Gust! 1D Sec. 16. Report to the President and to Congress ARTICLE IX . Constitutional Commissions A. Common Provisions Sec. 1. The Constitutional Commission Sec. 2-6. Independence of the Commissions 4 Sabili v. Comelec, GR 193261, 24 April 2012 (power to promulgate own rules on pleadings and practice before it) 2 Dumarpa v. COMELEC, GR. 192249, April 2, 2013 (power to promulgate rules on pleadings and practice before) 4 Trade and Investment Development Corp. v. CSC — (supra., A6, S.1) 691 SCRA 384 (tule- making authority limited to impicmentation of laws) 9 # Funa v. Chairman, CSC, GR 191672, November 25, 2014. See. 7. Decisions of the Commissions S Fil. Engr. & Machine Shop v. Ferrer — 135 SCRA 25. [1985] (final orders reviewable by SC) © Saligumba v. CA — 117 SCRA 669 [1982] (cxtent of SC’s review power) PITC v. COA ~146 SCRA 190 [1986] (extent of SC’s review power) Cua v. COMELEC - 156 SCRA 582 [1987] (valid decision — no need for unanimity, majority vote only) Mison v. COA - 187 SCRA 445 {1990] (COA as collegial body) Paredes v. COMELEC ~127 SCRA 653 [1984] (factual findings of COMELEC binding on SC in certiorari proceedings) Ambil v. Comelec, GR 143398, October 25, 2000 (judicial review) ABS-CBN v. Comelee, 323 SCRA 811 (judicial review) Salva v. Makalintal, GR 132603, September 18, 2000 (Gudicial review) Maria Laarni L. Cayetano v. Comelec, GR 193846, 12 April 2011, Reiterating' Ambil v. Comelec: "the Court can only review via certiorari a decision, order, or ruling of the COMBLEC ¢ bane in accordance with Section 7, Article IX-A of ‘the Constitution.” © *Gualberto J. Dela Liana v. The Chairperson, Commission on Audit, GR 180989, 07 February 2012. (decisions and orders of the COA reviewable ‘by the court via a petition for certiorari refer to the COA’s quasi-judicial capacity not its quasilegislative or rule-making powers) Cagas v, COMELEC — 663 SCRA 644 2012} Sevilla v. COMELE . 203833, March 19, 2013 (majority vote of all its members) *% Reblora v AFP, GR 195842, June 18, 2013 9 Sahali v. COMELEC ~ 688 SCRA 552 (only final decisions of COMELEC subject to SC Jdicial review in election cases within the original exclusive jurisdiction of COMELEC) 2% APiocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (supra. Art 2, Sec. 26) 7 Rresede 35Sec. 8. Other functions as may be provided by law B. Civil Service Commission Sec. 1. Organization of the Commission Term @ *Gaminde v. COA, GR 140335, December 13, 2000 Fiscal Autonomy 2 CSC v. DBM ~ 482 SCRA 233 Sec. 2. Scope of the System % Cuevas v. Bacal, GR 139382, December 6, 2000 Under Civil Service Law 34 *MWSS v. Hemandez —143 SCRA 602 {1986] (par. 1) (GOC £ by special law} as NSC v. NLRC - 168 SCRA 122 * UP v. Regino 221 SCRA 598 [1993] (pa. 1) tt Mateo v. CA ~ 247 SCRA 284 [1995] (par. 1), 3 DOH v. NLRC ~ 251 SCRA 700 [1995] (par. 1) + Juco v. NLRC — 277 SCRA 528 [1997] (par. 1) % Felciano v. Gison - 629 SCRA 103 [2010} (par. 1) with charter and created GOCCs under Corporation Code 31 “BLISS v. Callejo ~ 237 SCRA 271 [1994] (par. 1) (GOCC’s without charter and created a» under corporation code) aa Postigo v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society — 479 SCRA 628 4 LRTA v. Venus ~ 485 SCRA 301 34 Trade and Investment Devt Corp v. CSC, GR 182249, March 5, 2013(includes GOCC as + part of civil service) (supra Art VI, Sec 1) Classifications and Appointments 36 HIGC v. CSC ~ 220 SCRA 148 [1993] (par. 2) (requirements in appointments) + Mauna v. CSC — 232 SCRA 388 [1994] (par. 2) (limitation on CSC's power of appointment) a Rimonte v. CSC ~ 244 SCRA 498 [1995] (par. 2), 4# Gloria v. De Guzman — 249 SCRA 126 [1995] (par. 2) (other factors for appointment) 1 Atty. Blias Omar A, Sana v, Career Executive Service Board, GR 192926, 15 November 2011. (Pres. GMA's EC 883 and Pres. Aquino's subsequent revocation of EO $83 by EO 3 Competitive 40 *Samson v. CA — 145 SCRA 654 [1986] (par. 2) (positions in competitive serviee) 36Non-competitive 4: Astraquillo v. Manglapus ~190 SCRA 280 [1990] (par. 2) (non-competitive position) 4 Office of the President v. Buenaobra ~ Si! SCRA 302 Policy-determining Primarily confidential 4s Borres v. CA - 153 SCRA 120 [1987] (par. 2) (confidential positions) # *Grino v. CSC — 194 SCRA 458 [1991] (par. 2) (test of confidentiality of positions) 4 Santos v. Macaraig ~ 208 SCRA 74 [1992] (par. 2) (security of tenure in confidential positions) 4H Hilario v, CSC — 243 SCRA 206 [1995] (par. 2) 4 Resete v. CA - 264 SCRA 147 [1996] (par. 2) (Joss of confidence) 4€ *CSC v. Salas 274 SCRA 414 [1997] (par. 2) (nature of duties determinative of the confidentiality of position) Highly technical Temporary 4° * Achacoso v. Macaraig -195 SCRA 235 [1991] (par. 2) (temporary appointments) o» Felix v. Buenaseda — 240 SCRA 139 [1995] (par. 2) 51 Pamantasan ng Maynila v. CSC — 241 SCRA 306 [1995] (par. 2) (union busting — illegal cause for dismissal) 5 Province of Camarines Sur v. CA ~ 246 SCRA 231 [1995] (par. 2) (eflect of passing. civil service exam. on temporary appointees) 5° PBZA y. Mercado ~614 SCRA 683 [2010] ot CSC v. CA ~ 635 SCRA 749 [2010] #6 De Castro v. Carlos ~ 696 SCRA 400 [ _] (assistant general manager within career executive service ; lacking eligibility) Permanent st Luego v. CSC ~ 143 SCRA 327 [1986] (par. 2) (authority limited to reviewing appointments in light of Civil Service Law) #7 Pangilinan v. Maglaya ~ 225 SCRA SII [1993] (par. 2) (security of tenure in permanent appointees) Reorganization % *Santiago v. CSC ~ 178 SRA 733 [1989] (par. 2) (“next in rank rule” not mandatory) 5 Montecillo v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 131954, June 28, 2001 (classifying positions in non-career service) 4 Gatmaitan v, Gonzales ~ 492 SCRA 591 (reassignment) 4G! Nieves v. Blanco ~ 673 SCRA 638 [2012] Appointment vs. designation ¢t Binamira v. Garrucho ~ 188 SCRA 154 [1990] (par. 2) (designation by Dept. Sec.) 37Removal for Cause / Security of Tenure Cause for removal Loss of confidence 5 *Hemnandez v. Villegas — 14 SCRA 544 [1965] (par. 3) Joss of confidence as ground for termination — expiration of term not removal from office) Abolition of office G4 *Briones v. Osmefia — 104 PHIL. 588 [1958] (par. 3) (abolition in good faith) & Eugenio v. CSC — 243 SCRA 196 {1995} (par. 3) (office created by law can only be abolished thru a law) Reorganization Ge Romualdez-Yap v. CSC - 225 SCRA 285 [1993] (par. 3) (reorganization in good faith) 61 DTI v. CSC ~227 SCRA 199 {1993} (par. 3) (reorganization not in good faith) et Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas --242 SCRA 192 [1995] (par. 3) (reorganization as management prerogative of CSC) er Chato v. Natividad — 244 SCRA 787 [1995] (par. 3) (reorganization as cause provided by law amount to reassignment) %® Divinagracia v. Sto. Tomas ~ 244 SCRA 595 [1995] (par. 3) (arbitrary transfer without just cause) # Vinzons-Chato v. Zenarosa, GR 120539, October 20, 2000 72 De Guzman v. Comelec, GR 129118, July 19,2000 % Padolina v. Fernandez, GR 133511, October 10, 2000 #4 Cuevas v, Bacal, GR 139382, December 6, 2000 Qualifications for eligibitity % Mayor v. Maceraig ~ 194 SCRA 672 [1991] (par. 3) (no retroactive effect of new eligibility qualifications) Abandonment; acceptance of incompatible position/ether employment % Canonizado v. Aguirre, 323 SCRA 312 [2001] 9 Salvador v. CA, GR 127501, May 5, 2000 Due process in removal ‘# Enrique v. CA — 229 SCRA 180 [1994] (par. 3) (concurrent jurisdiction in disciplinary matters) #4 CSC v. Magnaye ~ 619 SCRA 347 [2010] (par. 3) (tight {o due process) 8 Rubenecia v. CSC ~ 244 SCRA 640 [1995] (par. 3) (right to due process) 2 Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office Board of Directors v. Marie Jean C. Lapid, GR 191940, 12 April 201 1. (right to due process) Security of tenure 2¢Chua v, CSC ~ 206 SCRA 65 [1992] (par. 3) ssNLTD v. CSC ~ 221 SCRA 145 (par. 3) (security of tenure) 38#Cabagnot v. CSC - 223 SCRA 59 (par. 3) (security of tenure) # Marohombsar v, CA, GR 126481, February 18, 2000 % Ong v. OP — 664 SCRA 413 [2012] Electioneering or Partisan Political Activity # *Santos v. Yatco — 106 PHIL 21 ‘88 People v. De Venecia - 14 SCRA 864 [1965] (par. 4) Right to Self-Organization and Right to Strike #1 SSS Employees v. CA - 175 SCRA 686 [1989] (par. 5) 4 Bangalisan v. CA ~ 276 SCRA 557 [1997] (par. 5) 41 Jacinto v.CA ~ 281 SCRA 557 [1997] (par. 5) 42 De la Cruz v. CA ~ 305 SCRA 303 3 *GSIS v. Kapisanan - 510 SCRA 622 (no strike) Temporary Employees ‘Gloria v. CA, GR 119903, August 15,2000 Sec. 3. Powers uf the Commission 495 ¥ Light Railway Transit Authority v. alvania, GR 192074, June 10, 2014 Sec. 4, Oath to Defend the Constitution Sec. 5. Standardization of Compensation See. 6. Political Lame Ducks See. 7. Political Opportunism and Spoils % “Flores v, Drilon ~ 223 SCRA 568 [1993] (supra, Art. 