include recommendations which generally are not
is incapable of pecuniary estimation for being an enforcement of a foreign binding, but carry moral and political weight.
judgment, hence filing fees are not based on the amount of damages. This
case is not grounded solely on the letter of the procedural rule. SC adverted
to the internationally recognized policy of preclusion as well as principles of
comity, utility, and convenience of nations as basis for the evolution of the
rule for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

DOCTRINE: There is no obligatory rule derived from treaties or conventions
that requires PH to recognize foreign judgments, or allow a procedure for
the enforcement thereof. However, generally accepted principles of
international law, by virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution,
form part of the law of the land even if they do not derive from treaty
obligations. The principle recognizing foreign judgments has attained the
status of opinion juris in international practice.

PHARMACEUTICAL v. DOH
October 9, 2007 | Soft law; World Health Assembly resolutions

GIST: EO 51 (Milk Code) seeks to give effect to the International Code of
Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), a code adopted by the World
Health Assembly (WHA). WHA adopted several Resolutions to the effect that
breastfeeding should be supported, promoted, and protected, hence
nutrition and health claims are not to be permitted for breastmilk
substitutes. With the PH ratifying the ICCPR, a provision of the said
Page 11 of 58

Sec. 3. Civilian authority is at all times, supreme over the military. The Sec. 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the
armed forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the people. The government may call upon the people to defend the State and
State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of in fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under the conditions
the national territory. provided by law, to render personal military or civil service.

IBP v. ZAMORA Sec. 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty,
August 15, 2000 | Civilian Supremacy and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for
the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.
GIST: In the light of the alarming increase of violent crimes in Metro Manila,
the President issued a verbal directive ordering the PNP and marines to Sec. 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
conduct joint visibility patrols to prevent and suppress crime. PNP
formulated a Letter of Instruction (LOI) to detail the manner by which the Sec. 7. The state shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations
joint visibility patrols would be made. President directed AFP Chief of Staff with other states the paramount consideration shall be national
and PNP Chief to coordinate with each other for proper deployment and sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self
utilization of marines in assisting the PNP. Such deployment is being assailed determination.
by the petitioners for being a violation of the civilian supremacy clause of
the Constitution. SC disagreed and ruled that the deployment of marines Sec. 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and
constitutes permissible use of military assets for civilian law enforcement. pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.
Such deployment does not destroy the civilian character of the PNO, as the
AFP chief does not exercise power and authority over the PNP. Real Sec. 9. The state shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will
authority still lies with the PNP, as stated in the LOI ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people
from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services,
DOCTRINE: Marine deployment does not unmake the civilian character of promote full employment, a rising standard of living and an improved
the police force. Neither does it amount to an insidious incursion of the quality of life for all.
military task of law enforcement.
Sec. 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national
development.

Sec. 11. The state values the dignity of every human person and
guarantees full respect for human rights.

Sec. 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect
and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall
equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the
rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral
character shall receive the support of the Government.

Page 12 of 58

IMBONG v. OCHOA Sec. 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building
April 8, 2014 | RH Law; family life and right of the unborn and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual,
and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and
GIST: With the RH Law being enacted by Congress came the petitioners who nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.
assail the constitutionality of the same, for being violative of the rights of
the mother and the unborn, in light of Art II Sec 12, as far as abortion is Sec. 14. The state recognizes the role of women in nation-building and shall
concerned. In ruling this matter, SC differentiated implantation, which is the promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social
entry of the fertilized ovum to the uterus and fertilization, or the meeting of well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and
the female ovum and the male sperm. Such is important to be discussed as encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.
the question of where life begins is being debated on. And with the SC being
of the opinion that life begins at fertilization, it consequently ruled that GARCIA v. DRILON
contraceptives mentioned under the RH Law are not violative of the June 25, 2013 | Equality of men and women
constitutional right to life of the mother and the unborn, and is consistent
with the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution. GIST: Rosalie Drilon and Jesus Garcia have 3 children. In the duration of their
marriage, Jesus controlled Rosalie’s actions, any contravention to his
DOCTRINE: By expressly declaring that any drug or device that prevents the command would be tantamount to physical and emotional abuse. In the
fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother’s womb, RH Law long run of fights they went through, Rosalie finally filed for a TPO pursuant
does not intend to mean at all that life begins only at implantation. to RA 9262. This is now assailed in court by Garcia for being unconstitutional
as it is discriminatory and is against husbands or fathers. SC held that there
WISCONSIN v. YODER is a present substantial distinction between men and women as far as far as
May 15, 1972 | Compulsory education their unequal power relationship is concerned. This puts women at inferior
ground and thus more subjected to gender bias and violence. Therefore, RA
GIST: Respondents Yoder et al are members of the amish religion, and as 9262 is constitutional.
practiced, they refuse to enroll their children aged 14 and 15 in public or
private schools upon completion of Grade 8. This was assailed as in violation DOCTRINE: The guaranty of equal protection of laws is not a guaranty of
of the Wisconsin Statute, which provides for compulsory attendance of equality in the application of laws upon all citizens of the state. Equal
children until the age of 16. SC held that such compulsory education statute protection simply requires that all persons, or things similarly situated
st th
violates the rights of the respondents under the 1 and 14 amendment of should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities
the US Constitution. The SC arrived with such ruling after conducting a imposed.
balancing of interest test, for the compelling state interest, for education, as
against the religious upbringing of the children insofar as their Amish
religion is concerned.

DOCTRINE: The State’s power is subject to a balancing test when it impinges
on fundamental rights such as that of the Free Exercise Clause and the
traditional interest of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of
their children.

Page 13 of 58

Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the as the constitutional policy on the right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
people and instill health consciousness among them. Regarding SC-46, the SC held that in relation to other laws, it is bereft of
basis to support its constitutionality. With Tañon Strait being a critical area
Sec. 16. The state shall protect and advance the right of the people to a to which an ECC is required before such activity may be performed, SC-46 is
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of not sufficient, it is just a service contract.
nature.
DOCTRINE: The right to a balanced and healthful ecology, a right that does
OPOSA v. FACTORAN not even need to be stated in our Constitution as it is assumed to exist from
July 30, 1993 | Inter-generational justice and responsibility the inception of humankind, carries with it the correlative duty to refrain
from impairing the environment.
GIST: Petitioners are minors duly represented and joined by their respective
parents, who are basically assailing the Timber License Agreements (TLAs) PAJE v. CASINO
granted to several corporations. They claim that such grant constitutes February 3, 2015 | Writ of Kalikasan
massive abuse to the rainforest of our country, hence tantamount to a
violation of public interest to a healthful and a balanced ecology. While GIST: Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) and Taiwan Cogeneration
respondents assail the standing of such minors, the SC held that the suit filed Corporation (TCC) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
is in line with the inter-generational responsibility insofar as the right to a expressing their intent to build a coal-fired power plant in Subic Bay. DENR
balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. issued an ECC in favor of the said project, and thereafter, several groups
opposed the implementation of the said project. Respondent filed a Petition
DOCTRINE: Every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that for Writ of Kalikasan against petitioners, with claims that such project would
rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful cause environmental damage and adverse effect on the health of the
ecology. A minor’s assertion of their right to a sound environment, at the residents of Subic, Zambales, Morong, Hermosa, and the City of Olongapo.
same time, is the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection SC held that since there is failure to prove that the constitutional right to a
of that right for the generations to come. balanced and healthful ecology was violated or threatened, the Writ of
Kalikasan was not granted because of the following reasons: the witnesses
RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS v. SECRETARY REYES presented were not experts on technology or on environmental matters, the
April 21, 2015 | Right to a balanced and healthful ecology scientific studies or articles were obtained through the internet, the alleged
thermal pollution of coastal waters, air pollution due to dust and
GIST: JAPEX conducted oil exploration, examination, and sampling, among combustion, are extensively addressed in RP Energy’s Environmental
others, in the Tañon Strait, which was declared as a Critical Area. Later on, Management Plan (EMP).
they were required to have an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC)
to continue their project. In the duration of the project, reports showed that DOCTRINE: Under Section 1 of Rule 7, the following requisites must be
there was a drastic drop in fish catch by 50-70% which then prompted present to avail of the extraordinary remedy that is the Writ of Kalikasan:
petitioners to file a case before the court, assailing SC-46, which covers the 1. There is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right
agreement between the DOE and JAPEX for the project. With respondents to a balanced and healthful ecology
challenging the locus standi of petitioners, SC held that such stewards, 2. The actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or
among others, may be part of the citizen suit, in filing for environmental omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or
cases before the court. This is in consonance with the ruling in Oposa, as well entity
Page 14 of 58

3. The actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an WEST TOWER v. PIC
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, June 6, 2015 | Right to a balanced and healthful ecology
health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces
GIST: This case revolves around the TEPO imposed over FPIC enjoining their
INTERNATIONAL SERVICE v. GREENPEACE operations on their pipelines within the vicinity of West Tower. Leaks were
August 8, 2016 | Right to a balanced and healthful ecology; precautionary discovered in the basement of West Tower Condominium, which was
principle reported to the authorities and raised to the SC, through a petition for a Writ
of Kalikasan, which other organizations have vied to join, as they claim to be
GIST: Field trials were conducted for bioengineered eggplants (Bt talong) real parties in interest insofar as their right to a balanced and healthful
and the same was assailed by respondents by filing a Petition for Writ of ecology is concerned. The standing of the petitioners were challenged, for
Kalikasan and a Writ of Continuing Mandamus with prayer for Temporary they were not parties in interest as they were not directly affected by the
Environmental Protection Order. They claim that, such field trials was disaster. When the case reached the SC, it was ruled that the TEPO be lifted,
violative of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology for but that there must be conditions that PIC must follow in order to avoid such
the absence of an ECC prior the trials, among others. That, since the Incident to happen again. As regards the standing of the petitioners, the SC
scientific evidence as to the safety of Bt talong remained insufficient or ruled that it is provided in the Rules of Procedures of Environmental Cases
uncertain, and that preliminary scientific evaluation shows reasonable (Sec 7) that it is not a requirement to be directly affected by the
grounds for concern, the precautionary principle should be applied, hence environmental disaster before you can actually file.
such experiment. SC held that indeed the precautionary principle shall be
applied, since all three conditions are met. Petitioners are now ordered to DOCTRINE: Sec 1 Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure of Environmental Cases
cease and desist in conducting such trials. In the MR that was filed, the SC does not require that a person be directly affected by an environmental
ruled in the mootness of the case, because the trials have already stopped. disaster. The rule allows juridical persons to file a petition on behalf of
persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
DOCTRINE: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary violated, or threatened.
approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities.
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full LNL ARCHIPELAGO v. AGHAM PARTYLIST
scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost- April 8, 2014 | Right to a balanced and healthful ecology
effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. This should be
treated as a principle of last resort as should be used only where application GIST: In the pursuit of their daily operations for mining, LNL Archipelago was
of regular Rules of Evidence would cause an inequitable result from the alleged to violate environmental laws when they cut down mountain trees,
environmental plaintiff, such as when: which would result to flattening of the mountain, that serves as a natural
1. Risk of harm is uncertain protective barrier from typhoons and floods of Zambales and some parts of
2. Harm might be irreversible and what may be lost is irreplaceable Pangasinan. Respondent partylist filed a Petition for the Writ of Kalikasan
3. Harm that might result will be serious invoking the petitioner’s violation of Sec 16 Art II of the Constitution. SC held
that petitioners did not violate the Rvised Forestry Code and the Philippine
Mining Act, that there was no mountain involved, and that since LNL
Archipelago was in fact compliant with all the ECC requirements, it was
clean. Essentially, the writ was not granted.

Page 15 of 58

DOCTRINE: The Rules are very clear, in a Writ of Kalikasan, the petitioner Sec. 17. The State shall give priority to education, science and technology,
has the burden to prove the: arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate
1. Environmental law, rule, or regulation that is violated or is social progress and promote total human liberation and development.
threatened to be violated;
2. Act or omission complained of; and Sec. 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall
3. The environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.
life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces Sec. 19. The state shall develop a self-reliant and independent national
economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.

Sec. 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector,
encourages private enterprise and provides incentives to needed
investments.

Sec. 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and
agrarian reform.

Sec. 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous
cultural communities within the framework of national unity and
development.

Sec. 23. The State shall encourage non-governmental community-based,
or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation.

Sec. 24. The State recognizes the vital role of communication and
information in nation-building.

Sec. 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of Local Governments.

Sec. 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public
service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.

Sec. 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in public service and
take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.

Page 16 of 58

Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State absence of such, the records on the said foreign bank accounts cannot be
adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its obtained. In the dissent of CJ Sereno, she expressed that public interest
transactions involving public interest. should be upheld over private and economic interests. She highlighted the
duty of public officers to fully disclose their assets and liabilities to the
POLLO v. CONSTANTINO public. For all public officers, what is absolute is not the confidentiality
April 8, 2014 | Requirement of privacy rights privilege. By granting the TRO, the absurd and absolute protection of bank
accounts is now available for everyone including public officers as long as
GIST: There was an anonymous letter of complaint sent to the CSC they convert their PH currency to foreign currency.
Chairperson, alleging that petitioner Pollo has been offering legal assistance
to the people with administrative cases with the CSC. Chairman David’s IN RE: PRODUCTION OF COURT RECORDS
recourse was then to inform an IT Team to investigate Pollo’s computer and Feb 14, 2012 | Rules on public disclosure of court records
files and make a back up of them for further examining—which was what
Pollo found violative of his constitutional rights to privacy and due process GIST: SC received various letters asking for permission and subpoena et
because of lack of reasonableness of the search. After being found guilty of duces tecum to examin rollos of several cases in relation to the
the complaint alleged, he was dismissed by the CSC. He went to the CA who impeachment proceedings against CJ Corona. SC in this case held that the
dismissed his petition, then appealed to the SC who affirmed the CA’s right to information is absolute. The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court
decision, holding that no constitutional violation was made by the said (IRSC) prohibits disclosures of the following:
government agency. 1. Results o raffle of cases if they are cases involving bar matters,
administrative cases, and criminal cases involving penalty of life
DOCTRINE: Some government offices may be so open to fellow employees imprisonment
or the public that no expiration of privacy is reasonable 2. Actions taken by the Court including the agenda of the Court’s
session (only after the official release of the resolution embodying
PS BANK v. SENATE IMPEACHMENT COURT the Court action may that action be made available to the public)
February 9, 2012 | Secrecy of foreign deposit 3. Deliberations of Members in court sessions on PENDING cases and
matters of deliberative process privilege
GIST: This case is in relation to the impeachment trial of former SC CJ Renato The SC held that public officials and employees are not required to present
Corona, where CJ Corona’s foreign bank accounts during the trial are being documents provided for subpoena duces tecum because appearing in court
investigated. PS Bank and its President (Garcia) filed before the SC an may interrupt, hamper public business, and because of the presumption of
application for TRO, among others. This was to stop the Senate, sitting as confidence in public officers or employees that they will discharge their
impeachment court, from further implementing the Subpoena Duces several trusts with accuracy and fidelity
Tecum. SC ruled in favor of the petitioners and held that, there is a clear
right to maintain the confidentiality of the foreign currency deposits of the DOCTRINE: Deliberative process privilege is intended to prevent the chilling
CJ, as provided for under Sec 8 of RA 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposit Act of of deliberative communications by senators, justices, among others, who
the Philippines. This law establishes the absolute confidentiality of foreign may invoke the privilege when asked about information related to exercising
currency deposits. their public functions. To qualify for protection under this privilege, the
agency must show that the document is both:
DOCTRINE: Under RA 6426 lies a single exception to the rule on 1. Predecisional – communications are predecisional if they were
confidentiality, that is, a written waiver from the depositor himself. In the made in attempt to reach a final decision
Page 17 of 58

2. Deliberative – disclosure of information would discourage candid Article VI. The Legislative Department
discussion within the agency
Sec. 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the congress of the
Philippines, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by provision
on initiative and referendum.

RUBI v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO
March 7, 1919 | Grant of quasi-legislative power; LGU

GIST: What is being assailed in this case is Resolution 25, which is in
concurrence with Sec. 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1979. This
Resolution, as implemented by the Provincial Board of Mindoro in terms of
assigning reservation areas for the Mangyanes, forced petitioner Rubi and
her companions to move into the new settlement in Lake Naujan, which was
provided for by the Government. Petitioners of this case claim that such
action of the Provincial Board does not constitute undue delegation. In the
present case, such delegation is allowed given that the local government
acted in good faith. Given that there is a need for the local government to
implement the laws that would help the backward people in Mindoro, they
are compelled by law to implement the Administrative Code.

DOCTRINE: Normally, the power to legislate is conferred in the legislature,
but it can permit local administers to pass administrative legislation in their
area especially for the purpose of maintaining law and order that will protect
the citizens in their area.

