I.

POLITICAL ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE

A. General Considerations
A.1 Preliminary Matters
CASES FACTS ISSUE RATIO

 The resulting government following the EDSA Revolution in

February 1986 was indisputably a revolutionary government bound
 Maj. Gen. Josephus by no constitution or legal limitations except treaty obligations that
Ramas and mistress Elizabeth Dimaano were the revolutionary government, as the de jure government in the
investigated via PCGG. Philippines, assumed under international law.
 Evidence against Dimaano (military  During the interregnum·i.e., after the actual and effective take-over of
equipment/items and communications power by the revolutionary government up to 24 March 1986
equipment (with warrant), the raiding team (immediately before the adoption of the Provisional Constitution)·a
W/N there was
confiscated ₱2.87M and $50K. person could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights
lawful seizure of
Republic vs  The Board then concluded that Ramas be because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights then.
the items that were
Sandiganbayan prosecuted for violating the “Anti-Graft and  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("Covenant");
not part of the
Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019)” and Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("Declaration"); Even during
warrant – NO
“Forfeiture of unlawfully Acquired Property the interregnum the Filipino people continued to enjoy, under the
(RA 1379)”. Covenant and the Declaration, almost the same rights found in the
 The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case on Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution.
several grounds one of which is that there was  The Declaration is part of customary international law, and that
an illegal search and seizure of the items Filipinos as human beings are proper subjects of the rules of
confiscated. international law laid down in the Covenant.
 A raiding team exceeds its authority when it seizes items not included
in the search warrant unless contraband per se.

 GSIS, pursuant to the privatization program
of the Philippine Government, decided to sell
through public bidding 30% to 51% of the
issued and outstanding shares of Manila Hotel
Manila Prince vs Corporation (MHC).
GSIS  Since MHC is part of the national patrimony
and its business forms part of the national
economy, MPH
claims that is should be preferred after it
matched Renong Berhad’s bid.
 Torre de Manila issue when it comes to the
Knights of Rizal vs
building permit since it can be seen from the
DMCI Homes
Rizal Shrine monument
 This case is on the right of the people to
directly propose amendments to the
constitution through People’s Initiative under
Section 2, Article 17 of the 1987
Santiago vs Constitution. Under the two previous
COMELEC Constitutions, only two modes were
available: (1) Congress sitting as a
Constitutional Assembly upon vote of ¾ of
its members or (2) by a Constitutional
Convention. The 1987 Constitution
 A constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of
the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the
constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an examination
and construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that
the subject is referred to the legislature for action.
 Unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to
enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that all
provisions of the constitution are self-executing.
 When the Constitution mandates that in the grant of rights,
privileges, and concessions covering national economy and
 Whether Manila
patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, it
Hotel is part of the
means just that· qualified Filipinos shall be preferred.
National
 When the Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified
Patrimony – YES
circumstances, an action may be maintained to enforce such right
notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on the subject such
right enforces itself by its own inherent potency and puissance.
 When the Constitution speaks of “national patrimony,” it refers not
only to the natural resources of the Philippines but also to the cultural
heritage of the Filipinos.
 Verily, Manila Hotel has become part of our national economy and
patrimony.
 The term „qualified Filipinos‰ as used in the Constitution also
includes corporations at least 60% of which is owned by Filipinos.
 There is no law prohibiting the construction of the Torre de Manila.
Whether the SC  Mandamus does not lie against the City of Manila.
can issue a writ of  Thus, the MZBAA's grant of the variance cannot be used as a basis
mandamus to stop to grant the mandamus petition absent any clear finding that said act
the construction of amounted to "grave abuse of discretion, manifest injustice, or
Torre de Manila – palpable excess of authority."
NO The KOR is Estopped from Questioning the Torre de Manila
Construction.
 A petition for prohibition an extraordinary judicial writ to prevent an
 Whether the
inferior tribunal from exercising jurisdiction it was not legally
petition for
vested. The SC held that the COMELEC does not NOT have
prohibition is
jurisdiction as the petition failed to meet the minimum number of
viable – YES
signatures required by law.
Whether RA 6735  Section 2, Article 17 is not a self-executing provision. It states that
is adequate to the Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of
propose such right. Hence, it requires implementing legislation.
amendments to the  RA 6735 was indeed intended to cover this Constitutional