7, Sec. 13) (prohibition against designation of elective officer during tenure) 9 RE: Gross Violation of Civil Service Law on the Prohibition Against Dual Employment and Double Compensation in the Government Service Committed by Mr. Eduardo V. Escala, SC @% Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division, Office of Administrative Services., A.M. No. 2011-04-8C, 05 Faly 2011. ‘ La Carlota City v. Rojo, GR 181367, 24 April 2012 (prohibition against designation of elective officer during tenure) ® Posadas v. Sandiganbayan, GR 168951 and 169000, July 17, 2013 ; 701 SCRA 405 (prohibition to holding any other office or position in the govt) Chancellor of U.P. appointed as Director of Technology Management Center ; invalid Sec. 8. Additional or Double Compensation Present, Emolument, Office or Title from a Foreign State fw *Saduesta v. Municipality of Surigao ~ 72 PHIL. 482 [1941] (specific authority from law to review additional compensation) fo Peralta v. Mathay — 38 SCRA 296 [1971] (purpose of prohibitioy public trust) public office is a 39bt NEA v. CSC ~ 611 SCRA 14 [2010] (double compensation) 5 Yap v. COA~ 619 SCRA 154 [2010] (double compensation) 4 Sergio I. Carbonilla, et al. v. Board of Airlines, GR 193247; Office of the President v. Pr Board of Airlines, GR 194276, 14 September 2011. (overtime pay, travel and meal allowances paid after regular office hours do not constitute double compensation) 6 PEZA V. COA -675 SCRA 513 [2012] (oT Dimagiba v. Espartero — 676 SCRA 420 (2012] 19 Ocampo v COA, GR 188716, June 10, 2013 (retiree receiving pension can continue to receive the same even if he accepts another govt office or position) C. Commission on Elections See. 1. Composition, quatijications, appointment. term 101 Matibag v. Benipayo ~ 380 SCRA 49 Wo *Cayetano v. Monsod ~ 201 SCRA 210 [1991] (meaning of practice of law) "" Brillantes v. Yorac — 192 SCRA 358 [1990] (appointment in temporary / acting capacity) Sec. 2. Powers and Functions of COMELEC Administrative power "2 Afiado v. Comelec, GR 141787, September 18. 2000 (power to enforce; zecall) '8 Columbres v. Comelec, GR 142038, September 18, 2000 (power to enforce: recall) ''t Sahali v. Comelee, GR 134169, February 2, 2000 (power to enforce; recall) tS Claudio v. Comelee, GR 140560, May 4, 2000 (power to enforce; recall) Ne De Guzman v. Comelec, GR 129118, July 19, 2000 (power to enforce: reel!) Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147571, May 3, 2001 4 Information Technology Foundation v. Comelee, GR 159139, Jan. 13, 2004 1 Buac v. Comelec, 421 SCRA 92 he Capalla v, COMELEC ~ 673: SCRA 1 [2012] 1 Dumarpa v. COMELEC, GR, 192249, April 2, 2013(supra Art IX-A, Sec 6) Election contests bt Flores v. COMELEC - 184 SCRA 484 [1990] (bray. clections appeal to COMELEC) bs Galido v. COMELEC ~ 193 SCRA 78 [1991] (jurisdiction of SC over COMELEC’s decision 9 Mercado v. BES ~ 243 SCRA 422 [1995] (SK elections) OF Relampagos v. Cumba — 243 SCRA 690 [1995] (power to issue writs of certiorari, 47 prohibition and manclamus) '%6 People v. Delgado ~ 189 SCRA 715 [1990] (COMELEC subject to authority of trial Judge) 34 Garces v. CA ~ 259 SCRA 99 [1996] (adjudicatory / quasi-judicial power) 48 Zarate v. Comelec and Lallave - GR 129096 [November 19, 1999} (division before en bane) 27 Regalado v. CA, GR 115962, February 15, 2000 (questions affecting elections) ‘80 Facinar v. People, GR 140850-51, May 4, 2000 (questions affecting elections) Bi Tan v. Comelec, GR 148575, Dec. 10, 2003 pt Alauya v, Comelec, GRI52151, Jan. 22, 2003 3 Cipriano v Comelec, GR 158830, Aug 10, 2004 40Powers not given Deputizing law enforcement agencies 8 People v. Basilla — 179 SCRA 87 [1989] {power to dept fiscal) Registration of parties and organizations fs LDP v. Comelec, GR 161265, Feb. 24, 2004 6 * Atienza v. COMELEC ~ 612 SCRA 761 [2010] #7 Lokin v. COMELEC ~ 674 SCRA 538 [2012] 9 Dayao v. COMELEC, GR 193643, Jan 29, 2013 (power to review and cancei #a registration) (supra Art VI, sec 5) (fy Alcantara v. COMELEC, GR 203646, April 16, 213 (power to register political parties) Ho Senior Citizens Party-list v. COMELEC (power to registes party-list) Prosecution of election offenses Itt People v. Inting ~ 187 SCRA 788 [1990] (power to conduct preliminary investigation) '# Corpus v. Tanodbayan ~ 149 SCRA 281 [1987] (exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute election offenses) ' COMELEC