SEC v. INTERPORT
October 6, 2008 | Grant of quasi-legislative power; Administrative bodies

GIST: Interport Resources Corporation (IRC) had an agreement with Ganda
Holdings Berhard (GHB) that the former that the former will acquire the
latter’s Ganda Energy Holdings, Inc. (GEHI) and that the latter will help IRC
to acquire 67% of the capital stock of Philippine Racing Club in exchange of
55% of its capital stock. With IRC claiming it issued a press release with
regard to this agreement, SEC claims to have not received it; which led the
latter to say that IRC did not report its business developments and its
directors. SEC’s hearing resulted in the finding that IRC violated the Rules of
Page 18 of 58

Material Facts, as well as Secs. 30 and 36 of the Revised Securities Act, for ARANETA v. GATMAITAN
basically going behind the directors. As defense, IRC forwards that there is April 30, 1957 | Details for implementation
an absence of any implementing rules and regulations (IRRs) regarding such
disclosure, insider trading, and the Revised Securities Act, hence SEC cannot GIST: In response to the depletion of marine resources of San Miguel Bay as
conduct further investigations. SC ruled in favor of the petitioners, and said well as the destruction of shrimp specie in the said area, the League of
that despite the absence of such IRRs, Secs. 30 and 36 of the Revised Mayors filed a motion to ban trawl fishing at certain times of the year, and
Securities Act is binding, and further investigations conducted by the SEC are to ban trawl operations in general. As a response, the President, through
valid. DENR, issued EO 22 (prohibits trawl fishing), EO 66 (amended EO 22,
allowing trawl fishing during typhoon season), and EO 80 (revived EO 22) at
DOCTRINE: It is a well settled doctrine that every law has in its favor the this point, note that trawl fishing is prohibited. A group of trawl operations
presumption of validity. Mere absence of IRRs cannot effectively invalidate filed an injunction of the EOs, and challenged the same for being fruits of
provisions of a law especially when there is a reasonable construction that the exercise of undue delegation. SC upheld the validity of the EOs, and
will support the law and its effects. stated that the Fisheries Act provided for the details for the implementation
of regulations with regard to marine resources. The issuance was complete
AGUSTIN v. EDU in itself because the Congress already passed the Fisheries Act, which is said
February 2, 1979 | Requisites of valid delegation; test to regulate the same, and passes the responsibility of enforcing such law to
the DENR. As far as the protection of fish fry or fish egg is concerned, the
GIST: Petitioner, an owner of a Volkswagen Bettle Car, is assailing the Fisheries Act is complete in itself, leaving the Secretary of Agriculture and
validity of LOI No. 229 enacted by the LTO, which requires all vehicles to be Natural Resources the power to promulgate rules and regulations to carry
equipped with early warning devices. The LOI was enacted in response to into effect the legislative intent.
PH’s membership to the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals,
which is a response to the increasing number of vehicular accidents. Agustin DOCTRINE: When a law does nothing more but to the give administrative or
in this case claims that such LOI was enacted by virtue of undue delegation executive agencies power to make rules and regulations to carry into effect
of police power, which is for the sole benefit of EWD vendors. SC held that the force of the law, then the law is complete in itself.
the enactment of the LOI is benchmarked on the purpose of promoting
public safety. SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY v. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD
November 3, 2008 | Completeness
DOCTRINE: To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a
standard which implies at the very least that the legislature itself determines GIST: The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165) was
matters of principle and lays down fundamental policy. A standard thus assailed in this case for constituting undue delegation of power after
defines legislative policy, marks it, maps out its boundaries, and specifies the mandating drug testing on: (1) candidates of public office; (2) students in the
public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the secondary, tertiary, and public schools; (3) private employees; and (4) those
legislative command is to be affected. The executive or administrative office charged with an offense by the prosecutor. SC held that the said law does
then designated of the same may promulgate supplemental rules and not constitute undue delegation for being complete in itself. With respect
regulation. to issues on (2) and (3), the SC upheld its constitutionality for the presence
of guidelines. But for (1) and (4), the SC held it unconstitutional for adding a
qualification beyond what the constitution requires for a candidate, and for
lacking the requisite of the test being random.
Page 19 of 58

DOCTRINE: With the presumption that the legislature is not capable of purpose of the said act is to protect the public interest against speculative
addressing everything with respect to the needs of the community, it is schemes which have no more basis than so many feet of the blue sky, and
acknowledged that legislative power may be duly delegated. However, it such sales of stock in fly-by-night concerns, visionary oil wells, distant gold
shall be subject to limitations as mandated by the constitution: it shall be mines, and other fraudulent exploitations.
complete in the sense that it shall , and it shall fix a standard.
DOCTRINE: The sufficient standard test mandates adequate guidelines or
DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE limitations in the law to determine the boundaries of the delegate’s
April 22, 2014 | Completeness authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.

GIST: Cybercrime law is the government’s way to regulate the access and EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v. POEA
use of the cyberspace, which prohibits acts which may be abused by ill- October 18, 1988 | Discretion as to substantive contents
minded people with the agenda of destroying or destructing or violating
other people’s rights. Petitioners in this case assail the law for constituting GIST: Vitaliano Saco was the Chief Officer of MV Eastern Polaris when he
undue delegation, particularly that of which establishes the Cybercrime died in an unfortunate accident in Tokyo. His widow, respondent Kathleen,
Investigation and Coordinating Center and defines its powers and functions. sued for damages under EO 797 and Memorandum Circular No. 2 of the
SC held that the Cybercrime law is complete in itself, and that, it provided Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). With the judgment
sufficient standards for the CICC to follow when it provided for the definition of rendering to Kathleen Php 192,000.00 for the tragic accident to be paid
of cybersecurity. by petitioner Eastern Shipping as its employer, the latter assailed the said
Memorandum Circular for being violative of the principle of non-delegation
DOCTRINE: In order to determine whether there is undue delegation of of legislative power. SC upheld the constitutionality of the circular, that,
legislative power, the Court has adopted two tests: POEA may implement the broad policy laid down by EO 797 in a statute by
1. Completeness test – the law must be complete in all its terms and filling in the details which the Congress may not have the opportunity or
conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches competence to provide, given their large scope.
the delegate, the only thing he will have to do is enforce it
2. Sufficient standard test – mandates adequate guidelines or DOCTRINE: With the proliferation of specialized activities and their peculiar
limitations in the law to determine the boundaries of the delegate’s problems, the legislature has found it more necessary to entrust to
authority and prevent the delegation from running riot administrative agencies the authority to issue rules to carry out the general
provisions of the statute. This is called the power of subordinate legislation.
PEOPLE v. ROSENTHAL
June 12, 1939 | Sufficient standard TABLARIN v. GUTIERREZ
July 31, 1937 | Establishment of medical educational requirements
GIST: After being held liable for the violation of the Blue Sky Law (Act No.
2581) after selling shares of ORO Oil Co. and South Cebu Oil Co. without the GIST: MEC Order No. 52, made in consonance of the Medical Act (RA 2382),
permit or license from the Insular Treasurer, Rosenthal and Osmeña assailed established a uniform admission test called the NMAT as an additional
the same law for constituting undue delegation, that it did not possess a requirement for issuance of a certificate of eligibility for admission into
sufficient standard. SC held that public interest in this case is a sufficient medical schools. Petitioners failed in the said tests, and now seek to enjoin
standard to guide the Insular Treasurer in reaching a decision on a matter the said Order as it constitutes undue delegation under Sections 5(a) and (5)
pertaining to the issuance or cancellation of certificates or permits. The of RA 2382, which basically creates and defines the powers of the Board of
Page 20 of 58

Medical Education (who basically mandated the NMAT). SC upheld the ABAKADA v. ERMITA
validity of the said Order, as it was based on the standards provided for by September 1, 2005 | Fixes a standard ; ascertainment of facts
the RA 2382, which is the standardization and regularization of medical
education. GIST: Petitioners of this case assail the VAT Law (RA 9337) for constituting
undue delegation, as it imposes 10% VAT on the Secs. 4 (sale of goods and
DOCTRINE: With the growing complexities of modern life, the multiplication properties), 5 (importation of goods), and 6 (sale of services and use or lease
of the subjects of governmental regulation, and the increased difficulty of of properties). They claim that all these sections have a similar proviso
administering the laws, there is a constantly growing tendency toward the authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of
delegation of greater power by the legislature, and toward the approval and Finance, to raise the VAT rate from 10% to 12% after the concurrence of the
the practice of the courts. So long as the tests of completeness and sufficient following conditions:
standards are met, there is valid delegation of legislative power. 1. VAT collection as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds
2.8%
VIOLA v. ALUNAN 2. National government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous
August 15, 1997 | Fixes a standard ; power to create positions year exceeds 1.5%
SC ruled that there was no undue delegation of legislative power to the
GIST: Petitioners in this case assail the validity of Secs. 1-2, Art. III of the President, for the proviso in question does not contain a delegation of
Revised Implementing Rules and Guidelines for the General Elections of the legislative power, but simply a delegation of ascertainment of facts. It is
st nd rd
Liga ng mga Barangay Officers, for providing the election of 1 , 2 , and 3 evident that the 12% VAT is contingent of the conditions that are obviously
VPs and for auditors—basically additional positions not specifically provided outside the control of the executive.
for by the Local Government Code (LGC) (which only mentioned the
following elective positions: President, VP, 5 members of the board of DOCTRINE: The legislature has the power to delegate to executive bodies
directors per chapter at the municipal, city, provincial, metropolitan political the power to determine certain facts or conditions where the law can be
subdivision, and national levels). SC held that there was no undue delegation implemented. However, the law delegating the same must still pass both
of power by the Congress in this case, as the creation of such additional the sufficient standards and the completeness test.
positions is authorized by the LGC in Sec. 493 so long as such positions are
deemed necessary for the management of the chapter. As such act passing BELTRAN v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH
both the sufficient standard and the completeness test, the Court upheld November 5, 2005 | Promotion of public health; sufficient guideline
the validity of the assailed Sections.
GIST: In response to the concern for the safety of blood and blood products
DOCTRINE: The LGC sufficiently fixes the standard. The delivery of intensified due to the proliferation of AIDS, the National Blood Services Act
government services to the local districts will not be possible if there are of 1994 (RA 9919) provides supply of safe blood in the country. Section 7 of
missing positions that would make the Liga not as efficient and as effective the said law mandates the closure of commercial blood banks, to which DOH
as expected. responded to, by promulgating AO No. 9, which contains the IRR.
Petitioners, commercial blood bank operators, assail the constitutionality of
the law and its IRR, for constituting undue delegation to the DOH in terms
of giving it power to close down commercial blood banks. With the clear
mandate of the assailed law to safeguard the health of the people and the
express standard provided that is the promotion of public health by
Page 21 of 58

providing a safe and adequate supply of blood through voluntary blood FERNANDEZ v. STO. TOMAS
donation, the SC upheld the its constitutionality. The power to implement March 7, 1995 | Filling in the details
the closing of commercial blood banks and the power to ascertain the
existence of facts and conditions upon which the Secretary may effect a GIST: Petitioners in this case assail Resolution No. 94-3710, as it merges the
period of extension for the said phase-out ca be delegated by the Congress Office of Personnel Inspection and Audit (OPIA), the Office of Personnel
to the DOH. Relations (OPR), and the Office of Career Systems and Standards (OCSS) into
one, as the Research and Development Office. They claim that such abolition
DOCTRINE: In testing whether a statute constitutes undue delegation of of public offices is something that can only be done by the same legislative
legislative power, it is essential to inquire as to whether the statute is authority who created those public offices in the first place. SC held that the
complete and if it establishes a sufficient standards. Except as to matters of Administrative Code provides that changes can be done in the above offices
detail that may be left to be filled in by the rules and regulations to be if the necessity rises. In the present case, there is an undeniable necessity to
adopted by executive or administrative bodies, an act is incomplete and streamline services that compelled the reorganization of such offices.
invalid if it does not lay down any rule or definite standard by which the
delegates may be guided. DOCTRINE: When the Administrative Code defined the offices under the
CSC, they did not mean to cast them in stone and freeze them in place. In
ABAKADA v. PURISIMA fact, the legislative authority expressly authorized the Commission to carry
August 4, 2008 | Fixes a standard out changes in the organization should the need for such changes arises.

GIST: The Attrition Act of 2005 (RA 9335) was enacted to improve the CHIONGBIAN v. ORBOS
revenue-generation capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC by June 22, 1995 | Filling in the details
implementing a system of rewards (if they collect more than the year’s
target) and sanctions (if they collect less than the year’s target). In GIST: The Organic Act (RA 6734) called for a plebiscite to create the
consonance with the law is the creation of the Rewards and Incentives Fund. autonomous region; Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi said
Petitioners assail the said law as it is an undue delegation of power and lacks yes to, hence became the ARMM. The same law provides for the power of
sufficient standards in giving the President the power to fix revenue targets. the President to, by administrative determination, merge regions that do
SC upheld the validity of the law and ruled that RA 9335 perfectly stated not vote for inclusion in the ARMM. Consequently, the President issued EO
policies and standards (optimization of revenue generation capability 429 which provided for the said reorganization. The petitioners, aggrieved,
through a system of rewards) to guide the President in fixing revenue targets went to court claiming that such act constitutes undue delegation. SC ruled
and the implementing agencies in carrying out the provisions of the law. in the negative, and held that the President has the power to merge or
reorganize. By virtue of RA 5435, the President is authorized, with the
DOCTRINE: A law sets out sufficient standards when it provides adequate assistance of the Commission on Reorganization, to reorganize the different
boundaries to map out the delegate’s authority and prevent them from executive departments, bureaus, offices, agencies, among others. This
running riot. essentially lead the court to confirm the presence of a sufficient standard in
RA 5435 therefore nullifying the claim of the petitioners of the presence of
undue delegation.

DOCTRINE: Such power of the President to reorganize executive offices,
branches, institutions, and filling details are administrative in nature, vested
Page 22 of 58

to him by RA 6734 in order to ensure simplicity, economy, and efficiency of creating the joint team is valid, as it did not create another new public office,
government services. contrary to the claim of the petitioners. The COMELEC has the power to
investigate and prosecute violations of election laws and the DOJ is
PICHAY v. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY mandated to administer the criminal justice system; combining these two
July 24, 2012 | Authority to reorganize and appropriate funds does not create a new public office—no new power is given.

GIST: GMA enacted EO 12, which created the Presidential Anti-Graft DOCTRINE: The power of both the COMELEC as well as the DOJ to engage in
Commission (PAGC) to investigate or hear administrative cases on graft and a preliminary investigation is well found in the Constitution, existing
corruption of presidential appointees. 2010, PNoy issued EO 13, which statutes, and the Rules of Court. With such power already preexisting prior
basically abolishes PAGC, and transfers its functions to the Office of the the creation of the said joint team, there can be no basis when claiming that
Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (ODELSA), particularly to the a new office vested with new powers is created.
Investigative and Adjudicatory Division (IAD). A case against petitioner
Pichay (Chairman, Board of Trustees of the Local Water Utilities PEOPLE v. VERA
Administration [LWUA]) was filed before the IAD-ODELSA, the alleged November 16, 1937 | Undue delegation
purchase by LWUA of 445,377 shares of stock of Express Savings Bank. As a
defense, he claims that the same case is already filed and is in fact pending GIST: What is being assailed in this case is The Probation Act (Act No. 4221),
before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB). Later on, he assailed EO 13, which enables provincial boards to exercise discretion as to whether or no
claiming it constituted undue delegation as it usurped the power of the said Act will apply in its province or not. In this case, a certain Mariano
legislature in terms of creation of a public office, appropriation of funds, and Cu Unjieng was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 4 years
delegation of quasi-judicial powers. SC ruled that EO 13 is valid, as it is within of prision correctional to 8 years of prision mayor and costs, in his case
the ambit of the powers of the President to enact such EO, without usurping against HSBC. He eventually applied for probation, which was granted by
the powers of the legislature. respondent Judge. The Manila Fiscal and private prosecutor opposed the
probation, and finally assail RA 4221, for being an undue delegation of
DOCTRINE: The President exercises continuing authority to reorganize legislative power. SC ruled that there is indeed undue delegation. There are
under the Administrative Code of 1987. The President merely fills up the no rules that can serve as a guide to the provincial boards in terms of their
details in the Administrative Code when it enacts Executive Orders as far as exercise of their discretionary power when determining whether or RA 4221
reorganization, transfer, and restructuring the Office of the President will apply in their respective provinces.
Proper, or any other Administrative or Executive Department or Agency.
DOCTRINE: In testing whether a statute constitutes an undue delegation of
ARROYO v. DOJ legislative power, it is usual to inquire whether the statute is complete in all
September 18, 2012 | Filling in the details its terms and provisions when it left the hands of the legislature so that
GIST: This consolidated case consists of petitioners who assail the COMELEC nothing was left to the judgment of any other appointee or delegate of the
Resolution No. 9266 on the COMELEC and DOJ joint investigation on the legislature.
alleged election offenses during the 2004 and 2007 elections, as well as the
Joint Order NO. 001-2011 creating a joint DOJ-COMELEC fact finding team,
among others. Petitioners claim that the joint panel is a new office, and
therefore outside the scope of the COMELEC, for it is solely the legislature
who has the power to create such body. SC held that the assailed Resolution
Page 23 of 58