introduced People’s Initiative as a mode of
introducing amendments only.
 Lambino group, collected signatures (note:
no proof that the signatories saw the text of
the amendments of the proposed
amendments) and filed a petition with
Lambino vs COMELEC to hold a plebiscite to ratify their
COMELEC initiative, under RA 6735 (Initiative and
Referendum Act) to change the 1987
Constitution by changing the current
Bicameral-Presidential government to a
Unicameral- Parliamentary one.
Magallona vs  In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046
Ermita by enacting RA 9522. The change was
prompted by the need to make RA 3046
compliant with the terms of the UNCLOS III
 Magallona et al questioned the validity of
RA 9522; the law decreased the national
territory of the Philippines.
requirement. However, a review of RA 6735 does not provide for full
compliance as intended by the framers of the constitution. The act
provides for proposal, enactment, approval, or rejection of laws or
ordinances. Such actions do no not apply to consti provisions since
Constitution – NO only AMENDMENTS are allowed.
 Furthermore, the provisions granting power to the COMELEC to
promulgate rules is considered invalid delegation. (remember:
potestas delagata non delegari potest). What the has been delegated
cannot be delegated.
 ConCom deliberations showed that the framers intended that a draft
of the proposed Constitutional amendment be “ready and shown”;
before signing the proposal, the essence of amendments directly
proposed via initiative being that the entire proposal on its face is a
petition by the people (2 elements: people must author and sign the
entire proposal, and the proposal must be embodied in a petition). No
proof that the signatories saw the full text of the proposed
amendments; burden of proof is with Lambino group to prove that
the petition contained or incorporated by attachment the full text of
the proposed amendments. Signature sheet submitted by Lambino
Whether the group did not show any part of the text of the proposed changes, only
Lambino petition asking if the signatory approved a shift in government.
is sufficient for  Lambino petition is a revision, not an amendment. Difference
Art. XVII Sec. 2 between amendment and revision: only Congress or ConCon may
of the Constitution propose revisions, people’s initiatives may only propose
– NO amendments; revision implies a change that alters a basic principle in
the Constitution, while amendment implies a change that adds,
reduces, or deletes without changing the basic principle involved.
 Two-part test for whether a change is a revision or an amendment:
 Quantitative test: whether the change is so extensive in its provisions
as to change directly the substantial entirety; of the constitution by
the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions (examines
number of provisions affected).
 Qualitative test: whether the change will accomplish such far
reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to
amount to a revision;.
W/N RA 9522 is  The treaty and the baseline law have nothing to do with the
unconstitutional – acquisition, enlargement, or diminution of the Philippine territory.
NO What controls when it comes to acquisition or loss of territory is the
international law principle on occupation, accretion, cession and
prescription and not the execution of multilateral treaties on the
regulations of sea-use rights or enacting statutes to comply with the
treaty’s terms to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves.
 The law did not decrease the demarcation of our territory. In fact it
increased it. Under the old law amended by RA 9522 (RA 3046), we
adhered with the rectangular lines enclosing the Philippines. The area
that it covered was 440,994 square nautical miles (sq. na. mi.). But

 The South China Sea Arbitration was
conducted between the Republic of the
Philippines and the People’s Republic of
China by the Permanent Court of Arbitration
(PCA), under the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea
In the Matter of
(UNCLOS). The arbitration is related to
South China Sea
disputes between the Parties regarding the
legal basis of maritime rights and
entitlements, the status of certain geographic
features, and the lawfulness of certain
actions taken by China in the South China
Sea;
A.2 State Immunity
CASES FACTS
under 9522, and with the inclusion of the exclusive economic zone,
the extent of our maritime was increased to 586,210 sq. na. mi.
(Nautical Miles)
 The Tribunal concluded that Scarborough Shoal, Cuarteron Reef,
Fiery Cross Reef, Johnson Reef, McKennan Reef and Gaven Reef
(North) were all found to be high-tide features. The Tribunal further
noted that for the purposes of Article 121(3), the high-tide features at
Scarborough Shoal and the reefs were rocks that cannot sustain
human human habitation or economic life of their own and so have
no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. The Tribunal found
the same to be true of the Spratly Islands and so concluded that
China, therefore, has no entitlement to any maritime zone in the area
of Mischief Reef or Second Thomas Shoal; they do, however, form
part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the
Philippines as they lie within 200 nautical miles of the Philippines’
coast and there are no overlapping entitlements in the area with
respect to China.
 In the issue of Chinese interference with the living and non-living
 Whether West resources (primarily concerned with fishing practices in the South
Philippine Sea is China Sea and oil and gas exploration and exploitation) of the
Philippine territory Philippines, the Tribunal considered diplomatic statements from
– YES China to the Philippines and regulations related to the matter that
China had passed domestically. The Philippines put forward four
contentions related to living resources: China’s prevention of fishing
by Philippine vessels at Mischief Reef since 1995, and at Second
Thomas Shoal since 1995, China’s revision of the Hainan
Regulation and China’s moratorium on fishing in the South China
Sea in 2012. The Tribunal finds that China had breached Articles
77 and 56 of the Convention through the operation of its marine
surveillance vessels (which interfered with Philippines’ oil and gas
exploration) and through its moratorium on fishing which interfered
with the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, respectively.
 The Tribunal also found China in breach of Article 58 (3) of the
Convention, due to its failure to prevent fishing by Chinese flagged
ships in the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, failing to
respect the sovereign rights of the Philippines over its fisheries in its
exclusive economic zone.
ISSUE RATIO