y. Silva ~286 SCRA 177 [1998] (power to conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute) #4 Comelee v. Hon, Espanol, GR 149164, Dec. 10, 2003, Ise "Arroyo v. DOJ — 681 SCRA 181 [2012] Recommendatory powers Sec. 3. Commission Decisions Ww Pangitinan v. COMBLEC ~ 228 SCRA 36 [1993] Gurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies) {Wt Sarmiento v. Comelee ~ 212 SCRA 307 [1992] (COMELEC cn bane authority on MR) (4 Carnicosa v. COMELEC — 282 SCRA $12 [1997] (Division- hear and decide cases, en banc =MR) "1 Ramas v, COMELEC — 286 SCRA 189 [1998] (writ of execution) (s Garvida v, Sales ~ 271 SCRA 767 [1997] (division only can hear and decide cases) 1 Velayo v. Comelec, GR 135613, March 9, 2000 (5t Sebastian v. Comelec, GR 139573-75, March 7, 2000 '53 Soller v. Comelee, GR 139853, September 5, 2000 (© Barroso v. Ampig, et al., GR 138218, March 17, 2000 ‘s< Maruhom v. Comelec, GR 139357, May 5, 2000 ‘st Balindong v. Comelec, GR 153991-92, Oct. 16, 2003 's#Jaramilla v, Comelec, GR 155717, Oct. 23, 2003 ‘56 Bautista v. Comelec, GR 154796-97, Oct. 23, 2003, (©9 De Liana v. Comelec, GR 152080, Nov. 28, 2003 le oRepol v. Comelec, GR 151418, Apr. 28, 2004 ‘1 Pedragoza v. COMELEC — 496 SCRA 513 41bt Cayetano v. COMELEC ~ 479 SERA 514 £8 Munoz v. COMELE¢ — 495 SCRA 407 WA Tan v. COMELEG # $07 SCRA 352 We Enriquel v. COMELEC - 613 SCRA 809 & Mendoza v. COMELEC ~ 616 $CRA 443 “7 Maria Lami L. Cayetano v. Comelec, GR 193846, 12 April 2011 (also in See 7, Art IXA): (only final orders of the COMELEC in Division may be raised before the CCMELEC en bane; Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987. Constitution mandates that only motions for reconsideration of final decisions shall be decided by the COMELEC en banc.) ilosios v. COMELEC, GR 205033, June 18, 2013 (motion for rewonsideration should be decided en bane) See. 4. Regulation of Public Utilities, Media, Franchises {8 Sanidad v. COMELEC ~ 181 SCRA 529 [1990] (no power to regulate media practitioners during plebiscite) lef NPC v. COMELEC ~ 207 SCRA 1 {1992} (power to supervise franchises) Ne Osmefiar COMELEC — 199 SCRA 750 [1991] (regulation of media to ensure equal opportunity) (31 Telecom v. COMELEC - 289 SCRA 337 [1998] (supra, Art, 8, See. 1 and See. 5) (grant free time during election period) (4 Bankers Association v, COMELEC, GR 206794, November 26, 2013 (Money Ban 1 Resoflution- power of COMLEC over BSP) 2A Diocese of Bacolod v, COMELEC (supra., Art. 2, See, AAA I-UTAK v. COMELEC, GR 206020, April 14, 2015 6) Sec. 5. Pardons, etc. 15 & Risos-Vidal v. COME: 1 € GMA Network v. CON and Estrada (supra, Art. 7, Sec. 19) EC and Cayetano, GR 205357, September 2, 2014 Sec. 6-8. Putitical Rights A Tecson v. Comelec, 423 SCRA 277 Sec. 9. “Blection Period” See. 10, Equal Protection of Candidates See. 11, Fiscal Autonomy D. Commission oa Audit Sec. 1. Purpose, organization, composition, appointment [ay shtison v. COA ~ 187 SCRA 445 [1990] (COA as collegial body) 0% Puna v. COA, GR 192791, 24 April 2012 (promotions! appointments: nothing in See. 1(2), Aricle IX(D) explicitly precludes a promotional appointment irom Commiseioner > Chairman) Sec. 2. Powers and Functions Examine and audit Government revenues 42Government expenditures (8 *Blue Bar Coconut Phil. Tantuico ~ 163 SCRA 716 [1988] (post-audit authority) 18! DBP v. COA ~ 231 SCRA 202 [1994] (post-audit authority) 182 Bslao v. COA ~ 236 SCRA 161 [1994] (limitations to post-audit authority) 1 J.P.P, Manacop v. CA ~ 266 SCRA 235 [1997] (limitations to post- audit authority) (+ Polloso v. Gangan, GR 140563, July 14, 2000 (prevention of unnecessary expenses) 1&5 Uy v. COA, GR 130685, March 21, 2000 (prevention of unnecessary expenses) Ise Aguinaldo v. Sandiganbayan ~ 265 SCRA 121 [1996] (independent administrative ruling) '"7 DBP v COA, 422 SCRA 459. [20043 (SLP) (8¢ Home Dev’t Mutual Fund v. COA, GR 142297, Sune 15, 2004. f@ DBP v. COA — 498 SCRA 537 [2006] (70 Nava v. Palattao ~ 499 SCRA 745 [2006] I Guallerto Dela Llana v. Commission on Audit, GR 180989, 07 February 2012. (conduct of a pre-audit is not a mandatory duty that this Court may compel the COA fp, 10 Perform) Candelario L. Versoza, Jr. v. Guillermo N. Carague, GR 157838, 07 February 2012. '% Philippine Coconut v. Republic — 663 SCRA 514 {2012} f Funa v. MECO, G.R. 193462, February 2, 2014 (supra., A8, 5.8) Audit jurisdiction FF Caltex v. COA —208 SCRA 726 [1992] (audit