US v. BARRIAS PEOPLE v. MACEREN

September 24, 1908 | Undue delegation October 18, 1977 | Undue delegation

GIST: Barrias was charged of a violation of Circular No. 397, issued by the GIST: What is being assailed in this case is Fisheries Administrative Order
Collector of Customs, after navigating along the Pasig River in a Maude using (AO) No. 84, which was created in consonance with the Fisheries Law, which
bamboo poles to push the small vessel along the water. The law mandated prohibits obnoxious or poisonous substance in fishing. What the AO
that such vessels should be permitted in the Pasig River ONLY when being contained was a prohibition of electro fishing in PH waters. One morning of
towed by steam or moved by other adequate power. Barrias’ counsel March 1969, 5 persons were accused of performing electro fishing in
challenged the constitutionality of Sec. 70 which provides for the Laguna. The accused argued that such law is a form of undue delegation, as
prohibition, for being a form of undue delegation. SC held that there is no the Fisheries Law never included electro fishing as one of the forbidden
undue delegation to fix the penalties. With Act No. 1136 authorizing the modes of fishing, but that the disputed AO in this case expressly provides for
Collector of Customs to license crafts engaged in lighterage or harbor a prohibition and a corresponding penalty. SC held that the Secretary of
business essentially entitles the said office to impose such necessary rules Agriculture exceeded his authority in issuing such AO. Electro fishing was
and regulations to implement it. held not to be found in the law, and the Fisheries Law contained a penal
provision that may be used as recourse for the offenders.
DOCTRINE: There is a necessity to authorize the local authority with regard
to the framing, changing, and enforcing of harbor regulations. So long as the DOCTRINE: When the delegate fails to implement a regulation that is
delegate acts within the matter of the legislation, then there is no undue germane to the purpose and objects of the law and likewise fails to conform
delegation. with the standard that the law prescribes, there is undue delegation of
legislative power.
US v. PANLILIO
December 8, 1949 | Undue delegation PEOPLE v. DACUYCUY
May 5, 1989 | Undue delegation
GIST: What is being assailed in this case is Act NO. 1760, which has for its
purpose the prevention of the introduction in the PH of dangerous GIST: Hindang, Motando, CAval, and Zanoria, are public school teachers that
communicable animal diseases, and the spread of such diseases, among were alleged to be in violation of the Magna Carta for Public School
others. Respondent Panlilio was found to have in his possession carabaos Teachers, and hence subjected to Sec. 32 of the said code. They challenge
with a dangerous and contagious disease that is rinderpest. After being held the said provision for imposing cruel and unusual punishment. SC ruled that
penalized of violating the said law, Panlilio assails it and claims that it is a indeed there is an undue delegation of legislative power, because the
form of undue delegation of legislative power to the DOA. SC held that there duration of the penalty of imprisonment is left to the court as if the latter
is indeed undue delegation, because the said law does did not provide for were the legislative department of the government. In the absence of
penalties, and therefore DOA should have no authority to impose the same legislature, Judge Dacuycuy, even if with reference to the Magna Carta, has
to Panlilio. no power to fix the term of imprisonment.

DOCTRINE: The power to criminalize or penalize may be delegated only if DOCTRINE: It is not for the courts to fix the term of imprisonment where no
the law itself provides that specific violations are punished or if a violation points of reference have been provided for by the legislature.
is made a penal offense under the law.

Page 24 of 58

YNOT v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT clearly this is what paved the way for DOH to implement the RIRR; absence
March 20, 1987 | Undue delegation of standards.

GIST: President Marcos issued EO 626-A prohibiting the movement of DOCTRINE: In the absence of the legislature in terms of fixing or imposing
carabaos and the slaughtering of the same. Ynot was transporting carabaos fines, a delegate cannot provide for such fines to be suddenly present in its
(carabeef) in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo, where he was caught, and implementing rules—such will constitute to undue delegation of legislative
so they were confiscated. Petitioner claims that such EO is unconstitutional power.
for constituting undue delegation of legislative power, when it contained a
provision where the authorities had discretion as to where the confiscated ABAKADA v. PURISIMA
items would go. SC held that it indeed constitutes undue delegation, as it August 14, 2008 | Undue delegation
provides for a provision that renders seized property to be distributed to
charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the Chairman of the GIST: The Attrition Act of 2005 (RA 9335) was enacted to improve the
Meat Inspection Commission “may see fit”—this gives the delegate broad revenue-generation capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC by
power in determination of the proceeds of the confiscated item. implementing a system of rewards (if they collect more than the year’s
target) and sanctions (if they collect less than the year’s target). In
DOCTRINE: A roving commission is a wide and sweeping authority that is consonance with the law is the creation of the Rewards and Incentives Fund.
not canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing; this is a clear Petitioners assail the said law as it is an undue delegation of power and lacks
profligate and therefore an invalid delegation of legislative powers. sufficient standards in giving the President the power to fix revenue targets.
SC upheld the validity of the law and ruled that RA 9335 perfectly stated
PHARMACEUTICAL v. DOH policies and standards (optimization of revenue generation capability
October 9, 2007 | Undue Delegation through a system of rewards) to guide the President in fixing revenue targets
and the implementing agencies in carrying out the provisions of the law.
GIST: EO 51 (Milk Code) seeks to give effect to the International Code of
Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), a code adopted by the World DOCTRINE: A law sets out sufficient standards when it provides adequate
Health Assembly (WHA). WHA adopted several Resolutions to the effect that boundaries to map out the delegate’s authority and prevent them from
breastfeeding should be supported, promoted, and protected, hence running riot.
nutrition and health claims are not to be permitted for breastmilk
substitutes. With the PH ratifying the ICCPR, a provision of the said PHIL. COCONUT v. REPUBLIC
convention states that state parties should take appropriate measures to January 24, 2012 | Undue delegation
diminish infant and child mortality, among others. DOH then issued the
assailed Administrative Order No. 2006-0012, or the Revised Implementing GIST: Upon declaration of martial law in 1972, several PDs were issued to
Rules and Regulations of the Executive Order No. 51 (RIRR), which includes improve the coconut industry through the collection and use of the coconut
the prohibition on advertisments of breastmilk substitutes. This is assailed levy fund. One of which is PD 755, which authorized the Philippine Coconut
as far as the power of DOH to impose fines is concerned. SC held that Sec. Administration (PCA) to utilize collections and to acquire a commercial bank
46 of the RIRR is invalid. Neither the Milk Code nor the Revised and to deposit the levy collections in the said bank, which was withdrawable
Administrative Code grants the DOH any authority to fix or impose only when the bank attained a certain level of sufficiency in its equity capital.
administrative fines and therefore there is no standard to be followed— The plan was, the shares of the said commercial bank is to be distributed to
coconut farmers for the “advancement of national policy.” Now during the
Page 25 of 58

Aquino Administration, the PCGG was established, with the goal to recover 6 months after); no funds appropriated for projects not in list
ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses. Focusing on the coco levy laws relevant submitted to DBM; Congress had power to direct how, where, and
to the case at bar, PCGG assails PD 755, among others, for constituting when appropriations were to be spent
undue delegation in terms of allowing PCA to promulgate rules and 5. ERAP Admin – CDF removed from GAA, and PDAF appeared (funds
regulations governing the distribution of UCPB of its shares to coconut released directly to implementing agency under consultation with
farmers. SC held that there was indeed undue delegation, as PD 755 allowed appropriate district representative; allocation may be realigned as
PCA to promulgate its own rules and regulations without a fixed standard; necessary to ANY expense category; no amount shall be used to
the decree does not state who are to be considered coconut farmers, it did fund personal services and other personal benefit – LOL)
not identify any condition as to how the disposition of the shares will 6. GMA Admin – PDAF to be used to fund priority programs for the
redound to the advancement of national policy, and it did not provide any 10-point agenda; Program Menu Concept was implemented (list of
guideline, standard, condition, or restriction as to how the shares are to be general programs and implementing agencies where PDAF may be
distributed to farmers. spent); NGOs formally allowed to participate in implementation of
Govt Projects (250M-500M)
DOCTRINE: One of the tests for there to be a valid delegation of legislative 7. PNoy Admin – Representatives (70M); Senators and VP (200M);
power is the sufficient standards test, which must specify the limits of the LGU allowed to be an implementing agency (can use PDAF)
delegates’ authority, announce the legislative policy, and identify conditions For the history of the Presidential Pork Barrel:
under which it is to be implemented. 1. Malampaya Fund – special fund under Sec 8 PD 910 (Marcos era);
strengthen govt efforts relating to exploitation of energy resources
BELGICA v. OCHOA vital to economic growth
October 18, 1988 | Discretion as to substantive contents 2. Presidential Social Fund – Sec 12, PD 1869; a special funding facility
managed and administered by the Presidential Management Staff
GIST: What is being assailed in this case is the constitutionality of the where President provides direct assistance to priority programs
Congressional Pork Barrel (Priority Development Fund, or PDAF, for brevity) and projects not funded under regular budget
and the Presidential Pork Barrel (Malampaya Fund). Briefly, the SC discussed Petitioners assail its constitutionality on the claim that there is undue
its history of the PDAF: delegation for it provides post enactment measures to its delegates. SC
1. Pre-Martial Law Era (Act 3044) – appropriations for public works, ruled that indeed, there is undue delegation, as it gives the power of
as approved by the joint committee elected by Senate and HoR; appropriation to legislators (individually), through post-enactment
post enactment legislator participation broadened areas of fund authority, which involves allowing them to determine how much of the fund
release will go to a specific project.
2. Martial Law Era – 500k allotted for Local Development Projects;
projects for public works (hard projects) and non-public works DOCTRINE: The power of appropriation is constitutionally delegated to the
(soft projects—education, health, livelihood) Congress and exercising this power in an individual capacity is not conferred
3. Cory Aquino Admin – Davao Development Fund (480M); Visayas by fundamental law. Legislative power is vested in the Congress alone,
Development Fund (240M); Countrywide Development Fund except for exceptions of having it delegated to: local governments, who are
(2.3B); CDF funds released directly to implementing agencies allowed to legislate on purely local matters; and the President, in times of
subject to submission of list of projects and activities war or other national emergency.
4. FVR Admin – first time that VP had an allocation (20M); list of 50%
of projects submitted to DBM, the rest of the 50% to be submitted
Page 26 of 58

Sec. 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four senators who shall be (4) Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress
elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the
provided by law. standards provided in this section.

Sec. 3. No person shall be a senator unless: VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY v. COMELEC
(1) He is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines October 6, 2001 | Not mandatory to fill in the seats
(2) On the day of the election is at least thirty-five years of age
(3) Able to read and write GIST: May 1998 was the first party-list election, and COMELEC proclaimed
(4) A registered voter 13 party-list representatives from 12 parties and organizations. After the
(5) And a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years special elections, COCOFED was likewise entitled to a seat. PAG-ASA filed a
immediately preceding the day of the election. petition to fill up the number of seats as mandated by the constitution, it
claims that the 20% membership of the HoR mandatory, and that the literal
Sec. 4. The term of office of the senators shall be six years and shall application of the 2% vote requirement and the 3-seat limit under RA 7941
commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth of would defeat this constitutional provision (note that in this case, only 25
June next following the election. No senator shall serve for more than two nominees would be winners, pretty much short of the 52-seat
consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of “requirement,” as claimed by PAG-ASA). SC ruled in favor of the validity of
time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his the assailed law and held that the 52 seats are not required to be filled. The
service for the full term for which he was elected. 2% requirement is valid insofar as this threshold is the gatekeeper for the
qualification of party-lists to additional seats.
Sec. 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more
than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who DOCTRINE: The 20% requirement is merely a ceiling, and that it was not
shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the required to be filled. If there is no sufficient number of participating parties,
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the organizations, or coalitions that could garner the 2% vote threshold and fill
number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and up the 20% party-list allocation in the House, then such allocation cannot be
progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected filled up completely. (no discussion of the formula here as it is completely
through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral overturned in the case of Banat v. COMELEC)
parties or organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the PHIL. GUARDIANS v. COMELEC
total number of representatives including those under the party-list. For April 29, 2009 | Party-list representation
three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half
of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as GIST: Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) seeks to nullify
provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban COMELEC resolutions which delisted PGBI from the roster of registered
poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other national, regional, or sectoral parties under the party-list system. The Party-
sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector. list System Act (RA 7941) provided for a requirement that such party-lists
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any party-
compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two list who fails to participate in the last 2 preceding elections OR fails to obtain
hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one at least 2% of the votes cast under the party-list system for 2 preceding
representative. elections for the constituency it has registered. COMELEC issued Resolution
Page 27 of 58

8679, which deleted several party-list groups (along with petitioner PGBI, the percentage share of the party-list group is multiplied by the
who was delisted because it failed to get 2% of the votes cast in 2004 AND remaining number of seats (formula for step 2: Total Party-List
it did not participate in the 2007 elections. SC held that such delistment is Votes x Remaining Seats = no rounding off, just get whole number)
bereft of basis, for the two grounds mentioned in RA 7941 are separate 3. Should there still be remaining vacant seats, all party-lists are
grounds; hence, (1) that it failed to participate only in one elections and not ranked from highest to lowest in terms of vote turnout, and are
in two, and that (2) it failed to secure the percentage of 2% in one but not in given one seat each, until all vacant seats are taken. (3-seat limit
two preceding elections, it must be declared to be qualified to be voted will apply)
upon as a party0list group for the May 2010 elections.
ANG LADLAD v. COMELEC
DOCTRINE: The two separate grounds for delistment as provided for by RA April 8, 2010 | Disapproval due to moral issues
7941 are as follows:
1. The party-list failed to participate in the last 2 preceding elections; GIST: Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of the LGBT community,
or whose application for accreditation was denied due to its lack of members;
2. The party-list failed to obtain at least 2% of the votes cas but upon trying once again, they claim that the LGBT community is a
The use of the disjunctive word “or” provides a plain, clear, and marginalized and underrepresented sector that is particularly
unmistakable language of the law which provides two independent reasons disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation. Unfortunately, their
for delisting (no accumulation is needed). petition was denied once again by COMELEC, but this time, based on moral
grounds; they even cited the Bible and the Koran as basis, and said that in
BANAT v. COMELEC representing the LGBT community, sexual immorality is forwarded. Further,
July 8, 2009 | Apportionment and representation COMELEC found that the said party-list violated provisions of the Civil Code
on nuisance, and such representation would be tantamount to exposure to
GIST: June 2007, Barangay Association for National Advancement and the youth an environment that does not conform to the teachings of our
Transpararency (BANAT) filed before the National Board of Canvassers faith. SC held that Ang Ladlad has complied with the requirements as
(NBC) a petition to proclaim the full number (20%) of party-list provided for by RA 7941 and the Constitution, and therefore there is no
representatives as provided for by the Constitution. COMELEC in this case reason to have denied such application for accreditation. SC likewise held
previously proclaimed 13 parties as winners, and announced that it would that denial of application based on moral issues is insufficient; not to
compute the number of seats in accordance with the Veterans formula. This mention, violative of constitutional rights enshrined in Art. 3.
was assailed by the petitioners for being unconstitutional. Contradictory to
the ruling in Veterans, the SC held that the 2% threshold should not be the DOCTRINE: Moral disapproval, without more, is not a sufficient
determining factor in terms of the additional seats to be given to party-lists governmental interest to justify exclusion of an organization from
who have qualified; such requirement is unconstitutional. participation in the party-list system.