 The Arlegui property was taken from the
owners during the Martial Law
 Now it is being used by the President either
as an office or residence
Republic vs  RTC granted a P2B decision which the
Hidalgo republic is trying to overturn
 Republic is arguing that it is immuned from
suit which is why they didn't submit any
pleadings and were then declared to be in
default
 UP entered into a construction contract with
Stern Builders. The third billing statement
was not paid by UP because of disallowance
by COA. Still did not pay even when it was
UP vs Dizon
lifted
 RTC then ruled in favor of Stern and issued a
writ of execution. Sheriff then garnished the
UP depository banks
 Albeit title to the Arlegui property remains in the name of the
petitioner Republic, it is actually the Office of the President which
has beneficial possession of and use over it since the 1975 takeover.
Accordingly, and in accord with the elementary sense of justice, it
behooves that office to make the appropriate budgetary arrangements
towards paying private respondent what is due her under the
Whether the premises. This, to us, is the right thing to do. The
judgment was fair imperatives of fair dealing demand no less. And the Court would be
- it was remiss in the discharge of its duties as dispenser of justice if it does
recomputed not exhort the Office of the President to comply with what, in law
and equity, is its obligation. If the same office will undertake to pay
its obligation with reasonable dispatch or in a manner acceptable to
the private respondent, then simple justice, while perhaps delayed,
will have its day. Private respondent is in the twilight of her life,
being now over 90 years of age. delay in the implementation of this
disposition would be a bitter cut.
 UP is a chartered institution performing a government function. As a
government instrumentality, all funds in possession of UP is
considered as a special trust fund which should be aligned to the
purpose of the institution and subject to audit by the COA.
 Being public in character, such funds cannot be subject of execution
Whether
or garnishment. Distinction must be made as to the Suability of the
government funds
State and Its liability.
are subject to
 Suability depends on the consent of the State to be sued while
garnishment – NO
Liability depends on the applicable law and established facts. While
the State may be sued, it does not mean that it is liable. Liability
arises as a matter of state suability.
 Furthermore, COA must first adjudicate the claims before execution
must proceed.

 BISUDECO was experiencing serious
business losses and was later transferred to
APT.
 APT gave the separation pay of the
terminated employees except for a few who
Republic vs NLRC
refused to receive the check because they
believed they were illegally terminated
 Later these employees were claiming their
checks but APT claims that they should
follow the COA procedure
 EPIRA was enacted and the NPC was
privatized vias PSALM.
NPC DAMA vs
 They terminated roughly 9000 employees
NPC (2017)
and they should pay the necessary separation
pay since they can no longer be reinstated
 The situation in this case, however, is different from these previous
cases. Petitioner’s Board of Trustees already issued the Resolution
on September 23, 1992 for the release of funds to pay separation
benefits to terminated employees of Bicolandia Sugar Development
Corporation. Private respondents’ checks were released by petitioner
to the Arbitration Branch of the Labor Arbiter in 1992. Under these
Whether these
circumstances, it is presumed that the funds to be used for private
employees can
respondents’ separation benefits have already been appropriated and
claim their checks
disbursed. This would account for why private respondents’ co-
without going
complainants were able to claim their checks without need of filing a
through COA –
separate claim before the Commission on Audit.
YES
 In this instance, private respondents’ separation benefits may be
released to them without filing a separate money claim before the
Commission on Audit. It would be unjust and a violation of private
respondents’ right to equal protection if they were not allowed to
claim, under the same conditions as their fellow workers, what is
rightfully due to them.
 While PSALM is directly liable for the payment of the petitioners’
entitlement, the proper procedure to enforce a judgment award
against the government is to file a separate action before the COA for
its satisfaction. We have consistently ruled that the back payment of
any compensation to public officers and employees cannot be done
through a writ of execution. The COA has exclusive jurisdiction to
 Who pays the
settle “all debts and claims of any sort due from or owing to the
necessary
Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies, and
separation pay –
instrumentalities.” The proper procedure to enforce a judgment
PSALM but
award against the government is to file a separate action before the
processed with
COA for its satisfaction.
COA
 To enforce the satisfaction of the judgment award, the amount of
which has been provisionally computed in the National Power
Corporation (NPC) List and Computation, the petitioners must now
go before the Commission on Audit (COA) and file a separate money
claim against the NPC and the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities
Management Corporation (PSALM).

 Roxas applied for a lot in the Dagat-dagatan
project. He was granted a lot at P1.5K/sq.m
(176sq.m) but due to a survey the lot was
increased to 320sq.m. The increased area is
priced at P3.5k/sq.m.
National Housing  Roxas demanded that since the increase of
Authority vs Roxas the area was unilaterally given by NHA it
should also have the same contract price of
P1.5k/sq.m.
*RTC - specific performance of giving the
awarded lot of 320sq.m at P1.5K/sq.m and
Atty's fees of 30K
 Section 26 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1445 specifically vested
in the Commission on Audit (COA) the power, authority and duty to
examine, audit and settle "all debts and claims of any sort" due from
or owing to the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including government-owned and -controlled
corporations with original charters.
 There is no question that the NHA could sue or be sued, and thus
could be held liable under the judgment rendered against it. But the
Whether NHA is universal rule remains to be that the State, although it gives its
immuned from suit consent to be sued either by general or special law, may limit the
- NO but atty's claimant's action only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to
fees must be the stage of execution. In other words, the power of the court ends
claimed via COA when the judgment is rendered because government funds and
property may not be seized pursuant to writs of execution or writs of
garnishment to satisfy such judgments. The functions and public
services of the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted
by the diversion of public fund from their legitimate and specific
objects, and as appropriated by law. The rule is based on obvious
considerations of public policy. Indeed, the disbursements of public
funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as
required by law.