power) {$6 Mamaril v. Domingo ~ 227 SCRA 206 [1993] (audit power) ‘87 Philippine Airlines v. COA ~ 245 SCRA 39 [1995] (power over GOCC) ABCIR y. COA = 218 SCRA 203 [1993] (independent commission, not an executive agency) IM CSC v, Pobre, GR 160568, Sept 15, 2004 #0 Luciano Veloso, et al. v. Commission on Audit, GR 193677, 06 September 2011 41 Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit, GR 177131, 07 June 2011 2A De la Liana v. COA -665 SCRA 176 [2012] Settle government accounts #3 *POI v. Aud. Gen. ~ 94 PHIL, 868 [1953-1954] (power to settle accounts) a4 SICNA v. Republic ~21 SCRA 40 [1967] (power to act on specific debt claim) 2s Dingcong v. Guingona— 162 SCRA 782 [1988] (power to disapprove payment) tt NHC v. COA ~ 226 SCRA 55 [1993] (power to disapprove funds) 24 Buro-Med v. Prov. of Batangas ~ 495 SCRA 30 (2006] 28 Rallos v. City of Cebu ~ 704 SCRA 378 21 Ocampo v. COA — 698 SCRA 136 Define scope and techniques for its own auditing procedures w Danville Maritime v. COA — 175 SCRA 701 [1989] (power to determine meaning of public bidding) &!_ The Special Audit Team v. CA, GR 174788, April 11, 2013 (power to define the scope of its audit and examination) 43Promulgate accounting and auditing rules #2 Leycano v. COA — 482 SCRA 215 Decide administrative cases involving expenditure of public funds 2 NCMH v. COA ~265 SCRA 390 [1996] (discretion to most competent people) 21 Ramos v. Aquino 39 SCRA 256 [1971] y) 2b Dimapilis- Baldoz v. COA, GR 199114, July 16, 2013 (COA has authority to determine the legality of expenditure) 9supra Art Hl, Sec 27) 417 City of Basilan v. Hechanova ~ $8 SCRA 711 [1974] (city council with no power to abolish COA positior Sec. 3. Exemption from Jurisdiction 4i8 Luciano Veloso v. Commission on Audit, GR 193677, 06 September 2011 Sec. 4. Annual ReportARTICLE X, Local Government Sec. 1. Units of Local Government Sec. 2. Local Autonomy ! #San Juan v. CSC 196 SCRA 69 [1991] (power of governor to recommend) 2 Drilon v, Lim— 235 SCRA 135 [1994] (supervision) 2 Judge Leynes v. COA, GR No. 143596, Dec. 11, 2003 4 CREBA v. Sec. of DAR—GR 183409, June 18, 2010 5 Camp John Hay Devt. Corp. v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, GR 169234, October 2,2013 © Imbong v. Ochoa, GR No. 204819, April 8, 2014 (RH law) (cupra Art II, Sec 12) 1 _AMbelgica v, Ochoa. GR 208556, 19 November 2013 (PDAF) 8° City of General Santos v. COA, GR 199439, April 22, 2014 4 Demaala v. COA, (supra, Art. 2, Sec. 25) © 2 Pale v. Casino (supra. At 2, Seo. 16); Art. 6, See, 5(2): Att. 8, See. (5) "HSIS v. Lim, GR 137836, Novembe: 25, 2014 See. 3. Local Government Code 2 Garcia v. COMELEC — 227 SCRA 100 [1993] (recall of governor) Malonzo v. COMELEC ~ 269 SCRA 380 [1997] (vecali of mayor) 1 Malonzo v. Zamora, 323 SCRA 875 (recall) 5 &Demaala v. COA (supra., Art. 2, See, 25) t $Jalover v. Osmeiia, GR 209286, Sept. 23, 2014 Sec. 4. The President and Local governments 44 Ganzon v. CA — 209 SCRA 271 #@ Joson v. Torres — 290 SCRA 279 (supra, Art. 7, Sec. 17) (disciplining v. investigative authority) Bito-Onon v. Femandez ~ 350 SCRA 732 © National Liga v. Paredes — 439 SCRA 130 [2004] 21 SIS v. Atienza — 545 SCRA 92 [2009] #2 ‘Province of Negros Ocvidental y. COA ~ 631 SCRA 431 [2010] (power of general supervision v power of control) % League of Province of the PH v. DENR, GR 175368, April 11, 2013 (general supervision of the President) 2# Republic v. Bayao, GR 179492, June 5 , 2013 (general supervision of the President) Sec. 5. Sources of Revenue Powers of Local Government a¢ LTO v. City of Butuan, 322 SCRA 805 2£ Acebedo Optical v. CA, GR 100152, March 31, 2000 47 Lina v. Pano, G.R. No. 129093, August 30, 2001 2s PLDT v. City of Davao, GR 143867, March. 25, 200347 Film Devt. Council of PH v. SM Prime Holdings, INC. GR 197937, April 3, 2013 (power to tax of LGU) 4° Pelizioy Realty Corp v. Province of Benguet, GR 183137, April 10, 2013 (Congress limitation) # Ruzol v Sandiganbayan, GR 186739-960, Apri! 17, 2013 (power to create source of revenue and levy fees) * Smart Communications v. Municipality of Malvar, GR 204429, Feb 18, 2014 ((power to create source of revenue and levy fees) gs *Demaala v. COA (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 25) 34. Ca Suerte v. CA, (supra., Art. 6, Sec. 28(2) as of Villafuerte v. Robredo, GR 195390, December 10, 2014 Sec. 6. Share in the National Taxes(IRA) 36 Pimentel v. Aguirre - GR 132988, July 