DOCTRINE: Partylist-representatives shall be allocated using the following MAGDALO v. COMELEC
guidelines: July 19, 2012 | Qualification as a regional political party
1. Those who garnered 2% and above shall be guaranteed with 1 seat
each GIST: Petitioner Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago (MAGDALO) filed its petition
2. For the remaining seats, additional seats is given to those who got for registration with the COMELEC, which was denied after the COMELEC, in
2% and above, by determining the whole number obtained when citing Art IX-C Section 2(5) of the Constitution, which denies the application
Page 28 of 58

for registration of organizations who seek to achieve their goals through COMELEC dismissed their petition. COMELEC on the other hand argues that
violence or unlawful means, took into account the fact that some of its such ground used by petitioners is not among what was enumerated in RA
members took part in the Oakwood mutiny. They further claim that they 7941, and that such complaint is a belated opposition since LPGMA’s
have been granted amnesty, and therefore, having a clean slate, their registration was approved with finality on January 2010. For the first issue,
application should have been granted. SC held that there has been no grave SC held that such registration may still be cancelled, since the Resolution
abuse of discretion by COMELEC in its denial of such application; with the granting their request is not a perpetual and indefeasible right to its
constitutional mandate that outright denial must be given to organizations accreditation. As for the second issue, the Court held that nowhere in RA
who seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means. With 7941 does it say that an opposition to the petition for registration be
reference to the Oakwood incident per se, it is clear that such organization interposed so that a complaint or cancellation be made, hence it should
used violence and unlawful means. Moreover, despite the fact that they have been entertained.
have been granted amnesty, they must still submit, individually, affidavits
renouncing the use of violence or other harmful means to achieve the DOCTRINE: Sec. 6 of RA 7941 states that COMELEC may, upon verified
objectives of their organization. complaint, refuse or cancel the registration of a party on any of the following
grounds:
DOCTRINE: Sec. 2 Art. IX of the Constitution provides a mandate of refusal 1. It is a religious sect/denomination, org, or association, organized
of the registration of organizations, political parties, or coalitions which seek for religious purposes
to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means. 2. Advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal
Two other important terms used in this case which might come in handy: 3. A foreign party or organization
1. Registration – act that bestows juridical personality for purposes of 4. Receiving support from any foreign government, political entity,
our election laws whether directly or indirectly through any of its officers or
2. Accreditation – relates to the privileged participation that our members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election
election laws grant to qualified registered parties purposes
5. Violates or fails to comply with laws, rules, or regulations relating
DAYAO v. COMELEC to elections
January 29, 2013 | Party-list representation 6. Declares untruthful statements in its petition
7. Has ceased to exist for at least a year
GIST: Petitioners of this case are individual dealers of different brands of 8. Fails to participate in the last 2 preceding elections OR fails to
LPG, alongside with the Federation of Philippine Industries, Inc. (FPII), an obtain at least 2% of the votes cast under the party-list system in
association comprised of entities engaged in various industries in the the 2 preceding elections for the constituency in which it has
country. LPG Marketing Association (LPGMA) is a non-stock, non-profit registered
organization of consumers and small industry players in the LPG and energy
sector. LPGMA sought for party-list accreditation with COMELEC, who ATONG PAGLAUM ET. AL.
approved the same. Petitioners now filed a petition for cancellation of April 2, 2013 | New guidelines for party-list; controlling rule
LPGMA’s accreditation, claiming that it does not represent a marginalized
sector of the society because its incorporations, officers, and members are GIST: 52 party-list groups and organizations filed separate petitions in an
not marginalized or underrepresented citizens; they are marketers and effort to reverse resolutions by the COMELEC disqualifying them from the
independent re-fillers of LPG who control 45% of the national LPG retail Ma 2013 race. Such were cancelled for failing to present a marginalized and
market and have significant ownership interests in LPG refilling plants. underrepresented sector, and that their nominees did not come from a
Page 29 of 58

marginalized or underrepresented sector, and /or some of the organizations 6. National, regional, and sectoral parties shall not be disqualified if
or groups are not truly representatives of the sector they intend to some of their nominees are disqualified provided that they have at
represent in Congress. SC ruled that COMELEC did not commit grave abuse least one nominee who remains qualified.
of discretion in their disqualification; however, the Court ordered that
COMELEC follow the new parameters for the party-list system. ABANG LINGKOD v. COMELEC
October 22, 2013 | Proof of track record
DOCTRINE: New guidelines for the new parameters of the party-list system:
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system GIST: Petitioner is a sectoral organization that represents the interest of
(national parties, regional parties, and sectoral parties) peasant farmers and fisherfolks, who unfortunately failed to get a seat in
2. National and regional parties or organizations do not need to the 2010 elections. Upon manifesting before the COMELEC its intent to
organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent the participate in the 2013 elections, their registration as a party-list group was
marginalized or underrepresented cancelled. COMELEC reasoned out that petitioner failed to established its
3. Political parties can participate in the party-list elections provided track record in uplifting the cause of the marginalized and
that they register under the party-list system and do not field underrepresented. SC ruled that, in insisting that petitioner present
candidates in legislative district elections. A political party, whether evidence showing such track records is contrary is unconstitutional. There is
major or not, that fields candidates in the legislative district no mention in RA 7941, moreso in the new and controlling guidelines as
elections can participate in party-list elections only through its established in the case of Atong Paglaum.
sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-list
system. Such wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is DOCTRINE: There is no mention that sectoral organizations intending to
linked to a political party through a coalition participate in the party-list elections are still required to present a track
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be marginalized and record, since they may either be marginalized and underrepresented, or
underrepresented or lacking in well-defined constituencies. What may lack well-defined constituencies. It is enough that their principal
is important is that their political advocacy pertains to the special advocacy pertains to special interests and concerns of their sector. Such
interest and concerns of their sector. The sectors that are track record is only required when the party is representing a sector where
marginalized and underrepresented include labor, peasant, they do not belong.
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors that lack LICO v. COMELEC
well-defined constituencies include professionals, the elderly, September 29, 2015 | Expulsion
women, and the youth.
5. A majority number of sectoral parties or organizations that GIST: Petitioner Lico is part of Ating Koop, a pary-list that was given a seat
represent the marginalized and underrepresented must belong to at the House of Representatives. Their party had a term sharing agreement,
the marginalized or underrepresented sector they represent. The and Lico was the first to sit. Lico did not live up to the said agreement, which
nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the resulted to the party’s decision to expel Lico from the organization for
marginalized and underrepresented or that represent those who disloyalty, which was upheld by the COMELEC. Now Lico assails that
lack well defined political constituencies either must belong to their COMELEC does not have jurisdiction over this case. SC held that COMELEC
respective sectors or must have a track record of advocacy for their indeed did not have jurisdiction as to the expulsion of Lico from Ating Koop.
respective sector. The nominees of national and regional must be In this case, the petition for Lico’s expulsion from the HoR is anchored on
bona fide members of the said parties or organizations.
Page 30 of 58

this expulsion from Ating Koop, which necessarily affects his title as member with reference to Tobias v. Abalos, wherein it was settled that
of the Congress. reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through special law.
As to the issue on the population, the Constitution provides for a minimum
DOCTRINE: The rules on intra-party matters and on the jurisdiction of the requirement for legislative districts to have at least a population of 250,000
HRET are not parallel concepts that do not intersect. Rather, the operation for cities—clearly, Makati has met the minimum population requirement.
of the rule on intra-party matters is circumscribed by Sec. 17 Art. VI of the
Constitution and jurisprudence on the jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunals. DOCTRINE: With reference to the case of Tobias v. Abalos, it is a well settled
Such jurisdiction is exclusive; the HRTE is given full authority to hear and doctrine that reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through
decide the case on any matter touching the validity of the title of the special law.
proclaimed winner.
SEMA v. COMELEC
TOBIAS v. ABALOS July 16, 2008 | Reapportionment through special law
December 8, 1994 | Reapportionment through special law; Mandaluyong
GIST: RA 9054 was passed, amending ARMM’s Organic Act and vesting it
GIST: Petitioners who are taxpayers and residents of Mandaluyong, assail with power to create provinces, municipalities, cities, and barangays.
the constitutionality of RA No. 7675, which converts the Municipality of Pursuant to this law, ARMM created Shariff Kabunsuan, which comprises of
st
Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City of Mandaluyong. Prior to such the municipalities of the 1 district of Maguindanao, with Cotabato City as
st
enactment, the municipalities of Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to an exception. In line with the 2007 elections, COMELEC stated that the 1
only one legislative district. They claim that such law violates Secs 5(1) and district is now only made of Cotabato City, which was later amended stating
st
(4) of Art. VI concerning the number of members of the Congress and the that status quo should be retained for this elections, and so the 1 district
reapportionment of legislative districts. SC held that there was no violation shall be known as Shariff Kabunsuan with Cotabato City. Petitioner Sema is
st
of any constitutional provision in the enactment of RA 7675, and hence, the a (losing) congressional candidate for the 1 legislative district, and he is
validity of the said law is upheld. arguing that Cotabato City should be a separate legislative district. He claims
that it is a constitutional mandate that provinces shall gain legislative
DOCTRINE: The present limit of 250 members is not absolute. There was a representation and that Shariff Kabunsuan’s merge with Cotabato City as
st
phrase in the provision that says, “unless otherwise provided by law.” the 1 district is a deprivation of it’s right to have a representative in the
Hence, the present composition of the Congress could be increased if it so Hor. SC held that RA 9054 is unconstitutional, ARMM cannot validly create
mandates via legislative enactment. Shariff Kabunsuan province, it may only, in the purview of the Local
Government Code (LGC), create barangays within their jurisdiction. ARMM
MARIANO v. COMELEC cannot create provinces, unless there is a law stating otherwise.
March 7, 1995 | Reapportionment through special law; Makati
DOCTRINE: The creation of provinces, cities, municipalities, or barangays,
GIST: Petitioners of this case are assailing RA 7854, which converts the must comply with the following conditions:
Municipality of Makati into a Highly Urbanized City of Makati, as it attempts 1. The creation of a local government must follow the criteria fixed in
to create another legislative district in Makati. With the premise that the LGC
reapportionment is not allowed through special law and that Makati’s 2. Such creation must not conflict with any provision of the
population is only 450,000 as of 1999, they forward that such enactment is Constitution
unconstitutional. The SC upheld the constitutionality of the assailed law, 3. There must be a plebiscite in the political units affected
Page 31 of 58


MONTEJO v. COMELEC SAMSON v. AGUIRRE
March 16, 1995 | Mere minor adjustments September 22, 1999 | Population size; absence of certification to income,
population, and area not fatal; presumed valid; Novaliches
st
GIST: Petitioner Montejo, the representative of the 1 district of Leyte,
pleads for the annulment of Sec. 1 of Resolution No. 2736, redistricting GIST: Petitioner Samson forward that there was an absence of certifications
certain municipalities in Leyte, on the ground that it violates the principle of to support the passage of RA 8535, which created the City of Novaliches.
equality of representation. Leyte, together with Tacloban and Ormoc is Further, that there was an absence of a certification attesting that the
composed of 5 districts, with 14 municipalities under it. Pursuant to the LGC, creation of Novaliches as a city will not affect its mother city, Quezon City,
the subprovince of Biliran became a regular province. With Biliran being as far as income, population, and land area is concerned. SC upheld the
rd
under the 3 district, the latter got reduced to 5 municipalities. To remedy constitutionality of RA 8535, not only because of its presumption of validity,
the distribution of inhabitants with the hopes of evening them out, but also because of its compliance with the requirements as set by the Local
COMELEC transferred certain municipalities to different districts. Petitioner Government Code Sec. 7, as interpreted in its IRR:
claims, that the COMELEC’s power to transfer certain municipalities to 1. Income – not less than 20M for the immediately preceding 2
different districts is bereft of legal basis. SC held that the COMELEC does not consecutive years based on 1991 constant prices as verified by the
possess powers to legislative apportionment, which is lodged in the DOF (Novaliches earned 26.9M)
Congress. 2. Population – not less than 150,000 as certified by NSO (their
population was at 347,310)
DOCTRINE: COMELEC may only perform minor adjustments of the 3. Land area – must be contiguous and at least 100km as certified by
reapportionment. The power to reapportion districts solely lies on the the LBM of the DENR (not considered, per Art. 11 of the IRR, the
Congress. Minor adjustments include adjustment in the correct name of a petitioner need only to comply with income, population, OR land
municipality, among others. area)
With regard to the certification on the absence of adverse effects to QC, the
HERRERA v. COMELEC SC held that such was not necessary, as the officials of QC were present
November 17, 1999 | Rules on apportionment during the hearing in the Congress, and did not even raise a finger against
the creation of the City of Novaliches.
GIST: What is being assailed by petitioner Herrera in this case is the splitting
of Guimaras to two provincial districts, which was due to the two new DOCTRINE: In reference to the IRR of LGC Sec. 7, petitioners applying for the
municipalities added to it. Herrera claims that such is an unfair division. SC creation of highly urbanized cities must prove to have qualified the income,
upheld the validity of the Resolution and the act done by COMELEC pursuant population, or land area requirement.
to the law; and hence such adjustment well within the purview of its powers. There is a presumption of validity despite absence of certificates and various
It could be surmised that the COMELEC adjusted districts in accordance with documents when during the hearing in the Congress for a creation of a
the law, especially that the municipalities of Guimaras that are grouped particular city, the DBM, DILG, and other officials of Quezon City and other
together are contiguous or adjacent, based from the map of Guimaras. relevant authorities are present.

DOCTRINE: Adjustment is manifest when what is being reapportioned are
contiguous, adjacent, and compact municipalities within a district. Such
reapportionment is allowed by the Congress to be exercised by the COMELE.
Page 32 of 58

ALDABA v. COMELEC NAVARRO v. ERMITA

January 25, 2010 | Population size; Malolos City April 12, 2011 | Land area as a factor

GIST: Petitioners of this case assail the enactment of RA 9591, which created GIST: The petitioners of this case assail the enactment of RA 9355, which
a legislative district for Malolos City. What petitioner was sceptic about was creates the province of Dinagat Islands. SC upheld the validity of RA 9355,
the fact that there was failure to meet the 250,000 requirement as holding that the Dinagat Islands is exempt of the land area requirement for
mandated by the Constitution, because the undated certification submitted, being composed of separate islands. This erroneous decision was dissented
which was issued by a Regional director of the NSO, was merely a projection, by J. Carpio, who said that the IRR basically expanded what the law clearly
which stated that their population will be 254,030 by the year of 2010. SC provided for and that therefore, such grant of exemption insofar as the land
held that such enactment was indeed unconstitutional; such document has requirement is concerned, must be invalid. It is evident that what Dinagat
no legal effect because the NSO Regional Director has no authority to issue Islands only met was the minimum income requirement. Dinagat Island’s
such certification. population was only at 106,951, and its land area didn’t meet the
requirement, which was deemed important by the court, because without
DOCTRINE: Certifications on demographic projections can only be issued by it, it would reduce provinces to the level of a rich municipality unable to host
the National Statistics Coordination Board (NSCB), or the NSO Administrator otherwise qualified new smaller local government units for sheer lack of
or his designated certifying officer. space.

AQUINO v. COMELEC DOCTRINE: In accordance with Art. 461 of the LGC, the following are the
April 7, 2010 | Population size; Camarines Sur requirements for the creation of provinces:
1. Minimum income requirement
GIST: Petitioners of this case assail the enactment of RA 9716, which seeks 2. Either the minimum land area OR minimum population
to reapportion the province of Camarines Sur. Prior to the enactment, requirement
st
CamSur had 4 districts, with the 1 district having 417,304 people. RA 9716
led to its division into 2 districts, creating 5 districts in total for CamSur. What BAGABUYO v. COMELEC
st
petitioners argue in this case is that, in the splitting of the 1 district, it is December 8, 2008 | No need for plebiscite in apportionment or
apparent that there will be less than 250,000 people per district, which is reapportionment
violative of the constitutional requirement as far as population is concerned.
SC upheld the validity of RA 9716, there being no constitutional requirement GIST:CDO’s then Congressman Jaraula filed and sponsored HB No. 5859 (aka
that was violated, because provinces need not meet the 250,000 population RA 9371), which provides for the apportionment of the lone district of CDO,
requirement as set by the Constitution. which increased CDO’s legislative district from 1 to 2. In 2007, COMELEC
promulgated a Resolution implementing the said Act, to which the
DOCTRINE: Sec. 5(3) Art. VI draws a plain and clear distinction between the petitioner assailed, as there is an absence of the plebiscite requirement
entitlement of a city and a province for a representatives. The use of the provided for in Sec. 10 Art. X of the Constitution. SC held that RA 9371 is a
comma before the words “or each province” shows that cities must first reapportionment legislation and not a creation, division, merger, abolition,
show that they have the 250,000 requisite, as compared to the provinces, or alteration of a local government unit, which requires plebiscite.
who are not required to present the same.
DOCTRINE: Reapportionment legislation done by virtue of Sec. 5(4) Art. VI
does not require for a plebiscite, as such is only required when a local
Page 33 of 58

government is created, divided, merged, abolished, or altered, by virtue of Sec. 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives
Sec. 10 Art. X of the Constitution. Legislative apportionment is basically the unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the
allocation of seats in a legislative body in proportion to the population; it is election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and,
the drawing of voting district lines so as to equalize population and voting except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in
power among districts. This is brought about by the changes in population, which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less
which is mandated by the Constitutional requirement of equality and than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.
representation.
BENGSON III v. HRET
May 7, 2001 | Recovery of natural-born citizen status

GIST: Cruz is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, who later enlisted in
the US Marine Corps and took his oath of allegiance to the US (as
consequence, lost PH citizenship, by virtue of Commonwealth Act No. 63,
Sec. 1[4], which provides for the loss of PH citizenship by, among others,
rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a
foreign country). Later, Cruz reacquired his PH citizenship through
repatriation, in accordance with RA 2630. He then ran and won as
nd
Representative of the 2 district of Pangasinan. Now, petitioner Bengson
filed a case before the HRET claiming that Cruz is not qualified as a member
of the HoR because of his failure to meet the requirement of being a natural-
born citizen. SC held that Cruz’ repatriation in accordance with
Commonwealth Act No. 63 allowed him to recover his original status of
being a natural-born citizen, and hence the challenge on his qualification as
a member of the HoR is debunked.

DOCTRINE: A natural-born citizen is a person who must be a Fiulipino citizen
since birth, and someone who does not have to perform any act to obtain
or perfect his Philippine citizenship. Those who still need to perform any act
to obtain citizenship are naturalized citizens.
Repatriation simply consists of the taking of an oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines and registering the said oath in the Loca Civil
Registry of the place where the person concerned resides or has resided.
This will result to the recovery of the original nationality of the person.