 The USS Guardian, a ship of the US navy,
passed through the PH through the Sulu Sea
on the way to Indonesia. While transiting the
Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on the
northwest side of South Shoal of the
Tubbataha Reefs.
 Petitioners claim that the grounding,
salvaging and post-salvaging operations of
the USS Guardian cause and continue to
cause environmental damage of such
Arigo vs Swift magnitude as to affect several provinces in
the PH and as such, violate their
constitutional rights to a balanced and
healthful ecology.
 Further, petitioners assail certain provisions
of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA),
which they want the court to nullify for being
unconstitutional.
 Respondents claim that the petition
improperly raises issues involving the VFA
between the PH and the US.
A.3 Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances
CASES FACTS
Senate of the PH  This is a petition for certiorari and
vs Ermita prohibition proffer that the President has
abused power by issuing E.O. 464 “Ensuring
Observance of the Principles of Separation of
Powers, Adherence to the Rule on Executive
Privilege and Respect for the Rights of
Public Officials Appearing in Legislative
Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Under the
Constitution, and for Other Purposes”.
 The conduct of the US in this case, when its warship entered a
restricted area in violation of R.A. No. 10067 and caused damage to
the reef system, brings the matter within the ambit of Article 31 of
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS). 
 While historically, warships enjoy sovereign immunity from suit
as extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of the UNCLOS creates an
exception to this rule in cases where they fail to comply with the
rules and regulations of the coastal State regarding passage
through the latter’s internal waters and the territorial sea.
 Although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS, as a matter of
Whether long-standing policy the US considers itself bound by customary
respondents are international rules on the “traditional uses of the oceans” as codified
immuned from suit in UNCLOS.
– NO  In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present
controversy is beyond dispute. Although the said treaty upholds the
immunity of warships from the jurisdiction of Coastal States while
navigating the latter’s territorial sea, the flag States shall be
required to leave the territorial sea immediately if they flout the laws
and regulations of the Coastal State, and they will be liable for
damages caused by their warships or any other government vessel
operated for non-commercial purposes under Article 31.
 Note: The petition was dismissed. Petition has become moot since
the salvage operation was already accomplished. Further, the court
noted the US and PH expressed readiness to negotiate and discuss the
matter of compensation for the damage caused by the USS Guardian.
ISSUE RATIO
 Whether Sections  Even where the inquiry is in aid of legislation, there are still
2(b) and 3 of E.O. recognized exemptions to the power of inquiry, which exemptions
464 is valid – NO fall under the rubric of “executive privilege.”
 The framers of the 1987 Constitution removed the mandatory nature
of appearance by department heads during the question hour in the
present Constitution so as to conform more fully to a system of
separation of powers.
 When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department
heads are implementing the statutes which it has issued, its right to
such information is not as imperative as that of the President to
whom, as Chief Executive, such department heads must give a report
of their performance as a matter of duty, but when the inquiry in

 Petitioner Ople prays that we invalidate
Administrative Order No. 308 entitled
“Adoption of a National Computerized
Identification Reference System” on two
W/N A.O. 308 is a
important constitutional grounds, viz.: one, it
law and not an
Ople vs Torres is a usurpation of the power of Congress to
admin order –
legislate, and two, it impermissibly intrudes
YES
on our citizenry’s protected zone of privacy.
We grant the petition for the rights sought to
be vindicated by the petitioner need stronger
barriers against further erosion.
which Congress requires their appearance is “in aid of legislation”
under Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution, the appearance is
mandatory for the same reasons stated in Arnault v. Nazareno, 87
Phil. 29 (1950); The oversight function of Congress may be
facilitated by compulsory process only to the extent that it is
performed in pursuit of legislation.
 A.O. No. 308; As a Senator, petitioner is possessed of the requisite
standing to bring suit raising the issue that the issuance of A.O. No.
308 is a usurpation of legislative power.
 Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying
policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental
organs.
 A.O. No. 308 involves a subject that is not appropriate to be covered
by an administrative order.
 Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a
law, still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative
legislation because facially it violates the right to privacy. The
essence of privacy is the “right to be let alone.”
 In no uncertain terms, we also underscore that the right to privacy
does not bar all incursions into individual privacy. The right is not
intended to stifle scientific and technological advancements that
enhance public service and the common good. It merely requires that
the law be narrowly focused and a compelling interest justify such
intrusions. Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper
safeguards and well-defined standards to prevent unconstitutional
invasions. We reiterate that any law or order that invades individual
privacy will be subjected by this Court to strict scrutiny.
  The establishment of the UMID is to reduce costs , achieve
efficiency and reliability, ensure compatibility, and provide
convenience to the public. It limits the data collected which are those
usually collected by government agencies
Whether
 PGMA issued EO 420 which established the  The President may direct executive agencies to adopt such uniform
executive order
Unified Multipurpose ID System to ID data collection and format. Section 17 of Article 7 provides that
providing for a
streamline government entities which have the President shall have control over all executive departments ,
unified
their own ID systems (like GSIS, SSS, bureaus, and offices.
multipurpose
PhilHealth). EO 420 directed all government  Essentially, EO 420 is within the powers of the President as it is
system covering
Kilusang Mayo agencies and GOCCs to adopt a uniform data limited to executive departments. It does not apply to other branches
existing ID
Uno vs Director- collection and formate for their existing ID (such as the Judiciary) or COMELEC.
systems of
Gen. NEDA systems.
government  Legislative power is the authority to make laws and to alter or repeal
 Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of them. In issuing EO 420, the President did not make, alter or repeal
agencies
EO 420 as they deemed it to usurp legislative any law but merely implemented and executed existing laws.
constitutes as a
functions by the executive branch.
usurpation of  Legislation is only required when:
Furthermore, they deemed the EO to be a. The ID card system requires a special appropriation because there
legislative power –
violative of the right to privacy. exists no appropriation for such purpose
NO
b. The ID system is compulsory for ALL branches of government
c. The ID system requires collection of data beyond what is routinely
required for the intended purpose to the extent where the right to
privacy is infringed

 Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a
petition for change of first name and sex in
his birth certificate in RTC Manila, claiming
that he was a transsexual who underwent sex
reassignment surgery in Thailand, now
Silverio vs
identified as a female, and wanted to get
Republic
married. He wanted his first name changed to
"Mely" and his sex changed to "female".
 Silverio went up to SC, claiming that the
change of name and sex are allowed under
Arts. 407-413 of the CC and RA 9048.
 NAIA 3, a project between the Government
and the Philippine International Air
Terminals Co., Inc (PIATCO) was nullified
in a 2003 decision.
 Planning to put NAIA 3 facilities into
Republic vs immediate operation, the Government,
Gingoyon through expropriation filed a petition to be
entitled of a writ of possession contending
that a mere deposit of the assessed value of
the property with an authorized government
depository is enough for the entitlement to
said writ (Rule 67 of the Rules of Court).
 RA 9048 now governs the change of first name, and vests the power
and authority to entertain petitions for change of first name to the
city or municipal civil registrar or consul general concerned
 A change of name does not alter one's legal capacity or civil
status·RA 9048 does not sanction a change of first name on the
ground of sex reassignment.
 No law allows the change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on
the ground of sex reassignment; Under RA 9048, a correction in the
civil registry involving the change of sex is not a mere clerical or
typographical error·it is a substantial change for which the applicable
procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
 "Status" refers to the circumstances affecting the legal situation (that
Whether petition is is, the sum total of capacities and incapacities) of a person in view of
proper – NO his age, nationality and his family membership.
 A person's sex is an essential factor in marriage and family
relations·it is a part of a person's legal capacity and civil status.
 It is true that Article 9 of the Civil Code mandates that "[n]o judge or
court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence,
obscurity or insufficiency of the law." However, it is not a license for
courts to engage in judicial legislation. The duty of the courts is to
apply or interpret the law, not to make or amend it. In our system of
government, it is for the legislature, should it choose to do so, to
determine what guidelines should govern the recognition of the
effects of sex reassignment. The need for legislative guidelines
becomes particularly important in this case where the claims asserted
are statutebased.
 In expropriation proceedings, entitlement of writ of possession is
issued only after direct payment of just compensation is given to
property owner on the basis of fairness. The same principle applied
in the 2004 Jurisprudence Resolution and the latest expropriation law
 Whether (RA No. 8974).
expropriation can  Still, such intention the Government may have had as to the entire
be conducted by US$62.3 Million is only inferentially established. There is no clear
mere deposit of the evidence that the Government intended to offer US$62.3 Million as
assessed value of the initial payment of just compensation, the wording of the Land
the property. – NO Bank Certification notwithstanding, and credence should be given to
the consistent position of the Government on that aspect.
 The Order dated 5 January 2005 fails to establish such integral fact,
and in the absence of contravening proof, the proffered value of ₱3
Billion, as presented by the Government, should prevail.
  This complaint for gross misconduct filed
against respondent De Guzman is an offshoot
of a complaint filed by one Atty. Sansano,
relative to the alleged
incompetence/inefficiency of the RTC of
Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 31 in the
transmittal of the records of a criminal case
to the CA.
Office of the Court
 SC required De Guzman to comment on his
Adminstrator vs
alleged use of illegal drugs but he failed to
Reyes
do so (ignored SC directive). It was only a
year after (2008) when De Guzman complied
with such directive by submitting a letter. He
claimed to have lost the copy of the
resolution but did not deny the results of the
drug test.
OCA recommended that De Guzman be
dismissed from service.
 Mamiscal and Adelaidah had an argument
Mamiscal vs
and decided to divorce via kapasadan. Later,
Abdullah
Mamiscal had a change of heart
A.4 Delegation of Powers
CASES FACTS
 As dispensers of justice, all members and employees of the Judiciary
are expected to adhere strictly to the laws of the land, one of which is
Republic Act No. 9165 which prohibits the use of dangerous drugs.
 The legislative policy as embodied in Republic Act No. 9165 in
Whether his
deterring dangerous drug use by resort to sustainable programs of
dismissal was
rehabilitation and treatment must be considered in light of the
proper – YES
Supreme Court’s constitutional power of administrative supervision
over courts and court personnel. The legislative power cannot limit
the Court’s power to impose disciplinary actions against erring
justices, judges and court personnel.
 It becomes apparent that this Court does not have jurisdiction to
impose the proper disciplinary action against civil registrars. While
he is undoubtedly a member of the Judiciary as Clerk of Court of the
Whether the courts Shari'a Circuit Court, a review of the subject complaint reveals that
can reprimand Mamiscal seeks to hold Abdullah liable for registering the divorce
Abdullah when he and issuing the CRD pursuant to his duties as Circuit Registrar of
was exercising his Muslim divorces. It has been said that the test of jurisdiction is the
duty as a Civil nature of the offense and not the personality of the offender. The fact
Registrar and not that the complaint charges Abdullah for "conduct unbecoming of a
the Clerk of Court court employee" is of no moment. Well-settled is the rule that what
– NO controls is not the designation of the offense but the actual facts
recited in the complaint. Verily, unless jurisdiction has been
conferred by some legislative act, no court or tribunal can act on a
matter submitted to it.
ISSUE RATIO