19, 2000 9 Province of Batangas — 429 SCRA 736 [2004] 3? *Altemative Center v. Zamora ~ 459 SCRA 578 [2005] (not to pass law that will prevent the 44 release of funds) 5 League of Cities v. Comelec, GR 176951, February 15, 2011, April £2, 2011 Sec. 7. Share in Proceeds from Natural Resources Sec. 8. Term of Local Officials 4 David v. COMELEC — 271 SCRA 90 [1997] (term of brgy. officials) 4 *Borja v. COMELEC - 295 SCRA 157 (term limit for local elective officials) # *Adormeo v. COMELEC — 376 SCRA 90 (winner of recall election) B *Socrates v. COMELEC ~ GR No. 154152, November 12, 2002 (subsequent election) 4 *Latasa v. Comelec, GR No. 154829, Dec. 10, 2003 {component city) * *Ong. V. Alegre —479 SCRA 473 (recall election in the mid-way of the term) 4 Rivera v. COMELEC ~ 523 SCRA 41 4 Monteban v. COMELEC ~ 551 SCRA 50 [2008] ‘4s Laceda v. Lumena ~GR No. 182867, Novernber 25, 2008 #f *Dizon v, COMELEC ~ 377 SCRA 589 (2009](involuntary severance of office) ‘® *Bolos v. COMELEC ~ 581 SCRA 786 [2009] (abandonmert) $1 *Aldovino v. COMELEC — 609 SCRA 234 [2009] (interruption) pam Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR No. 196271, February ? 2012 “reconsideration; holdover provision in RA 9054 uncouistitutional, as Congress in passing RA 10153 has made clear) % Abundo v. COMELEC, GR No. 201716, Jan 8, 2013 (rules regarding the three-term limit) A Naval v. COMELEC, GR 207851, July 8, 2014 See. 9. Sectoral Representation Sec. 10. Creation, division of boundaries & *Tan v. COMELEC ~ 142 SCRA 727 [1986] (creation of a province) $ Tobias v. Abalos ~ 239 SCRA 106 [1994] (metes and bounds) $4 Mun. of Jimenez v. Judge Baz — 265 SCRA 182 [1996] (de jure corporation) 46Cawaling v. COMELEC ~ GR 146319, October 26, 2001 (supra) 5 *League of Cities v. COMELEC - GR 176951, 177499, 178056, February 15, 2011 and April 12, 2011 (Final Resolution) sf Navarro v. Exec. Sec. Erinita - GR 180050, April 12, 2011 (Dinagat Island) Cagas v. COMELEC, GR 209185, October 25, 2013 (conduct of plebiscite) 61 XUmali v. COMELEC, GR 203974, April 22, 2014 Sec. 11. Metropolitan political subdivisions ¢2 *MMDA v. Gatin — GR 130230, April 15, 2005(no authority to confiscate driver’s license) See. 12. Classification of Cities Sec. 13. Common Efforts, services, and resources Sec. 14. Regional development councils © Pimentel v. Cchoa — 676 SCRA 351 [2012] Sec. 15, Purpose, and how many Autonomous Regions S+ Disomangcop v. Sec. of PPWH, GR 149848; Nov. 25, 2004 Sec. 16. Authority of the President over the Autonomous Region Ss Datu Zaldy Uy Ampatuan v. Hon. Ronaldo Puno, GR 190259, 07 June 2011 (Proclamation 1946 and AOs 273 and 273-A do not violate the principle of local autonomy under Section 16, Article X of the Constitution, and Section 1, Article V of the Expanded ARMM Organic Act) 6& Kulayan v, Tan -675 SCRA 482 [2012] See. 17, Authority of the National Government over the Autonomous Region o7 Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR 196271, 18 October 2011 (the framers decided to reinstate the provision in order to make it clear, once and forall, that these are the limits of the powers of the autonomous government; those not enumerated are actually to be exercised by the national government; the autonomy granted to the ARMM cannot be invoked to defeat national policies and concerns. Since the synchronization of elections is not just fegional concern but a national one, the ARMM is subject to it; the regional autonomy granied to the ARMM cannot be used to exempt the region from having t0 act in accordance with a national Policy mandated by no less than the Constitution) Sec. 18.-19.Organte Act for the Autonomous Regions G@ *Abbas v. COMBLEC ~ 179 SCRA 287 [1989] (ARMM) &1 *Ondillos v. COMELEC ~ 192 SCRA 100 [1990] (CAR) % =Badua v. CBA — 194 SCRA 101 [1991] (tribal courts) 3H Atitiw v. Zamora — 471 SCRA 329 [2005] 4 Sema v. COMELEC — GR 177597, July 16, 2008 B. Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel (supra. A7, Sec. 1) 4 *Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, February 2012 (means thet only‘amendments to, or revisions of, the Organic Act constitutionally-essential to the creation 47of autonomous regions ~i.e., those aspects specifically mentioned in the Constitution which Congress must provide for in the Organic Act ~ requise ratification through a plebiscite) Ser. 20. Legislative Power See. 21. Peace and order, defense, nationai security ARTICLE Accountavility of Public Officers Sec. 1. Public office is a Public irust | Hipolito v. Mergas — 195 SCRA 6 [1991] (moonlighting) 2 Bornasal, Jr. v. Montes — 280 SCRA 181 [1997] (unauthorized acts) 3 Almario v. Resus ~ AM No. P941076 [November 22, 1999) + Juan v. People, GR 132378, January 18, 2000 S Re: AWOL of Antonio Makalintal, AM 99-1 1-06-SC, February 15, 2000 ¢ Estrella v. Sandiganbayan, GR. 125160, June 20, 2000 7 Malbas v. Blanco, A.M. P-99-1359, December 12, 20048 $ Manaois v. Leomo, AM. MTJ-03-1492, Aug. 26, 2003 7 Re: Mr. Gideon Alibang, AM 2003-11-SC June 15, 2004 fe ABAKADA v. Purisima — 562 SCRA 251 [2008] Salumbides v. OMB, GR 180917, April 23, 2010 (2 Office of the Court Admin y. Buencamino, AM P-05-205 1 January 21, 2014 x Belgica v. Ochoa, GR 208566, November 19, 2013. See. 2. Impeachment: Who can be impeached/Grounds for impeachment tt Office of the Ombudsman v. CA ~ 452 SCRA 714 {2005] (exclusive list) if Gonzales v. Office of the President, GR 196231, Jan 28, 2013 ( Congress’ power to determine modes of removal) Sec, 3. Procedure and Penalty le “In re Gonzales — 160 SCRA 771 [1988] (disbarment against an impea: read with Marcoleta v. Brawner — $82 SCRA 474 [2009}) " Romulo v. Yhiguez~ 141 SCRA 260 [1986] (Presidential impeachment) Is *Estrada y. Desierto, GR 146740-15 and GR 146738, March 2, 2001 and MR-GR 146710-15 and 146738, April 3, 2001 (judgment in impeachment) (f “Francisco v. HR —GR 160261, November 10, 2003 (to initiate meaning) 40 “Gutierrez v. House of Representatives ~GR 193459, February 15, 201] (one-year bar) ble public officer; Sec. 4. The Sandiganbayan 48,#! Nufiez.v. Sandiganbayan ~ 111 SCRA 433 [1982] (creation of Sandiganbayan) 2 *Lecaros v. Sandiganbayan ~ 128 SCRA 324 (1984] (crimes in relation to public offfice) % Cunanan v. Arceo ~242 SCRA 88 [1995] (averment of the nature of the crime committed) at Binay v. Sandiganbayan — GR No. 120681-83 (October I, 1999) 46 Mayor Layus v, Sandiganbayan — GR 134272, December 8, 1999 2b Abbot v. Mapayo, GR 134102, Suly 6, 2000 Sec. 5-6 The Ombudsman 21 Baluyot v. Hulganza, GR 136374, February 9, 2000 28 Garcia v. Ombudsman, GR 127710, February 16, 2000 #4 Lapid v. CA, GR 142261, June 29, 2000 30 Tirol v. COA, GR 133954, August 3, 2000 31 Mamburao v. Ombudsman, GR 139141-42, November !5, 2000 4% Salvador v. Desierto, 420 SCRA 76 (Ombudsman’s discretion on w/n a criminal case should be filed.) 33 Biraogo v. PTC —(supra., A) Sec. 7. Tanodbayan now the Special Prosecutor 34 *Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan ~ 160 SCRA 843 [1988} (powers) 35 Quimpo v. Tanodbayan — 146 SCRA 137 [1986] Gurisdiction) 3 Acop v. Ombudsman — 248 SCRA 566 [1995] (prosecutory powers: distinction in preliminary investigation and duty to investigate) 34 Camanag v. Hon Guerrero — 268 SCRA 473 [1997] (powers as “provided by law”) 4g Macalinao v. Sandiganbayan ~376 SCRA 452 97 Office of the Ombudsman y. Valera— 471 SCRA 715 [2005] 4 Percz.v, Sandiganbayan — 503 SCRA 252 41 Calingin v. Desierto — 529 SCRA 720 [2007] 42 Lazatin v. Desierto ~ 588 SCRA 285 [2009] See. 8-11. Qualifications, appointment, and term of the Ombudsman 4B OMB v. CSC - 528 SCRA 535 [2007] Sec. 12. Duty 10 act o complaints vs. gov't. officials P satmonte © Vasquez — 244 SCRA 286 [1995] (form and manner of complaint — unsigned ietter) 4 Raro v. Sandiganbayan, GR 108431, July 14,2000 # Bautista v. Sandiganbayan, GR 136082, May 12, 2000 4 Roxas v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 114944, June 19, 2001 48 Kara-an v. Ombudsman, GR 119990, June 21, 2004 People v. Sandiganbayan — 451 SCRA-413 [2005] $0 Laxina v. Ombudsman ~ 471 SCRA 542 [2005] 4 Gemma P, Cabalit v. Commission on Audit-Region VI, GR 180236, 17 January 2012 (power of the Ombudsman to deternine and impose administrative liability is mandatory) 68 *Gonzales IIt v. OP -679 SCRA 614 [2012] ‘% *Gonzales Ill v. OP, GR 196231, January 28, 2014 Sec. 13. Powers and Responsibilities of Ombudsman; deputies 49In General 4 *Cruz v. Sandiganbayan — 194 SCRA 474 [1991] & Maceda v. Vasquez - 221 SCRA 464 [1993] (Judi & Macalino v. Sandiganbayan — 376 SCRA 452 $% Honasan v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors, GR 159747, Apr. 13, 2004 S Samson v OMB, GK 117741, Sept. 29, 2004 97 Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, GR 162214, Nov. 11,2004 Go Khan v. OMB - 495 SCRA 452 Gi OMB v. Estandarte — 521 