Page 34 of 58

AQUINO v. COMELEC ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS v. COMELEC

September 18, 1995 | Domicile of origin September 18, 1995 | Abandonment of domicile

GIST: Petitioner Aquino filed his COC for the position of representative of GIST: Petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her COC for the position of
nd st
the 2 legislative district of Makati City, wherein he declared he resided in Representative of the 1 district of Leyte for the 1995 elections, and
Makati for 10 months. Respondents Move Makati and Mateo Bedon et al. indicated that she has been residing in the said constituency for 7 months.
st
filed a petition to disqualify Aquino on the ground that he lacked residence Incumbent 1 district representative filed a petition for cancellation and
qualification as a candidate for congressman. Aquino filed an amended COC, disqualification, alleging that Imelda lacked the requirement for residency
which stated that he resided in Makati for 1 year and 13 days. Petitioner of 1 year. 6 days later, Imelda amended her COC and changed it to “since
won the elections, and after an exchange of pleadings COMELEC declared childhood.” The Provincial Election Supervisor of Leyte denied the
that Aquino was not qualified at all. Hence, COMELEC proclaimed the acceptance of her amended COC as it was filed beyond the deadline. She
nd
candidate in the 2 place. This is now assailed by petitioner before the opposed the petition of Montejo and argued that such indication of “7
court, as COMELEC does not have jurisdiction over the case, since he already months” was a result of an honest misrepresentation, that, she had always
won, and that it was the HRET who was supposed to hear the case, and that maintained Tacloban City as her domicile or residence. SC held that Imelda
nd
COMELEC made a mistake of proclaiming the 2 placer. SC ruled that, met the 1-year residency requirement, despite being born in Manila, and
COMELEC had jurisdiction, because Aquino was not proclaimed yet, and despite having various properties in a span of different decades, there was
therefore, not yet a member of the HoR. However it must be noted that they no showing of any intention to abandon her domicile of origin, that is
nd
cannot proclaim the person who got 2 place. Moreover, SC ruled that Tacloban.
petitioner failed to prove that he established that Makati was his domicile.
DOCTRINE: While residence is the indication of a place of abode, whether
DOCTRINE: For the issue on jurisdiction, take note that a candidate who has permanent or temporary, domicile denotes a fixed residence to which, when
not been proclaimed and who has not taken his oath of office cannot be said absent, one has the intention of returning. A man can have but one domicile
to be a member of the HoR, and therefore that same person is not yet under for the same purpose at any time, but may have numerous places of
the jurisdiction of the HRET. residence. But take note, that residence for election purposes is used
For the issue on qualification as far as residence/domicile is concerned, just synonymously with domicile; therefore it imports not only intention to
remember that the place where a party actually or constructively has his reside in a fixed place, but also personal presence in that place, coupled with
permanent home where no matter where he may be found at any given time conduct indicative of such intention.
he intends to return and remain, shall be called his domicile, which is what
the Constitution refers to when it speaks of residence for the purposes of DOMINO v. COMELEC
election law. July 19, 1999 | Mere lease of house
For the issue of the second placer being proclaimed, take note of the fact
that the second placer is just a second placer; he lost the elections, he could GIST: 1998, petitioner Domino filed her COC to represent Sarangani, where
not be proclaimed a winner as he could not be considered first among the she indicated that she resided in Sarangani for 1 year and 2 months
qualified candidates. immediately preceding the election. Respondents filed petition to deny due
course to or cancel the said COC, claiming that Domino is not a resident,
much less a registered voter of Sarangani. As a defense, Domino argues that
he has complied with the 1-year residency requirement, and even provided
as proof his lease contract with Nora Dacaldal as lessor. COMELEC
Page 35 of 58

disqualified Domino, and hence a case was filed in court. SC ruled in this case FERNANDEZ v. HRET
that Domino indeed failed to meet the residence requirement as set by law. December 21, 2009 | Domicile and residence
There was a failure on Domino’s end to establish his new domicile with
definite acts; as what he showed was merely a contract of lease, which lacks GIST: Fernandez filed his COC for the 2007 elections, as candidate for
st
the permanence required for abandonment of original domicile. representative of the 1 district of Laguna. Vicente filed a Petition to Deny
Due Course and/or to Cancel the COC and a Petition for Disqualification
st
DOCTRINE: To show a change of domicile, one must demonstrate: against petitioner, with claims that he was not a resident of the 1 district,
th
1. Actual removal or actual change of domicile as his address was located in the 4 district of Laguna. The petitions were
2. Bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence initially denied and Fernandez was proclaimed as the winner. Vicente, still
3. Establishment of a new domicile and definite acts which full of determination, filed a petition before the HRET that Fernandez be
correspond with the purpose ineligible to hold office for the same ground (1-year residency requirement).
Fernandez claims that he no longer resides in his Cabuyao address, that he
PEREZ v. COMELEC resides in Sta. Rosa since 2006 (he submitted proof: he sent his kids to school
October 28, 1999 | Registration in another district in Sta. Rosa, he had business ties here also, and he offered witnesses who
resided in Villa de Toledo, which is in, Sta. Rosa). With HRET ruling in favor
rd
GIST: Aguinaldo filed his COC for representative of the 3 district of Cagayan of Vicente, a petition was filed before the SC, who held that Fernandez was
in the 1998 elections. Such was challenged by petitioner Perez, who filed a able to comply with the residency requirement, for reasons that the
petition for disqualification on the ground that he has not been a resident evidence presented by Vicente was not enough to prove that Fernandez
of the district for at least a year immediately before the day of the elections. failed to comply with the 1-year residency requirement.
Petitioner claims that, Aguinaldo resides in Gattaran, which is outside the
rd
3 district, and that he is a registered voter there. Aguinaldo on the other DOCTRINE: The residency requirement as provided for in the Constitution
rd
hand forwards that he has apartnments in the 3 district (Tuguegarao), was intended to prevent a stranger/newcomer from holding office on the
where his mistress is hidden. SC held that Aguinaldo met the residency assumption that such stranger or newcomer would be insufficiently
requirement as provided for in the Constitution, for lack of basis of the acquainted with the needs of his prospective constituents.
allegations against him that have proven nothing but the fact that Aguinaldo
met the requirement. TAGOLINO v. HRET
March 19, 2013 | One-year residency requirement
DOCTRINE: Place of voter’s registration is not conclusive of one’s domicile.
Considering the purpose of the residency requirement, to ensure that the GIST: Richard Gomez field his COC for the 2010 elections as representative
th
person elected is familiar with the needs and problems of his constituency, of the 4 district of Leyte under the Liberal Party. Such was assailed by his
it is enough that there is proof of the requirements on domicile (see doctrine rival candidate, Juntilla, who argues that Gomez resides in San Juan, Metro
of Domino v. COMELEC). Manila and not in Leyte, and therefore short of the residency requirement
as mandated by the constitution. With the COMELEC granting the petition
of Juntilla, Richard moved for reconsideration but was denied. Lucy Torres-
Gomez filed her COC together with a Certificate of Nomination and
Acceptance from LP endorsing here as the substitute of Richard, which was
approved. Now the same is being assailed by Juntilla. However during the
pendency of the case, Richard’s name was found still in the ballots, and since
Page 36 of 58

Lucy was the substitute, the votes were credited in her favor. With Richard Sec. 7. The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for
garnering the highest votes, Lucy was proclaimed the duly-elected a term of three years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law,
representative. Juntilla’s claims primarily boils down to the fact that Lucy at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No
cannot validly substitute Richard, who’s COC is rendered void ab initio. SC Member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than three
held that indeed, Lucy cannot validly substitute Richard, who had his COC consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of
denied due course and cancelled—which has to its effect as if he has not time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his
been a candidate at all. service for the full term for which he was elected.

DOCTRINE: The Omnibus Election Code provides for remedies to assail a Sec. 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of the
candidate’s bid for public office: Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives shall be held
1. Petition for disqualification (Sec. 68) – a candidate disqualified on the second Monday of May.
under Sec. 68 is technically still considered to have been a
candidate, however, his statutory eligibility is denied Sec. 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives,
2. Petition to deny due course and/or to cancel a COC (Sec. 78) – a a special election may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner
candidate disqualified under Sec. 78 is deemed not to have been a prescribed by law, but the Senator or Member of the House of
candidate at all; a cancelled COC is considered void ab initio, it does Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term.
not give rise to a valid candidacy, and necessarily, to valid votes.
LUCERO v. COMELEC
REYES v. COMELEC July 20, 1994 | Requisites of special elections
June 25, 2013 | One-year residency requirement
nd
GIST: Lucero and Ong were 2 of the 5 candidates for the 2 legislative
GIST: Reyes filed his COC to run as representative for the Province of district of Northern Samar, where Ong won by 204 votes according to the
Marinduque, where Tan filed a petition to deny due course or cancel the Canvass of the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Northern Samar. Such
COC on ground that she is actually an American citizen (who possess an results, however, did not tally the results from Precinct No. 7 of the
American passport); and that she is a permanent resident or an immigrant Municipality of Silvino Lobos, which were held to be illegible; Precinct No.
of the US, hence unable to satisfy the residency requirement. A case was 13 of Silvino Lobos, because the ballot boxes were snatched and no election
filed before the court after COMELEC’s cancellation of Reyes’ COC. SC held was held; and Precinct No. 16, because all copies of the election returns
that Reyes indeed did not meet the residency requirement as mandated by were actually missing. COMELEC then ordered a counting of the ballots in
the constitution, and that she does not hold Filipino citizenship. Taking an Precinct 7 and 16, and a special election for Precinct 13, if necessary. SC
oath of allegiance in connection with her appointment as Provincial ordered a recount of all the ballots, except for Precinct 13. If the difference
Administrator of Marinduque is not sufficient so as to satisfy the “positive” in the total number of votes between the two congressmen is less than the
acts requirement of RA 9225. total voters of precinct 13, there would be a special election because the
results can affect the winner.
DOCTRINE: Upon reacquisition of Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225,
one must still show that he chose to establish his domicile in the Philippines DOCTRINE: The requisites for Special elections:
through positive acts, and the period of his residency shall be counted from 1. That there is a failure of election
the time he made it his domicile of choice. 2. That such failure would affect the results of the election

Page 37 of 58

Sec. 10. The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of TRILLANES v. PIMENTEL
Representatives shall be determined by law. No increase in said June 27, 2008 | Re-election to office and criminal charge
compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of
all the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives GIST: In light with the Oakwood mutiny, Trillanes along with several others
approving such increase. were charged with coup d’etat as defined under Art. 134-A of the RPC. 4
years later, petitioner Trillanes ran and won a seat in the Senate. Now prior
Sec. 11. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all to the commencement of his term, Trillanes filed with the RTC a motion
offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be requesting that he still be allowed to go to the Senate and exercise his
privileged from arrest while the congress is in session. No member shall be official functions, that he be allowed to set up a working area in his
questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate detention place in Fort Bonifacio, with a computer, that he be allowed to
in the Congress or in any committee thereof. receive members of his staff in the same premises, among others. Such
motion was denied, and hence an appeal was made, citing in particular the
PEOPLE v. JALOSJOS case of Jalosjos and how his case is different, because he still enjoys his civil
February 3, 2000 | Convicted legislator and political rights since the presumption of innocence is still in his favor,
and that, the denial of such motion was tantamount to removing him from
GIST: Petitioner Jalosjos is a member of the Congress now confined at the office. Moreso, Trillanes claims that his reelection is a form of condonation.
national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape on two counts SC held that this case is no different to the case of Jalosjos, especially as to
and acts of lasciviousness on six counts is pending appeal. The case arose the fact that both rape and coup d’etat are punishable by reclusion
when he filed a motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge the perpetua, and hence the same ruling shall apply. In his claims of
duties of a Congressman, including attendance at legislative sessions and condonation, the SC held that his reelection after the Oakwood mutiny is
committee meetings despite him having been convicted in the first instance not condonation. There is no deprivation of people of proper presentation,
of a non-bailable offense. He likewise claims that with his reelection, the denial of the people’s will and more so no repudiation of the people’s
people’s clamour for representation cannot be ignored as it is the mandate choice.
of sovereign will, which therefore points to him in his exercise of the
functions of a Congressman. SC held that his confinement or imprisonment DOCTRINE: (first doctrine similar to Jalosjos case) As for the re-election
is not a constraint to his mandate as a legislator. In fact, the members of the issue, it is important to note that the doctrine being invoked by Trillanes,
Congress cannot compel absent members to attend sessions if the reason that a public official cannot be removed for administrative conduct
for absence is legitimate (in this case, Jalosjos’ confinement is not merely committed during a prior term, since his reelection to office operates as a
authorized by law, but also based on the constitution). condonation of the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off
the right to remove him, applies only to cases administrative in nature.
DOCTRINE: Members of the Congress cannot compel absent members to
attend sessions if the reason for absence is a legitimate one. The JIMENEZ v. CABANGBANG
confinement of a Congressman charged with a crime punishable by August 3, 1966 | Parliamentary freedom of speech and debate
imprisonment of more than 6 years is not merely authorized by law, it
likewise has constitutional foundations. One rationale behind confinement, GIST: Cabangbang was a member of the HoR and is the Chairperson of the
whether pending appeal or after final conviction, is that of public self- Committee of National Defense. He wrote a letter to the President while the
defense. Congress was not in session, which he likewise published in several
newspapers of general circulation in the country. The letter enumerates and
Page 38 of 58

describes 3 operational plans that include politicking, coup d’etat, and a DOCTRINE: Parliamentary immunity must not be allowed to be used as a
loyalty parade, where it included the names of Jimenez et. al. As defense, vehicle to ridicule, demean, and destroy the reputation of the Court and its
Cabangbang claims that such publication is considered as privileged magistrates, nor as armor for personal wrath and disgust. Parliamentary
communication and is thus protected. SC held in the negative and said that immunity is not an individual privilege accorded to the individual members
the publication was not done in performance of his official duty either as a of the Parliament or Congress for their personal benefit, but rather a
member of the Congress or as an officer of any of the Committees, and privilege for the benefit of the people and the institution that represents
therefore it shall not be counted as privileged speech. them.

DOCTRINE: Protected speech as referred to in Sec. 15 Art. VI is that of the
utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official
functions, such as speeches delivered, statements made, or votes cast in the
halls of Congress, while the same is in session, as well as bills introduced in
Congress, whether the same is in session or not. It likewise refers to other
acts performed by Congressmen, either in Congress or outside the premises
housing tis offices in the official discharge of their duties as members of the
Congress.

POBRE v. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
August 25, 2009 | Parliamentary freedom of speech and debate

GIST: Pobre sent a letter to the Court inviting the latter’s attention to the
excerpts of Senator MDS’ speech delivered on the Senate floor, which
contained words such as “I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio
Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court”, and that, “I would rather
be in another environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots.” Without
denial of the statements, MDS claims that such statements were covered by
parliamentary immunity, being part of a speech she delivered in the
discharge of her duty as member of the Congress or its committee. That,
such speech was made to address the controversial anomalies in the
governance with future remedial legislation, because she wanted to expose
the “unjust acts” of the JBC. Despite taking into account the sentiments of
MDS as far as her concerns with the JBC are concerned, the SC nevertheless
held that her speech is not covered by parliamentary immunity; she crossed
the limits of decency and good professional conduct. Her statements were
intemperate and highly improper in substance. No lawyer who has taken an
oath to maintain the respect due to courts should be allowed to erode the
people’s faith in the judiciary.

Page 39 of 58

Sec. 12. All members of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall, Before Sec. 13 to apply, it is important that the second office or employment
upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and is under the government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality.
business interests. They shall notify the house concerned of a potential
conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of a proposed legislation
of which they are authors.

Sec. 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold
any other office or employment in the government, or any subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without
forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may
have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term
for which he was elected.

LIBAN v. GORDON
July 18, 2011 | Disqualifications

GIST: Petitioner Liban filed a case before the SC for the forfeiture of the seat
of Gordon in the Senate, after he was elected as Chairman of the Philippine
National Red Cross (PNRC) during the time that he was a Senator. He claims
that, upon acceptance of such role, Gordon has ceased to be a Senator, as
provided for by Sec. 13 Art. VI of the Constitution. Gordon on the other hand
challenges the legal standing of Liban and likewise submits that PNRC is not
a GOCC and therefore is not under the control of the State, which nullifies
the argument of Liban as far as Sec. 13 is concerned. SC ruled that Liban
indeed does not have standing, and that PNRC is a private organization
performing public functions, hence the petition of Liban shall fail. PNRC was
created in compliance with the Geneva Convention, which has for its mission
to bring compassionate humanitarian assistance for the most vulnerable. In
order to be recognized as a member of the National Society of the
Movement, the PNRC has to be autonomous, neutral, and independent—
hence, it is privately owned.

DOCTRINE: According to Sec. 5, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, an individual
may commence such action if he claims to be entitled to the public office
allegedly usurped by another, in which case he can bring the action in his
own name.
Page 40 of 58

Sec. 14. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may body can just simply acquire a minimal participation in the interest of the
personally appear as counsel before any Court of Justice or before the client and then intervene anytime.
electoral tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies.
Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any
contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the
government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including any government-owned or controlled corporation, or its
subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter
before any office of the government for his pecuniary benefit or where he
may be called upon to act on account of his office.