 The infamous Maguindanao Massacre
happened prompting PGMA to place the
Province of Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat,
and Cotabato under a state of emergency.
GMA then transferred the supervision of the
Ampatuan vs Puno ARMM from the Office of the President to
the DILG.
 The petitioners challenged the act of the
President by claiming that it violated the
principle of local autonomy of the ARMM
and the Constitution.
 The DILG Secretary did not take over the control of the powers of
the ARMM. The laws on succession in the ARMM was followed
Whether
when the Governor of ARMM was arrested and his post vacated
delegating
 Furthermore, the President validly exercised her calling-out power to
supervision over
prevent or suppress lawless violence. This power is vested by the
the ARMM by the
Constitution in the President and does not require Congressional
President to the
authority to exercise the same.
Secretary of DILG
 Generally, such power cannot be inquired into by the Courts as the
constitutes as
invalid delegation Constitution entrusts the determination of the need for calling out the
– NO armed forces to prevent and suppress lawless violence. Unless it is
shown that such determination was attended by grave abuse of
discretion, the Court will accord respect to the President’s judgment.

 RA 8800 (Safeguard Measures Act, or SMA)
was enacted soon after the Philippines’;
ratification of the GATT and the WTO
Agreement. SMA provided structure and
mechanics for imposition of measures (ex.
tariffs) to protect domestic industries from
serious injury due to increased imports.
 Philcemcor, an association of domestic
cement manufacturers, filed a petition with
DTI seeking imposition of safeguard
Whether DTI Sec
Southern Cross measures on gray Portland cement, in
is bound by Tariff
Cement vs Cement accordance with SMA.
Commission
Manufacturers  Tariff Commission issued a report
findings. – YES
determining that serious injury; and
imminent threat of serious injury; were not
established.
 Sec. of Justice said it could not under SMA.
 Philcemcor filed a petition, seeking to have
the DTI decision and TC report set aside and
to have CA order DTI to render a decision
independent of said report, arguing that the
DTI Sec is not bound to accept the TC
report.
 The Court acknowledges the basic postulates ingrained in the
provision, and, hence, governing in this case. They are: (1) It is
Congress which authorizes the President to impose tariff rates,
import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other
duties or imposts. Thus, the authority cannot come from the Finance
Department, the National Economic Development Authority, or the
World Trade Organization, no matter how insistent or persistent
these bodies may be. (2) The authorization granted to the President
must be embodied in a law. Hence, the justification cannot be
supplied simply by inherent executive powers. It cannot arise from
administrative or executive orders promulgated by the executive
branch or from the wisdom or whim of the President. (3) The
authorization to the President can be exercised only within the
specified limits set in the law and is further subject to limitations and
restrictions which Congress may impose. Consequently, if Congress
specifies that the tariff rates should not exceed a given amount, the
President cannot impose a tariff rate that exceeds such amount. If
Congress stipulates that no duties may be imposed on the importation
of corn, the President cannot impose duties on corn, no matter how
actively the local corn producers lobby the President. Even the most
picayune of limits or restrictions imposed by Congress must be
observed by the President.
 SMA Sec. 5 (providing that the DTI Sec shall apply a general
safeguard measure upon a positive final determination of TC)
operates as a valid limitation on Presidential authority to impose
tariffs.
 Thus, there must be a positive final determination by the TC that a
product is being imported into the country in increased quantities
(whether absolute or relative to domestic production), as to be a
substantial cause of serious injury or threat to the domestic industry.
  A law (RA 9054) was passed amending
ARMM’s Organic Act and vesting it with
power to create provinces, municipalities,
cities and barangays. Pursuant to this law,
the ARMM Regional Assembly created
Shariff Kabunsuan (Muslim Mindanao
Autonomy Act 201) which comprised of the
municipalities of the 1 st  district of
Maguindanao with the exception of Cotabato
City.
Sema vs
 For the purposes of the 2007 elections,
COMELEC
COMELEC initially stated that the 1 st
district is now only made of Cotabato City
(because of the MMA 201). But it later
amended this stating that status quo should
be retained; however, just for the purposes of
the elections, the first district should be
called Shariff Kabunsuan with Cotabato City
– this is also while awaiting a decisive
declaration from Congress as to Cotabato’s
status as a legislative district.
 In 2001, the EPIRA was approved. Under the
EPIRA, a new National power Board of
Directors was constituted. Pursuant to the
EPIRA and its IRR, the NBP passed the
assailed resolutions. Said resolutions
provided for Guidelines on the Separation
Program of the NPC and the Selection and
Placement of Personnel in the NPC Table of
NPC DAMA vs Organization (legal termination and