PUYAT v. DE GUZMAN
March 25, 1982 | Appearing “in intervention” on one’s behalf

GIST: A case was filed after the election of the directors for the International
Pipe Industries Corporation (IPI) was held, where the Acero group claims
that the stockholder’s votes were not properly counted. In the same case,
the Puyat Group claim that Fernandez, a member of the interim Batasang
Pambansa, entered his appearance as counsel for the Acero group. In the
SEC case, Assemblyman Fernandez was disqualified as counsel, as it is in
contravention with the constitutional mandate that they appear as counsel
before an administrative body (which in this case is SEC). After such
disqualification, Assemblyman Fernandez purchased 10 shares of stock of
IPI in order to be qualified to run as Director, in which he won. The day after
his purchase he entered a motion to intervene in the SEC. Now a separate
case was filed in the CFI to annul the sale of stocks to Fernandez, and in that
same case note that Fernandez once again appeared as counsel. Fernandez
on the other hand claims that his appearance is justified as he owned 10
shares. SC ruled that he cannot intervene in the said SEC case without
violating the Constitutional prohibition on members of Batasang Pambansa
from appearing as counsel in any court without appellate jurisdiction. It was
noted that he only acquired the stocks after his disqualification.

DOCTRINE: Members of the Batasang Pambasa are not allowed to appear
as counsel before an administrative body. Especially so so if he merely enters
as an intervenor, and claims he has interest over the case right after buying
stocks the moment he was disqualified to appear as counsel. Without this
prohibition, an assemblyman who would like to influence an administrative
Page 41 of 58

Sec. 15. The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of his right to deliver the speech, Avelino announced that he would order
of July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and arrest of any senator who would speak without being recognized; and about
shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine the same time, Senator David moved for adjournment of the session, which
until thirty days before the opening of its regular session, exclusive of was seconded by Cuenco, who moved that it be submitted to a vote.
Saturdays, Sundays, and Legal Holidays. The President may call a special Suddenly, Avelino banged the gavel, and walked out, with his supporters (10
session at any time. left, including Avelino). What is now being assailed is the fact that Cuenco
was voted as Senate President with only 12 of them present in the session.
Sec. 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of SC held that it does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter, as it solely
Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective lies in the Senate Session Hall to have it resolved. But as far as the question
members. as to whether a quorum was present, SC answered in the affirmative. They
Each house shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary. noted that, the session started with a quorum (22), and a minority of 10
(2) A majority of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business, but leaving will not prevent the 12 from passing a resolution.
a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the
attendance of absent members in such manner, and under such penalties, DOCTRINE: When the Constitution declares that a majority of each House
as such house may provide. shall constitute a quorum, the House does not mean all the members. A
(3) Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its quorum is based on actual members who are not incapacitated to discharge
members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds their duties by reason of death, incapacity, or absence from the jurisdiction
of all its members, suspend or expel a member. Penalty of suspension, of the house or for other causes which make attendance of the member
when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days. considered impossible, even through coercive process which each house is
(4) Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to empowered to issue to compel its members to attend the session. (in this
time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect case we shall use the formula that a quorum is 50% + 1, and in essence since
national security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the only 23 [the senator in the US is out of the picture] are counted, the quorum
request of one-fifth of the members present, be entered in the journal. is 12)
Each house shall also keep a record of its proceedings.
(5) Neither house during the sessions of the Congress shall, without DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA v. SENATE
consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other October 18, 2011 | Supermajority vote in violation of the Constitution
place than that in which the two houses shall be sitting.
GIST: The Organic Act of ARMM (RA 6734) was amended by RA 9054, which
nd
PUYAT v. DE GUZMAN set the holding of elections on the 2 Monday of September, but that before
July 18, 2011 | Disqualifications the said date, it was moved to November 26, 2001 through RA 9140. 4 years
later, RA 9333 fixed the date of regular elections, which is to be held on the
nd nd
GIST: On the day that Senator Tañada was to deliver his privilege speech 2 Monday of August 2005. Finally, it was changed to the 2 Monday of
before the senate, Senator Sanidad filed Resolution 68 with the Senate May by RA 10153. The case started rolling when the petitioner claims that
Secretary, which enumerated charges of graft and corruption against then RA 9140, RA 9333, and RA 10153 were not compliant with the twin
Senate President Avelino. Take note, in this session, 22 of the 24 senators requirements of RA 9054 as far as amendments are concerned. It provided
attended; with 1 confined in a hospital and the other was in the US. To that there should be an approval of the 2/3 of the members (supermajority)
hinder Tañada in delivering his speech, Avelino and supporters had delaying of the HoR and the Senate separately, and that such voted bill is to be
tactics (arriving late, speaking slow). With Tañada agitated by being denied submitted to ARMM for plebiscite. SC held that such supermajority vote set
Page 42 of 58

as a requirement to amend such law runs afoul to the Congress’ power the veracity of the charges against the President made by Cong. Osmeña,
barring it to pass irrepealable laws. Such high threshold for amending it will and to summon him to substantiate his charges; that, should he fail to
make it difficult to repeal, which is contrary to the Congress’ power. substantiate such claims, he is required to show cause why he should not be
punished by the House. Petitioner Osmeña assails such Resolution for being
DOCTRINE: With the supermajority vote trumping on the Congress’ power violative of his constitutional absolute parliamentary immunity for speeches
to amend laws, such is in clear violation of the Constitution, as it gives the delivered in the House. Contrary to his claims, SC upheld the validity of the
law a nature of essentially being impossible to repeal. Resolution as it is within the ambit of the Congress’ powers to question its
members.
ARROYO v. DE VENECIA
August 14, 1997 | Determination of Rules DOCTRINE: The House of Representatives can determine disorderly
behavior presented before them. They have full legislative powers and
GIST: During the process of making RA 8240 (which imposes “sin taxes”), prerogatives as restricted by the Constitution.
both houses tried to reach a compromise between contested parts of RA
8240, which originally came from the HoR. In the bicameral conference, Rep. SANTIAGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN
Arroyo moved to adjourn for lack of quorum, which lead to a roll call only to April 18, 2001 | Order of suspension
find out that a quorum was present, hence they continued. One Mr. Albano
moved to ratify the conference committee report, which was approved by GIST: Several complaints were filed by employees of the Commission of
Deputy Speaker Daza, without noticing that Mr. Arroyo asked what the Immigration and Deportation (CID) against their Commissioner (Miriam
question was. With the session suspended for a minute, upon resumption it Defensor-Santiago, for an alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
was adjourned to the following week. The bill was deemed already certified Practices Act (RA 3019), when MDS approved the legalization of the stay of
as the bill was signed by both the House Speaker and the Senate President, aliens who were disqualified from being legalized, among others.
and certified by the respective secretaries for both chambers. Eventually, Sandiganbayan ordered for the preventive suspension of MDS for 90 days,
such enrolled bill was signed into law by President Ramos. With the case to which the latter assailed because it Sandiganbayan had no authority to
picking up from the “violation of internal rules of procedure of the house”, render such order of preventive suspension to a senator. SC held that
the SC ruled that it lacked jurisdiction. There was no private right that was Sandiganbayan has the authority to suspend Santiago, as provided for by RA
violated, and so instead, such case must be filed before the House. 3019, where any incumbent public officer charged for violating its provisions
shall be suspended from office.
DOCTRINE: Parliamentary rules are procedural and with their observance,
the courts have no concern. The rules re subject to the whims of the House DOCTRINE: A preventive suspension is not a penalty because it is not
so they can change, modify, or waive the rules entirely. imposed as a result of judicial proceedings. In fact, if acquitted, the official
concerned shall be entitled to reinstatement and to salaries and benefits
OSMEÑA v. PENDATUN which he failed to receive during suspension. The difference of this to the
October 28, 1960 | Disorderly behavior suspension by Congress is that, the former is not a penalty, while the latter
is.
GIST: Osmeña delivered a privileged speech entitled, “A Message to Garcia,”
where he claimed reports that presidential pardons could be bought
regardless of gravity or seriousness of the criminal case. House Resolution
59 was created, which created a committee of 15 members to investigate
Page 43 of 58

US v. PONS which renders it conclusive upon courts as regards the tenor of the measure
August 12, 1916 | Journal and records passed by Congress.

GIST: Beliso, Pons, and Lasarte were charged with illegal importation of DOCTRINE: Should there be any mistake in the printing of the bill before it
opium, which is in violation of Act No. 2381. Pons assails such Act since it was certified by the officers of Congress and approved by the Executive, the
was passed on March 1, 1914, but the last day of the Special Session for the remedy is by amendment or curative legislation, not by judicial decree.
Philippine Legislature of 1914 was only until February 28, therefore it shall
be void. SC held that the Act is valid, as Pon’s claim would require the Court ASTORGA v. VILLEGAS
to go behind the journals, to take in extraneous evidence, which is contrary April 30, 1974 | Journal and records
to what it is allowed to look at, that is by simply referring to the legislative
journals. In this case, there was no indication in the journal that the Congress GIST: House Bill No. 9226, a bill dealing provisions on the powers, rights, and
stopped the clock midnight of February 28, 1914. duties of the Vice Mayor, was filed with minor amendments (Roxas’
amendments) for the first reading. For the second reading, there were
DOCTRINE: Journals are conclusive on the Court and to question its substantial amendments (Tolentino’s Amendments) which were approved
truthfulness would be to violate both the letter and the spirit of the organic by the Senate. Note that in this case, Roxas’ amendments were not found in
laws by which the Philippine Government was brought into existence, to the journal of the Senate Proceedings. Upon passing it back to the HoR citing
invalidate a coordinate and independent department of Government, and that it contained Roxas’ amendments, the HoR then approved it and
to interfere with the legitimate powers and functions of the legislature. eventually HB 9226 became RA 4065. Knowing this, Tolentino issued a press
statement saying that the enrolled copy of the bill was the wrong version
CASCO PHIL. COMMERCIAL CO. v. GIMENEZ that was approved by the Senate, as a response, the President likewise
July 18, 2011 | Journal and records officially withdrew his signature on the said Bill. Now the dispute arose when
Mayor Villegas and Vice Mayor Astorga are contending whether or not the
GIST: In consonance with the Foreign Exchange Margin Fee Law (RA 2609), said law was enacted, because Villegas was already issuing circulars to
the Central Bank issued circulars fixing a uniform margin fee of 25% on disregard the law. As counter, Villegas argued that RA 4065 never became a
foreign exchange transactions. CB likewise issued a memorandum law since it was not the bill actually passed by the Senate, and that the
establishing the procedure for the application for exemption from payment entries in the journal of that body and not the enrolled bill itself should be
of the said fee, as provided for by the said law. Petitioner Casco, who was decisive in the resolution of the issue. SC ruled that the journals of the
engaged in the production of synthetic resin glues used in plywood Congress may be resorted to determine whether the text of the House Bill
production, with raw ingredients “urea and formaldehyde,” paid the margin signed by the Chief Executive was the same text passed by both Houses, to
fee with their 2 import transactions, wherein the claim that per RA 2609, which they found out that indeed, the documents approved by the Senate
they are entitled to avail of the exemption from payment. The Auditor of the was no the same as to the one that was signed by the President and the
Bank did not accept their request, because what was stated in Sec. 18, RA Senate President. Ultimately, in light with the withdrawal of the signatures
2609 was “Urea formaldehyde” and not “urea and formaldehyde.” of both the Senate President and the Chief Executive, the SC held that the
Petitioner now contends that such term must be construed as “urea and bull did not become law as it was not duly enacted.
formaldehyde.” SC held that “Urea formaldehyde” is a finished product, and
is very different from “urea” and “formaldehyde,” which are raw materials DOCTRINE: Journals of Congress may be resorted to determine whether
in the manufacture of resin glues, and therefore the former cannot be laws signed by the Chief Executive were the same text passed by both
construed as the latter. Even the enrolled bill included “urea formaldehyde,” chambers of Congress.
Page 44 of 58

ABAKADA v. ERMITA Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an
September 1, 2005 | Bicameral committee electoral tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members. Each
GIST: Petitioners of this case assail the VAT Law (RA 9337) for constituting electoral tribunal shall be composed of nine members, three of whom shall
undue delegation, as it imposes 10% VAT on the Secs. 4 (sale of goods and be justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and
properties), 5 (importation of goods), and 6 (sale of services and use or lease the remaining six shall be members of the Senate or the House of
of properties). They claim that all these sections have a similar proviso Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of
authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or
Finance, to raise the VAT rate from 10% to 12% after the concurrence of the organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein.
following conditions: The senior justice in the electoral tribunal shall be its chairman.
1. VAT collection as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds
2.8% ANGARA v. ELECTORAL COMMISSION
2. National government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous July 13, 1936 | Nature and Power
year exceeds 1.5%
The issue was arose when the Bicameral Conference Committee put new GIST: Angara and Ynsua were candidates for members of the National
st
provisions to resolve the conflicting ones, from both the house and senate Assembly for the 1 district of the Province of Tayabas. Angara won. On
bills. SC ruled that the irregularities raised by petitioners consist mostly of December 3, 1935, the National Assembly passed Resolution No. 8 saying
internal rules of Congress and so the Court is not the proper forum for their that those who haven’t received an election protest, were approved and
enforcement. With the Bicameral Conference Committee as the proper confirmed as members. Ynsua filed before the Electoral Commission (EC) a
avenue, SC held that all changes or modifications made by such body, being Motion of Protest on December 8. December 9, the EC through Resolution
germane to subjects of the provisions referred to it for reconciliation, is not 9 fixed the said date as the last day for filing election protests,
tantamount to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of notwithstanding the previous confirmation by the National Asembly. Angara
jurisdiction. filed a Motion to dismiss the petition of Ynsua, claiming that he can no
longer protest, because the Electoral Commission has no jurisdiction of the
DOCTRINE: The Bicameral Conference Committee is created for purposes of case, it being nullified by the resolution of the National Assembly. SC ruled
prompt and efficient legislative action; it is mandated to settle the in favor of the Electoral Commission, and hence, Resolution No. 8 of the
differences between the disagreeing provisions of a House Bill and Senate National Assembly did not deprive the Electoral Commission of its
Bill jurisdiction to take cognizance of election protests filed within the time that
might be set by its own rules.

DOCTRINE: The Electoral Commission is a constitutional organ, created for
a specific purpose, namely to determine all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly. The
incidental power to promulgate such rules necessary for the proper exercise
of its exclusive power to judge all contests relating to the election, returns,
and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, must be deemed
by necessary implication to have been lodged also in the Electoral
Commission.
Page 45 of 58

REYES v. COMELEC by the SC as not an election protest, which essentially relieves the electoral
June 25, 2013 | Jurisdiction of the electoral tribunal tribunal of any jurisdiction it may possess as far as this case is concerned.

GIST: Reyes filed his COC to run as representative for the Province of DOCTRINE: An election contest is when a defeated candidate challenges the
Marinduque, where Tan filed a petition to deny due course or cancel the qualifications of the proclaimed winner with interest to claim the seat of the
COC on ground that she is actually an American citizen (who possess an latter.
American passport); and that she is a permanent resident or an immigrant
of the US, hence unable to satisfy the residency requirement. What posts as GUERRERO v. COMELEC
a relevant issue in this subject matter is the contention as to which body has July 26, 2000 | Substitution
jurisdiction in hearing this case: the COMELEC or the HRET? SC ruled that it
is the COMELEC; HRET does not acquire jurisdiction over the issue of the GIST: Ruiz sought to perpetually disqualify Fariñas as a candidate for the
petitioner’s qualifications and assailed COMELEC resolutions, because Reyes position of Congressman, claiming that Fariñas had been campaigning
was not yet able satisfy the requirements of being a member of the HRET: despite failure to file a COC for the said office; that he be declared as a
1. A valid proclamation nuisance candidate. Eventually, Fariñas filed his COC substituting a certain
nd
2. A proper oath candidate Chevylle Fariñas, who withdrew last month. COMELEC 2 division
3. The assumption of office dismissed the petition of Ruiz for reasons that there is nothing on record to
consider Fariñas as a candidate; there is no COC to be cancelled. Fariñas won
DOCTRINE: Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, the elections, and Ruiz filed a motion for reconsideration contending that
and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the Fariñas could not validly substitute Chevylle Fariñas since the latter was not
COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, the official candidate of Lakas ng Makabayan Masang Pilipino (LAMMP), but
returns, and qualification ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins. an independent candidate. His contention basically is that, another person
cannot substitute for an independent candidate. COMELEC dismissed the
VERA v. AVELINO case, stating that its jurisdiction over the issue ceased as Chevylle already
August 1, 1946 | Definition of election protest won. SC held that COMELEC’s contention is correct. While the COMELEC is
vested the power to declare a COC valid or invalid, its refusal to exercise
GIST: In line with the terrorism and violence that was apparent in Pampanga, power following the proclamation and assumption of the position by Fariñas
Nueva Ecija, Bulacan, and Tarlac, voting in the said regions did not reflect is a recognition of the boundaries separating the COMELEC and the HRET.
the true and free expression of the popular will. The senate convened
regarding the matter and issued a Pendatun Resolution, which basically DOCTRINE: The HRET has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests
states that the candidates who received the highest number of votes relative to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House
proclaimed by the COMELEC shall not be sworn, nor seated as members of of Representatives . Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken
the Senate. Petitioners, being part of the list, assail this resolution before his oath, and assumed office as a member of the HoR, COMELEC’s
the electoral tribunal. SC held that the electoral tribunal cannot take full jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns and
cognizance of the case at bar as the petitioner candidates have not assumed qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins.
office yet. More so, the tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited as to election
contests. Since what happened in the case is the refusal of the Senate to
allow the proclaimed candidates to assume office, the case was determined

Page 46 of 58

ABAYON v. HRET DOCTRINE: The Constitution intended that both judicial and legislative
February 11, 2010 | Jurisdiction over party-list components commonly share the duty and authority of deciding all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of Senators.
GIST: A case was filed against Petitioner Abayon, the first nominee of the
Aangat Tayo party-list organization who won a seat in the HoR in the 2007 BONDOC v. PINEDA
elections, by respondents Lucaban et al. They claimed that Aangat Tayo was September 26, 1991 | Non-partisan
not eligible for a party-list seat in the HoR as it did not represent the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, moreover, that Abayon herself GIST: Pineda (LDP) and Bondoc (NP) were rival candidates for the position
th
was not qualified as she did not belong to the said marginalized and of Representative for the 4 district of Pampanga, where the former was
underrepresented sectors, as she is the wife of an incumbent congressional proclaimed a winner. Bondoc filed a protest with the HRET, which at that
district representative. As far as the question on jurisdiction is concerned, time, was composed of 9 members (3 SC justices, 6 members of the House
the SC held that HRET had jurisdiction because petitioners Abayon et al., chosen on basis of proportional representation from the political parties and
even though not elected per se, are part of the party-list that was elected, the parties or organizations). HRET rendered a decision declaring that
who chose them as their representative under their internal rules. Bondoc won by 23 votes against Pineda. LDP members of the Tribunal
insisted on a recount, which delayed the finalization of the decision by 4
DOCTRINE: From the Constitution’s point of view, it is the party-list months. Basically what LDP did was they plotted moves to neutralize the
representatives who are elected into office, not their parties or pro-Bondoc majority in the Tribunal, by changing the party’s representation
organizations. These representatives are elected, however, through that in the HRET, one of which was the removal of Cong. Camasura, which was
peculiar party-list system. This is the reason why they are within the ambit due to him voting for Bondoc (he was removed for “disloyalty” to LDP). SC
of Sec. 17 Art. VI, since the HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests ruled that such act would reduce the tribunal to a mere tool for the
relating to, among other things, the qualifications of the HoR. aggrandizement of the party in power (LDP) which the three justices of the
SC and the lone NP member would be powerless to stop.
ABBAS v. SET
October 27, 1988 | Judicial and legislative participation DOCTRINE: HRET proceedings would be considered a farce if the HoR, or the
majority party, may shuffle and manipulate the political component of the
GIST: Petitioner Abbas et al. filed before the SET an election contest against HRET, to serve the interests of the party in power.
22 candidates of the LABAN coalition who were proclaimed senators-elect
in the 1987 May elections. They then filed a motion to disqualify 6 (out of LERIAS v. HRET
the 9) senators of the SET from hearing the issues on the ground that all of October 15, 1991 | Election returns; best evidence
them were interested parties to the case they previously filed, which leaves
only 3 members in the SET, with all of them Justices. SC ruled that the SET GIST: Lerias and Mercado were candidates for the position of
cannot hear and dispose of the case with only 3 Justice-members. It is Representative of the lone district of Southern Leyte. Mercado won,
evident in the Constitution that there is a clear mandate of both judicial and excluding the certificate of canvass (COC) from the Municipality of Libagon,
legislative components to be present in the SET. Litigants faced with which have been alleged by Mercado to be tampered with. In the If we are
situations such as this must simply place their trust and hopes of vindication to count the Provincial Board of Canvasser’s (PBOC’s) copy of the COC for
in the fairness and sense of justice of the members of the SET, singly and Libagon, Lerias would have won by 146 votes. In this case, PBOC asserts that
collectively. such erasures, alterations, and superimpositions present in the COCs of
Libagon is the reason why they cannot be used as basis of the canvass.
Page 47 of 58

Lerias’ counsel then, agreed to use the COMELEC copy of the COC. But seen Sec. 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the
were discrepancies, where the COMELEC copies and the PBOC copies had a President and of the Senate, as ex-officio chairman, twelve senators and
difference of 100 votes. With Mercado being proclaimed as winner, Lerias twelve members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House
now filed an election protest with the HRET, who still declared Mercado as on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and
winner, with the use of the COMELEC copy. SC held that the HRET should parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented
have used the election returns as basis for their decision, because as far as therein. The Chairman of the Commissions shall not vote, except in case of
election contests are concerned, where what is involved is the correctness a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within
of the number of votes of each candidate, the best and most conclusive thirty session days of the congress from their submission. The Commission
evidence are the ballots themselves. Lerias won. shall rule by a majority vote of all the members.

DOCTRINE: Under the best evidence rule, there can be no evidence of a DAZA v. SINGSON
writing, the contents of which are the subject of inquiry, other than the December 21, 1989 | Political alignment
original writing itself, except in the cases enumerated in the Rules of Court.
GIST: After the elections, HoR apportioned its 12 seats in the Commission
on Appointments (CoA) in accordance with the political parties represented,
per Sec. 18 Art. VI. Daza (LP) was one of the appointed members. September
16, 1988, there was a political realignment where 24 members of LP joined
LDP, which led HoR to revise its representation, removing Daza from the HoR
and placed Singson. Petitioner Daza hence assailed his removal in the light
of Cunanan v. Tan, where it was held that appointment is political and is not
within the ambit of HoR’s powers. SC held in the negative and ruled that HoR
may, in consideration of the rule on political alignment, change its
representation in the CoA.

DOCTRINE: The HoR may change its representation in the CoA to reflect at
any time the changes that may transpire in the political alignments of its
membership. It is understood that such changes must be permanent and do
not include the temporary alliances or factional divisions not involving
severance of political loyalties or formal disaffiliation and permanent shifts
of allegiance from one political party to another.

COSETENG v. MITRA
July 12, 1990 | Proportional representation

GIST: In the 1987 Congressional elections, the HoR was filled with candidates
with political parties such as PDP-Laban, LB, LP, NP-Unido, KBL, Panghusga,
KAIBA, and some independents. Petitioner Coseteng was the only candidate
under the banner of KAIBA. In the formation of the CoA, after electing 11
Page 48 of 58

members, the House elected Honorable Kablan (KBL) who was the Minority DOCTRINE: It is NOT mandatory to elect 12 senators in the CoA. What the
th
Floor Leader as the 12 member of the CoA. A year later, LDP was organized, Constitution requires is that there be at least a majority of the entire
and thus with the count of members of the House formally affiliated with members.
LDP, there was a need to change the CoA composition to reflect proportional
representation. Coseteng now avers that she be appointed as member of
th
the CoA and the HRET, but was denied as Ablan was retained as the 12
member to represent the minority members. SC held that in line with the
rule that the CoA representation is based on proportional representation
and considering the fact that KAIBA having only Coseteng as a lone member
represents .4% of House membership only—this does not in any way entitle
her to a seat the CoA.

DOCTRINE: The composition of the House membership in the CoA is always
based n proportional representation of the political parties in the HoR.

GUINGONA v. GONZALES
October 20, 1992 | Undue reduction of representation of another party

GIST: The 1992 National Senatorial Elections yielded the following result:
LDP (15 senators), NPC (5), Lakas-NUCD (3), and LP-PDP-LABAN (1). In
compliance with the rules agreed by the parties, the CoA proportional
representation should be decided by this mathematical formula:
No. of senators of a political party x 12 seats
Total number of senators elected
This resulted in the following percentage per party: LDP (7.5 members), NPC
(2.5), Lakas-NUCD (1.5), and LP-PDP-LABAN (.5). Romulo, Majority Floor
Leader, nominated for and on behalf of LDP, 8 senators for CoA
Appointments. This was objected, and so a compromise was held: LDP (8),
NPC (2), LP-PDP-LABAN and Lakas-NUCD (1 each).This arrangement was
strongly opposed, hence Guingona filed a petition assailing the membership
th
of Senator Romulo as 8 member of LDP, and Senator Tañada as the lone
member of LP-PDP-LABAN in the CoA. SC held that indeed such round up for
LDP was a violation of Section 18, as it is no longer in compliance with its
mandate as to proportional representation, same ruling would go for
Tañada’s membership, which would entail an anomaly of having 13 senators
where the Constitution only 12 in the CoA.

Page 49 of 58

Sec. 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall Sec. 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its
be constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of representatives committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in
Representatives shall have been organized with the election of the accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of
President and the Speaker. The Commission on Appointments shall meet persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
only while the Congress is in session, at the call of its chairman or a
majority of all its members, to discharge such powers and functions as are SENATE v. ERMITA
herein conferred upon it. April 20, 2006 | Power of inquiry

Sec. 20. The records and books of accounts of the Congress shall be GIST: Senate issued invitations to various officials of the Executive
preserved and be open to the public in accordance with law, and such Department for them to appear as resource speakers in a public hearing on
books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publish the railway project of the North Luzon Railways corporation with the China
annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for National Machinery and Equipment Group. Such hearing was sparked by a
each member. privilege speech from Sen. Enrile urging the Senate to investigate the alleged
overpricing and other unlawful provisions of the contract covering the North
Rail Project. Senate Committee on National Defense and Security issued
invitations to AFP Officials (Lt. Esperon, Vice Admiral Mayuga). Drilon
received from Exec. Sec. Ermita a letter requesting for the postponement of
the hearing to which various officials of the Executive Department, in order
for them to have an opportunity to study and prepare for the various issues,
to which he denied. GMA then issued EO 464, which “prohibits Department
Heads and Senior Officials of Executive Departments, who in the judgment
of the department heads are covered by the executive privilege; Generals
and flag officers of the AFP, and such other officers who in the judgment of
the Chief of Staff are covered by the executive privilege; PNP Officers with
rank of chief superintendent or higher and such other officers who in the
judgment of the Chief of the PNP are covered by executive privilege; Senior
National Security Officials who in the judgment of the National Security
Adviser are covered by the executive privilege; and such other officers as may
be determined by the President, from appearing in such hearings conducted
by Congress without first securing the President’s approval.” Such EO is
invoked by Gen. Senga to get away with the investigation of the Senate.
Those who pushed through were reprimanded by GMA for defying EO 464.
SC held that:
1. Section 1 (Appearance of Department Heads before the Congress)
- Unconstitutional. It does not require prior determination by any
official whether or not they are covered by EO 464. Such coverage
is not even made to depend on the Department Head’s possession
of any information which might be covered by executive privilege.
Page 50 of 58

This cannot be applied to appearances of Department Heads in her power as Commander-in-Chief, and that indeed such defiance
inquiries in aid of legislation. Congress is not bound in such constitutes an officer to be liable under military justice.
instances to respect refusal of a Department Head to appear in
such inquiry, unless a valid claim of privilege is made by President DOCTRINE: In reference to Senate v. Ermita, the President may not issued a
or the Executive Secretary blanket requirement of prior consent on executive officials summoned by
2. Section 3 (Appearance of Other Public Officials before Congress) in the legislature to attend a congressional hearing. Such privilege must be
relation to Section 2(b) (Who are covered by the EO) – formally invoked on specific grounds. However, such ability of the President
Unconstitutional. It only requires that there be consent without the to prevent military officers from testifying does not actually refer to
necessity of a rationale on why it must be considered as executive privilege; rather, to the Chief Executive’s power as commander-
confidential; it severely frustrates the power of Inquiry of the in-chief. Note however, that the President’s refusal to allow members of the
Congress. military to appear before the Congress is nevertheless subject to judicial
relief.
DOCTRINE: When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for
Department Heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of NEG. O. II ELEC. COOP. v. SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD
privilege. They are not exempt by the mere fact that they are Department November 5, 1987 | Nature and essence
Heads. Only one executive official may be exempted from this power—the
President, on whom executive power is vested, hence beyond the reach of GIST: The Ad Hoc Committee of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete
Congress except through the power of impeachment. Basically, the issued a subpoena to Torres (Chairman) and Umbac (General Manager) of
infirmities in EO 464 boil down to its blanket requirement of prior consent petitioner NORECO, who is an electric cooperative based in Dumaguete.
on executive officials. NORECO contended that the Sangguniang Panlungsod does not posses any
power to compel their attendance and testimony, nor the power to order
GUIDANI v. SENGA the arrest of witnesses who disobeyed its subpoena. Sangguniang
August 15, 2006 | Power of inquiry Panlungsod on the other hand, contended that inherent to its legislative
functions included the power to conduct investigation in aid of legislation
GIST: Petitioners who are high-ranking military officers of the AFP assail EO and the power to punish for contempt in inquiries. SC held that the
464, as it enjoins them from testifying before Congress without the Sangguniang Panlungsod does not possess such legislative function; their act
President’s consent. In the present case, the Senate is investigating on the of mandating NORECO is an ultra vires act. The exercise by the legislature of
anomalies of the 2004 elections and an excerpt of a phone conversation the contempt power is a matter of self-preservation as that branch of the
between PGMA and COMELEC Commissioner Garcillano. Petitioner Gudani, government with the legislative power asserts its authority and punishes
Senga, and Balutan were invited to the hearing, but requested for contempt. Such contempt power of the legislature is sui generis and local
postponement. Before the following day, a message was transmitted from legislative bodies cannot correctly claim to possess it for the same reasons
the office of Gen. Senga, stating, “PER INSTRUCTION OF HER EXCELLENCY that the national legislature does. The power attaches to the character of
PGMA, NO AFP PERSONNEL SHALL APPEAR BEFORE ANY CONGRESSIONAL the legislature as one of the three independent and coordinate branches of
HEARING WITHOUT HER APPROVAL” Senga didn’t appear in the hearing, as government. It cannot be said that the local legislative bodies possess the
he wasn’t granted approval by President to appear before them. The two same.
others who attended (Gudani and Balutan) were held to have disobeyed a
legal order (Articles of War 65 [Willfully Disobeying Superior Officer]). SC
ruled that the President has constitutional authority to do so, by virtue of
Page 51 of 58

DOCTRINE: There should be a distinction between the powers of Congress PH and Russia, but it must also be remembered that it affects PH
and those that may be exercised by the legislative bodies of LGUs. The latter international obligations. Being a state party to conventions dealing with
are mere creatures of law that possess delegated legislative power. movement of considerable foreign currency across boarders, this incident
could reflect on our country’s compliance with the obligations required of
STANDARD v. SENATE state-parties under these conventions.
December 27, 2007 | To prevent future fraudulent activities
DOCTRINE: The Senate Rules included a creation of a Committee on Foreign
GIST: After Sen. Ponce-Enrile’s privilege speech on “Arrogance of Wealth” Relations, which concerns all matters relating to relations of the PH with
which was based on Atty. Bocobo’s letter, which denounced petitioner other nations generally; diplomatic and consular services; ASEAN; UN and
Standard Chartered for selling unregistered foreign securities in violation of its agencies; multi-lateral organizations, all international agreements, and
the Securities Regulation Code (SRC), an inquiry in aid of legislation obligations and contracts; and overseas Filipinos.
commenced in the Senate. Standard was issued a subpoena and was
compelled to appear in the Senate, to which the former assailed as an act of ROMERO v. ESTRADA
encroachment upon the judicial powers, since they were already facing April 2, 2009 | Sub judice rule
pending court cases. SC held that The Senate Committee can still proceed
with the inquiry despite the cases pending in court. Such inquiry is important GIST: Petitioner Romero received an invitation from the Senate Committee
so as to prevent the occurrence of a similar fraudulent activity in the future. asking him to go to a hearing to answer inquiries by the Senate involving the
investment of Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) funds in
DOCTRINE: The mere filing of a criminal or administrative complaint before the Smokey Mountain Project. Such inquiry is for purposes of enlightening
a court or quasi-judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of an the Senate in the review and possible amendments in the Migrant Workers
inquiry in aid of legislation,. Otherwise, it would be easy to subvert an Act (RA 8042). Romero requested to be excused from appearing, but a
intended inquiry by Congress through convenient ploy of filing a criminal or service of subpoena ad testificandum was serviced to him. Now the case
administrative complaint. commenced when Romero filed an urgent plea for a TRO, claiming among
others, that when Sen. Estrada called on him as a resource person, the latter
DE LA PAZ v. SENATE spoke of facts and issued raised in Chavez v. NHA, and none was discussed
February 13, 2009 | In aid of legislation regarding the subject of the inquiry. That, the subject matter of the
investigation is sub judice owing to the pendency of the Chavez case; the
GIST: A Philippine delegation of 8 senior PNP officers arrived in Moscow, investigation was to ascertain Romero’s criminal liability for plunder in
th
Russia to attend the 77 General Assembly Session of the International relation to the case. SC ruled that the Senate Committee’s inquiry is not
criminal Police Organization (ICPO)-INTERPOL in St. Petersburg, Russia. Gen. injury sub judice; the case was already decided with finality last 2008; when
De la Paz was one of the delegates, and unfortunately he was apprehended this case was decided on 2009. Even assuming that there is pending final
by local Moscow authorities for failure to declare certain sums of money adjudication by the SC, still, the circumstance would not bar the Senate
found in his possession (over Php 10M). Upon return to the PH after being Committee’s investigation; Senate Rules provide that the filing or pendency
detained for quite a while in Moscow, petitioner De la Paz was issued a of any prosecution or administrative action should not stop or abate any
subpoena from the Senate, who planned to investigate on the matter. They inquiry to carry out a legislative purpose (as discussed in Standard v. Senate).
assail the same and claim that it cannot validly investigate the Moscow
incident. SC ruled that the Senate Committee can in fact investigate the DOCTRINE: The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures
incident. Not only can this incident create ripples in the relations between pertaining to judicial proceedings to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing
Page 52 of 58