NPC (2006) separation benefits).
 Petitioners claim that this was a violation of
the principle that delegated power cannot be
further delegated. Even assuming there was a
quorum, petitioners argue that the resolutions
did not comply with the mandatory
requirement of endorsement by the Joint
Congressional Power Commission and
approval of the President.
A.5 State Principles and Policies
CASES FACTS
 There is neither an express prohibition nor an express grant of
authority in the Constitution for Congress to delegate to regional or
local legislative bodies the power to create local government units.
However, under its plenary legislative powers, Congress can delegate
to local legislative bodies the power to create local government units,
subject to reasonable standards and provided no conflict arises with
any provision of the Constitution. In fact, Congress has delegated to
provincial boards, and city and municipal councils, the power to
create barangays within their jurisdiction, subject to compliance with
 Whether ARMM
the criteria established in the Local Government Code, and the
can create LGUs –
plebiscite requirement in Section 10, Article X of the Constitution.
NO
However, under the Local Government Code, "only x x x an Act of
Congress" can create provinces, cities or municipalities.
 Wherefore, we declare Section 19, Article VI of Republic Act No.
9054 UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it grants to the Regional
Assembly of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao the
power to create provinces and cities. Thus, we declare VOID Muslim
Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201 creating the Province of Shariff
Kabunsuan. Consequently, we rule that COMELEC Resolution No.
7902 is VALID.
 The department secretaries composing the National Power Board of
Directors (NPB) cannot delegate their duties as members of the NPB,
much less their power to vote and approve board resolutions, because
it is their personal judgment that must be exercised in the fulfillment
of such responsibility.
 The rule that requires an administrative officer to exercise his own
judgment and discretion does not preclude him from utilizing, as a
Whether validly matter of practical administrative procedure, the aid of subordinates,
issued – NO so long as it is the legally authorized official who makes the final
decision through the use of his own personal judgment.
 Where it is the representatives of the secretaries of the different
executive departments and not the secretaries themselves who
exercised judgment in passing the assailed Resolution, this violated
the duty imposed upon the specifically enumerated department heads
to employ their own sound discretion in exercising the corporate
powers of the National Power Corporation.
ISSUE RATIO

 Air Canada is an offline air carrier selling
passage tickets in the Philippines, through a
general sales agent, Aerotel. As an off-line
carrier, [Air Canada] does not have flights
originating from or coming to the Philippines
[and does not] operate any airplane [in] the
Philippines[.]
 Air Canada filed a claim for refund for more
than 5 million pesos. It claims that there was
overpayment, saying that the applicable tax
rate against it is 2.5% under the law on tax
Air Canada vs CIR
on Resident Foreign Corporations (RFCs) for
international carriers. It argues that, as an
international carrier doing business in the
Philippines, it is not subject to tax at the
regular rate of 32%.
 Air Canada also claims that it is not taxable
because its income is taxable only in Canada
because of the Philippines-Canada Treaty
(treaty). According to it, even if taxable, the
rate should not exceed 1.5% as stated in said
treaty.
 Observance of any treaty obligation binding upon the government of
the Philippines is anchored on the constitutional provision that the
Philippines “adopts the generally accepted principles of international
law as part of the law of the land[.]” Pacta sunt servanda is a
fundamental international law principle that requires agreeing parties
to comply with their treaty obligations in good faith.
 While petitioner is taxable as a resident foreign corporation under
Section 28(A)(1) of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code on its
taxable income from sale of airline tickets in the Philippines, it could
only be taxed at a maximum of 1 1/2% of gross revenues, pursuant to
Article VIII of the Republic of the Philippines-Canada Tax Treaty
 Whether the tax
that applies to petitioner as a “foreign corporation organized and
treaty should be
existing under the laws of Canada[.]” Tax treaties form part of the
upheld – YES
law of the land, and jurisprudence has applied the statutory
construction principle that specific laws prevail over general ones.
The Republic of the Philippines-Canada Tax Treaty was ratified on
December 21, 1977 and became valid and effective on that date. On
the other hand, the applicable provisions relating to the taxability of
resident foreign corporations and the rate of such tax found in the
National Internal Revenue Code became effective on January 1,
1998. Ordinarily, the later provision governs over the earlier one. In
this case, however, the provisions of the Republic of the Philippines-
Canada Tax Treaty are more specific than the provisions found in the
National Internal Revenue Code.

 Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of
members from the LGBT community. It
applied for COMELEC accreditation in
August 2009. The party posited that the
community is a marginalized and under-
Ang Ladlad vs
represented sector of society due to their
COMELEC
sexual orientation and gender identity. It
posits that its members are susceptible to
exclusion, discrimination, and violence.
 COMELEC denied based on moral grounds
(based on the bible)
 We find that Ang Ladlad has sufficiently demonstrated its
compliance with the legal requirements for accreditation. Indeed,
aside from COMELECÊs moral objection and the belated allegation
of non-existence, nowhere in the records has the respondent ever
found/ruled that Ang Ladlad is not qualified to register as a party-list
organization under any of the requisites under RA 7941 or the
Whether morality guidelines in Ang Bagong Bayani. The difference, COMELEC
should be based on claims, lies in Ang LadladÊs morality, or lack thereof.
the secular not  Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that „[n]o law
religious idea – shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
YES the free exercise thereof.‰ At bottom, what our non- establishment
clause calls for is „government neutrality in religious matters.‰
Clearly, „governmental reliance on religious justification is
inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.‰ We thus find that it was
grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to
utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang
Ladlad.

 RA 10354 was enacted in 2012. 14 petitions
for certiorari and prohibition and 2 petitions-
in-intervention were filed in response.
Among the grounds in the petitions were that
the RH Law violated the right to life of the
Imbong vs Ochoa unborn, the right to health, and right to
religious freedom, right to free speech, right
to free exercise of religion, right against
involuntary servitude, right to privacy,
invalid delegation of legislative power,
natural law, and autonomy of LGUs.
 Got married for the sake of the green card
Republic vs Albios
(marriage in jest)
Zabal vs Duterte  Boracay rehabilitation. Closed it for 6
months
 Petitioners question the closure especially
because their livelihood depends on tourism
 Evidently, with the addition of the word „primarily,‰ in Section
3.01(a) and (j) of the RH-IRR is indeed ultra vires. It contravenes
Section 4(a) of the RH Law and should, therefore, be declared
invalid. There is danger that the insertion of the qualifier „primarily
‰ will pave the way for the approval of contraceptives which may
harm or destroy the life of the unborn from conception/fertilization in
violation of Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution. With such
qualification in the RH-IRR, it appears to insinuate that a
contraceptive will only be considered as an „abortifacient‰ if its
sole known effect is abortion or, as pertinent here, the prevention of
the implantation of the fertilized ovum. For the same reason, this
definition of „contraceptive‰ would permit the approval of
 Whether the IRR
contraceptives which are actually abortifacients because of their fair-
committed ultra
sale mechanism.
vires act – YES
 Indeed, consistent with the constitutional policy prohibiting abortion,
and in line with the principle that laws should be construed in a
manner that its constitutionality is sustained, the RH Law and its
implementing rules must be consistent with each other in prohibiting
abortion. Thus, the word „primarily‰ in Section 3.01(a) and (j) of
the RH-IRR should be declared void. To uphold the validity of
Section 3.01(a) and (j) of the RH-IRR and prohibit only those
contraceptives that have the primary effect of being an abortive
would effectively „open the floodgates to the approval of
contraceptives which may harm or destroy the life of the unborn
from conception/fertilization in violation of Article II, Section 12 of
the Constitution.‰
 No less than our Constitution declares that marriage, as an inviolable
social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be
 Whether the protected by the State. It must, therefore, be safeguarded from the
marriage may be whims and caprices of the contracting parties. This Court cannot
annulled – NO leave the impression that marriage may easily be entered into when it
suits the needs of the parties, and just as easily nullified when no
longer needed.
 Whether  The activities proposed to be undertaken to rehabilitate Boracay
Proclamation 475 involved inspection, testing, demolition, relocation, and construction.
constitute an These could not have been implemented freely and smoothly with
impairment on the tourists coming in and out of the island not only because of the
right to travel – possible disruption that they may cause to the works being
NO undertaken, but primarily because their safety and convenience might
be compromised. Also, the contaminated waters in the island were
not just confined to a small manageable area. The excessive water
pollutants were all over Bolabog beach and the numerous illegal
drainpipes connected to and discharging wastewater over it originate
from different parts of the island. Indeed, the activities occasioned by
the necessary digging of these pipes and the isolation of the
contaminated beach waters to give way to treatment could not be
done in the presence of tourists. Aside from the dangers that these
contaminated waters pose, hotels, inns, and other accommodations
may not be available as they would all be inspected and checked to
determine their compliance with environmental laws. Moreover, it
bears to state that a piece-meal closure of portions of the island
would not suffice since as mentioned, illegal drainpipes extend to the
beach from various parts of Boracay. Also, most areas in the island
needed major structural rectifications because of numerous resorts
and tourism facilities which lie along easement areas, illegally
reclaimed wetlands, and of forested areas that were illegally cleared
for construction purposes. Hence, the need to close the island in its
entirety and ban tourists therefrom.