the court, or obstructing the administration of justice. Courts and juries probed on GMA, and Neri refused to answer, invoking executive privilege,
should be immune from extraneous influence. the following questions:
1. Whether or not GMA followed up on the NBN Project?
GARCILLANO v. HOUSE 2. Whether or not she directed him to prioritize it?
December 23, 2008 | Publication on rules on inquiry 3. Whether or not she directed him to approve it?
Neri was invited once again to appear but he did not appear anymore,
GIST: After the privilege speech of Minority Leader Escudero, regarding the invoking executive privilege, and so he was held in contempt. SC held that
Hello Garci tapes (wiretapped convo between GMA and Garcillano), which such move by the Committee of holding him in contempt is unconstitutional,
led to the HoR Committees to review the said tapes. Upon petitioner as the three questions are indeed covered by executive privilege. The
st
Garcillano’s 1 case for prohibition, the committees stopped the discussion context in which such privilege is being invoked is that the information
on the tapes. 2 years later, Sen. Lacson revived the said issue with a privilege sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic
nd
speech which promised the public the truth regarding the tapes. A 2 case relations with People’s Republic of China. Given the confidential nature of
was filed to bar the Senate from conducting legislative inquiry on the tapes. this information, he cannot provide the Committee any further details of
In sum, the petition of Garcillano moves for the prevention of the playing of this conversations, without disclosing the very thing the privilege is designed
the tapes in the House and the subsequent inclusion thereof in committee to protect.
reports; and that the conduct of the Senate inquiry on the tapes be stopped
and prohibited. SC ruled that indeed, the Senate cannot be allowed to DOCTRINE: Elements of presidential communications privilege before its
continue with the inquiry without duly published rules of procedure in clear exercise can be said valid:
derogation of the constitutional requirement. As mentioned in the case of 1. The protected communication must relate to a quintessential and
Neri v. Senate, every Congress must publish its rules of procedure governing non-delegable presidential power
inquiries in aid of legislation. With the rules on inquiry in aid of legislation 2. The communication is limited only by the doctrine of operational
being published only last 2006, SC said senate rules were only published in proximity
1995 and 2006, and not during the pendency of the case (2007). 3. The President’s claim of executive privilege is not merely based on
a generalized interest; and likely contains an important and
DOCTRINE: The Senate of each Congress acts separately and independently compelling need to be kept confidential
in the conduct of its day-to-day business compared to the Senate of the
Congress before it. The rules of the Senate even provides, that all pending ARNAULT v. NAZARENO
matters and proceedings shall terminate upon expiration of 1 Congress, but July 15, 1950 | Subject of inquiry
may be taken by the succeeding Congress as if present for the first time.
GIST: PH Govt, through the Rural Progress Administration, bought 2 estates:
NERI v. SENATE Buenavista (Php 4.5M) and Tambobong (Php 500k). Initially, the two estates
September 4, 2008 | Executive privilege were to be sold to Burt, but since he was only able to pay for the
downpayment (Php 10,000.00/estate), it was later on sold to RPA. What is
GIST: NEDA Sec. Neri testified before the Senate Committee for 11 hours on peculiar in this case was the fact that despite the Php 20,000.00 interest of
matters concerning the NBN project awarded by the DOTC to ZTE. Neri Burt, he was paid by RPA the amount of Php 1.5M. Burt was found to have
disclosed that then COMELEC Chair Abalos offered him Php 200M in deposited the check to PNB, and later on he drew checks amounting to Php
exchange of his approval of the said project. That, he informed GMA of the 500k, which he transferred to the account of Associated Agencies, Inc. and
bribery attempt and that she told him to decline. Senate Committee further Php 440,000.00, which he encashed. In the pursuit of figuring out where the
Page 53 of 58

440k went, the Senate committee adopted Resolution No. 8, which created administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed
a special committee to investigate the Buenavista and Tambobong Estates statutes.
Deal. Petitioner Arnault was one of the witnesses who was called for by the Contempt power of Congress is based on reason and policy which is
special committee, who refused to answer. After being cited in contempt, considered implied or incidental to the exercises of legislative power. This is
he was held in custody of the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms. Arnault assails his the way a legislative body could obtain the knowledge and information on
deprivation of liberty for being held in contempt, and that he shouldn’t be which to base a legislation if it cannot require and compel the disclosure of
punished for contempt for refusing to reveal the name of the person who such knowledge and information if it is important to punish a defiance of its
received the Php 440,000.00, that it is not the subject of the inquiry in the proper authority.
first place. SC held that Senate Resolution No. 8 was created specifically to
determine the parties responsible for the Buenavista and Tambobong
Estates deal—names of those involved are hence important as it is the
subject of the inquiry.

DOCTRINE: It is not necessary for the legislative body to show that every
question propounded to a witness is material to any proposed or possible
legislation; what is required is that it be pertinent to the matter under
inquiry.

SABIO v. GORDON
October 17, 2006 | Contempt and detention

GIST: Senator MDS introduced the PH Senate Resolution No. 455, direting
an inquiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the POTC,
PHILCOMSAT, and PHC, due to alleged improprieties in their operations by
their respective Board of Directors. Sabio, Chairman of the PCGG, was
repeatedly invited by the Senate to appear during the inquiry, but declined,
invoking Sec. 4(b) of EO 1. Upon being held in contempt for not participating
in the inquiry, the petitioners showed their dissent when they argued that
EO 1 was disregarded, and that the Committee is not vested with the power
of contempt. SC noted that, 4(b) of EO 1 is well repealed already by the
Constitution. Hence, the Senate Committee acted within the ambit of their
powers. As for the issue on holding one in contempt, the SC ruled that such
power is given to the legislature, and hence their citing of Sabio for content
is valid.

DOCTRINE: A mere provision of law cannot impose a limitation to the broad
power of Congress, especially in the absence of constitutional basis. The
power of inquiry, being broad, encompasses everything that concerns the
Page 54 of 58

Sec. 22. The Heads of Departments may upon their own initiative, with the SC held that Sec. 1 of EO 464 unconstitutional. It does not require prior
consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules determination by any official whether or not they are covered by EO 464.
of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such house on Such coverage is not even made to depend on the Department Head’s
any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be possession of any information which might be covered by executive
submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of privilege. This cannot be applied to appearances of Department Heads in
Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. inquiries in aid of legislation. Congress is not bound in such instances to
Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover respect refusal of a Department Head to appear in such inquiry, unless a
matters related thereto, when the security of the State or the public valid claim of privilege is made by President or the Executive Secretary.
interest so requires and the President so states in writing the appearance
shall be conducted in Executive Session. DOCTRINE: Sec. 21 and 22, while closely related and complementary to each
other, should not be considered as pertaining to the same power of
SENATE v. ERMITA Congress. The former specifically relates to the power to conduct inquiries
April 20, 2006 | Congress and heads of departments in aid of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information which may be
used for legislation, while the other pertains to the power to conduct a
GIST: Senate issued invitations to various officials of the Executive question hour, the objective of which is to obtain information in the pursuit
Department for them to appear as resource speakers in a public hearing on of Congress’ oversight function. For under Sec. 22 Art. VI, the appearance of
the railway project of the North Luzon Railways corporation with the China department heads in the question hour is discretionary on their part.
National Machinery and Equipment Group. Such hearing was sparked by a
privilege speech from Sen. Enrile urging the Senate to investigate the alleged
overpricing and other unlawful provisions of the contract covering the North
Rail Project. Senate Committee on National Defense and Security issued
invitations to AFP Officials (Lt. Esperon, Vice Admiral Mayuga). Drilon
received from Exec. Sec. Ermita a letter requesting for the postponement of
the hearing to which various officials of the Executive Department, in order
for them to have an opportunity to study and prepare for the various issues,
to which he denied. GMA then issued EO 464, which “prohibits Department
Heads and Senior Officials of Executive Departments, who in the judgment
of the department heads are covered by the executive privilege; Generals
and flag officers of the AFP, and such other officers who in the judgment of
the Chief of Staff are covered by the executive privilege; PNP Officers with
rank of chief superintendent or higher and such other officers who in the
judgment of the Chief of the PNP are covered by executive privilege; Senior
National Security Officials who in the judgment of the National Security
Adviser are covered by the executive privilege; and such other officers as may
be determined by the President, from appearing in such hearings conducted
by Congress without first securing the President’s approval.” Such EO is
invoked by Gen. Senga to get away with the investigation of the Senate.
Those who pushed through were reprimanded by GMA for defying EO 464.
Page 55 of 58

Sec. 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both houses in joint DAVID v. ARROYO
session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare May 3, 2006 | Emergency powers in relation to Sec. 18 Art. 7
the existence of a state of war.
th
(2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, GIST: As the nation celebrated the 20 Anniv of the EDSA 1, PGMA issued
authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such PP 1017, declaring a state of national emergency. As basis, she cited that
restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper over the past months, elements in the political opposition have conspired
to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by with authoritarians of the extreme Left and the extreme Right, who are now
resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next in a tactical alliance and engaged in a concerted and systematic conspiracy,
adjournment thereof. over a broad front, to bring down the PGMA Administration. On the same
day, PGMA Issued G.O. No. 5, implementing PP 1017, where she called the
SANLAKAS v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AFP and the PNP to prevent and suppress acts of terrorism and lawless
February 3, 2004 | To prevent future fraudulent activities violence in the country. During this time, the offices of “The Daily Tribune
and Malaya” were raided by the CIDG, where all anti-GMA articles and write-
GIST: On July 27, 2003, several armed junior officers from the AFP stormed ups were released. A week after, PGMA lifted PP 1017 by issuing
into the Oakwood Premiere apartments in Makati, and demanded the Proclamation No. 1021. 2006. A case was hence filed with the SC, to which
resignation of PGMA and other executive officials due to corruption. PGMA, claims that such PP 1017 is violative of the Constitution (zoom in to relevant
pursuant to her extraordinary powers, issued Proclamation 427 (Declaring a fact in relation to this provision: the raid and confiscation in the Daily
State of Rebellion) and GO 4 (Directing the AFP and PNP to suppress Tribune and Malaya). SC held that the President alone can declare a state of
Rebellion). The mutiny only lasted for a day, but GMA only lifted the state of national emergency, however, without legislation, he has no power to take
rebellion on August 1, through Proclamation 435. In the interim, several over privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest.
petitions were filed assailing the Proclamation 427 and GO 4 for going The President cannot decide whether exceptional circumstances exist
beyond the Constitution. SC held that GMA’s declaration of a state of warranting the take over. Nor can he determine when such exceptional
rebellion is constitutional, as it was well within her powers as the Chief circumstances have ceased. Likewise, without legislation, the President has
Executive or as Commander-in-Chief. The President does not need to make no power to point out the type of business affected with public interest that
a declaration of a state of rebellion to exercise the calling out power, the should be taken over.
criterion needed for the President to call the armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, among others, is that it should be done whenever DOCTRINE: The exercise of emergency powers, such as taking over of
it becomes necessary. privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest
requires delegation from Congress. Framers of the Constitution have
DOCTRINE: The President, in declaring a state of rebellion and in calling out provided conditions that must concur prior to the grant of emergency
the armed forces, was merely exercising a wedding of her Chief Executive powers to the President:
and Commander-in-Chief powers—which are purely executive powers 1. There must be war or other emergency
vested on the President by Sections 1 and 18, Art. VII, as opposed to the 2. The delegation must be for a limited period only
delegated legislative powers contemplated by Sec. 23(2) of Art. VI. 3. The delegation must be subject to such restrictions as the Congress
may prescribe
4. The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a national
policy declared by Congress

Page 56 of 58

AMPATUAN v. DILG SEC. PUNO may now determine the sufficiency of factual basis of the Martial
June 7, 2011 | Emergency powers in relation to Sec. 18 Art. 7 Law proclamation.
2. Is the SC’s review power independent of Congress’ power to
GIST: On the day of the Maguindanao Massacre, GMA issued Proclamation revoke? Yes. Although it is in the same trajectory, that is to nullify
1946, placing the provinces of Magindanao and Sultan Kudarat under a state the proclamation, both can simultaneously be done. The significant
of emergency, where she directed the AFP and PNP to undertake measures distinction from the two is that the former is a passive duty, which
to prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless violence. She likewise issued can only commence upon a citizen filing a case, while the latter is
AO 273, transferring supervision of ARMM to the Office of the President to automatic.
the DIG (Puno). Petitioners Ampatuan et al filed this petition claiming that 3. Does judicial power of review to extend to President’s decision
the deployment of troops and the taking over of the ARMM constitutes which of the 3 graduated powers he will avail of? No. Such
invalid exercise of the President’s emergency powers. OSG commented and graduation is only based on scope and effect. It does not in anyway
said that GMA’s issuance was pursuant to her calling out power as restrict the President as to which of the three he chooses to
commander-in-chief under Sec. 18 Art. 7 of the Constitution. SC held that perform.
GMA validly exercised her emergency powers. SC held that GMA did not go 3 EXTRAORDINARY POWERS FORMUILA
beyond her powers as provided for by Sec. 23(2) of Art. VI of the Calling out power (AFP) Necessary + lawless violence/
Constitution, as what was proclaimed was not a national emergency, but invasion/rebellion
only a state of emergency. Suspension of the privilege of Public safety + invasion/
the writ of Habeas Corpus rebellion
DOCTRINE: The calling out of the AFP was to prevent or suppress lawless Declaration of Martial Law Public safety + invasion/
violence, which is a power that the Constitution directly vests in the rebellion
President specifically in Sec. 18 Art. 7 of the Constitution. As such, she need 4. Can Proclamation 216 be void for being vague? No. That challenge
not be given congressional authority to exercise the same. only applies to free speech cases. Moreover, even assuming that it
can be looked into, the context provides that looking “at other
LAGMAN v. MEDIALDEA rebel groups” is not vague, as it is surrounded with the context in
July 6, 2017 | Emergency powers in relation to Sec. 18 Art. 7 this case.
5. Will the nullification of Proclamation 216 also nullify Proclamation
GIST: This case is about Duterte’s enactment of Proclamation 216, which 55? No. The two have independent powers. If you would like to
suspends the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and declares Martial nullify Proclamation 55, file a separate proceeding.
Law in the entirety of Mindanao. With allegations that such enactment was 6. What is the scope of the SC in the review or declaration of Martial
done without sufficient factual basis, petitioners Lagman et al. filed Law or Suspension for privilege of the privilege of the Writ of
complaints before the Court to prove that there was arbitrariness in Habeas Corpus? SC is only limited to ascertaining the sufficiency of
Duterte’s acts. There were 9 issues raised in this case (see doctrine) factual basis. This is to ensure that the President complied with
Constitutional guidelines, that he didn’t act arbitrarily. In using
DOCTRINE: sufficiency of factual basis test, the SC acknowledges that the
1. Was the petition proper for the SC to review? Yes, Art. VII(18) President has sole discretion as to the facts written in the
merely requires that it be made in an appropriate proceeding, that Proclamation. He cannot be forced to divulge information that will
is, it is filed by any citizen. Since such is present in this case, the SC compromise our military efforts. In determining the sufficient
factual promise, the entirety of the Proclamation is be considered,
Page 57 of 58

and absolute correctness is not necessary, given the urgency of the

situation.
7. What are the parameters of the sufficiency of factual basis? The
Court enumerated such parameters as follows:
a. Actual invasion or rebellion – as defined by the RPC, an
uprising against the government to remove allegiance or
deprive the government of its powers
b. Public safety requires it
c. Concurrence of requirement A and B.
d. Probable cause for the President to believe there is actual
rebellion/ invasion
8. Did SC find sufficient basis for Proclamation 216? Yes. President, in
consideration of the facts, had probable cause that rebellion was
committed and that public safety required such declaration. Once
again, there is no need for absolute correctness of the facts, as such
mandate will only frustrate the President’s decision-making
regarding the urgent matter at hand.
9. Does public safety require such proclamation? Yes. Marawi
provides easy access to other parts of Mindanao, lawless groups
used provinces adjourning Marawi as escape routes. Marawi is a
vital cognizance attaining the long-standing goal that is the
absolute control over the entirety of Mindanao.

Page 58 of 58

Constitutional Law I: Cases and Doctrines on Philippine Territory

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Constitutional Law I: Cases and Doctrines on Philippine Territory

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CONTENTS

ARTICLE I (pp. 2-4)

CASES AND DOCTRINES CONTINENTAL SHELF 200nm (underwater) from

US v. BARRIAS PEOPLE v. MACEREN

ALDABA v. COMELEC NAVARRO v. ERMITA

AQUINO v. COMELEC ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS v. COMELEC

and absolute correctness is not necessary, given the urgency of the

S-ar putea să vă placă și