SCRA 155 [2007] G2 *Salvador v. Mapa ~ 539 SCRA 34 [200] (no power to decide const’l. questions) @ OMB v. Masing ~ 542 SCRA 253 [2008] ot Medina v. COA — 543 SCRA 684 £2008] G Borja v. People ~ 553 SCRA 250 [2008] 6¢ Biraogo v. PTC —(supra.) G1 Ombudsman v. Chavez, GR 172206, July 3, 2013 (power to promulgate own rules) cs Ampil v. Ombudsman, GR 192685, July 31, 2013 ct Hemandez v. Ombudsman, GR 197307, Feb 26, 2014 (power of the OMB to dismiss v. power to recommend the removal) 7 Alejandro v. OMB Fact-inding Bureau ~ 695 SCRA 35 (jurisdiction over administration cases of elective officials) -oncurrent jurisdiction with PCGG) wy, supra Art. 8) Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties YH *Buenaseda v. Flavier ~226 SCRA 645 [1993] (when to suspend) at Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole — 251 SCRA 243 [1995] (nature) ‘® Vesquez v. Hobilla-Alinio ~271 SCRA 67 {1997] (not in relation to duties) tt OMB v. CA-491 SCRA 92 35 OMB v. Madriaga — 503 SCRA 631 4% OMB v. CA — 507 SCRA 593 Estorja v, Ranada ~ 492 SCRA 652 7@ OMB v. Lucero ~ 508 SCRA 593 #4 Balbastro v. Juinio ~ 527 SCRA 680 [2007] gy OMB v. CA ~ 527 SCRA 798 {2007] 31 COA ~ 529 SCRA 245 [2007] @2 OMB v. Santiago ~ 533 SCRA 305 [2007] #3 Gobenciong v. CA — 550 SCRA 502 [2008] 34 Marohomsalic v. Cole - 547 SCRA 98 § OMB v. Lisondra — 548 SCRA 83 ‘4% Miro v. Abugan ~ 549 SCRA 34 37 Cesa v, OMB ~ 553 SCRA 357 a CMB v, De Sahagun — 562 SCRA 122 31 OMB v. Samaniego — 564 SCRA 502 v Boncalon v. OMB — GR 171812, December 24, 2008 41 OMB v. Beltran ~ 588 SCRA 574 [2009] ‘? OMB v. Apolonio, GR 165132, 07 March 2012 (power to directly impose administrative penallies, including removal from office) 50Jurisdiction over Criminal Cases ® Natividad v. Felix -229 SCRA 680 [1994] (amount) 4 *Lastimosa v. Vasquez ~ 243 SCRA 497 [1995] (prosecutor's assistance) ‘4 *Presidential v. Desierto — 528 SCRA 20 {2007} (exception to the non-interference) % Busuego v. Office of Ombudsman, GR 196842, October 9, 2013 (concurrent jurisdiction to investigate offenses) Fact-finding distinguished from Preliminary Investigation 47 Raro v. Sandiganbayan, GR 108431, July 14, 2000 498 Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, GR 148468, Jan, 28, 2003, See. 14, Fiscal Autonomy of Ombudsman Sec. 15. Exemption of Gov't from prescription, laches, estoppel 9 Heirs of Gregorio Licaros v. SB, GR 157438, Oct. 18, 2004 (co *Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. OMB Desierto, GR 135715, 13 April 2011. (reiterating Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans ¥. Desierto, GR 130140; provision applies only to eivil actions for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, and not to criminal eases) Sec. 16, Financia! Accommodation Sec. 17. Disclosure of Assets Sec. 18. Allegiance of public officers fel *Caasi v. CA ~ 191 SCRA 229 [1990] (foreign citizen) fez Sampayan v. Daza ~ 213 SCRA 807 [1992] (foreign citizen) $1ARTICLE NIL National Economy and Patrimony Sec. 1. General Economic Pelicy Sec. 2. Natural Resources Alienation # Sta, Rosa Mining v. Leido ~ 156 SCRA 1 [1987] (mining claims) 2 San Miguel Corporation v, CA ~ 185 SCRA 722 [1990] (Possession in the concept of an owner) 3 Republic v. Bantigue Point Development Corporation, GR 162322, 14 March 2012 (burden on applicant to prove land sought to be registered is alienable or disposable based on a positive act of the government) 4 Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, GR 179987, September 3, 2013 (only agricultural lands can he alienated) Utilization § Miners v. Factoran - 240 SCRA 100 [1995] (jura regalia) & Tano v. Socrates ~278 SCRA 154 [1997] (subsistence fishermen) 7 Villaflor v. CA — 280 SCRA 297 [1997] (private ownership) 8 Republic v. CA and RREC ~ GR 103882 [November 25. 1998] 299 SCRA 199 4 Republic v. Rosemoor Mining and Dev’t Corp., GR 149927, Mar. 30, 2004, Art. XIL lo Alvarez v. PICOP ~ 606 SCRA 444 [2009] 4 TID v. PSALM -682 SCRA 602 [2012] Public Domain and Regalian Doctrine 2 Land Mgt. Bureau v. CA, GR 112567, February 7, 2000 8 Republic v, De Guzman, GR 105630, February 23, 2000 if Pua v. CA, GR 134992, November 20, 2000 Is Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, GR 135385, December 6, 2000 ts Chavez v, PEA, GR 133250, July 9, 2002 1 *La Bugal-B’laan y. Ramos, GR 127872, Dec. 1, 2004 (Regalian Doctrine) Jt Dipidio v. Gozun — 485 SCRA 586 19 Chavez v. NHA ~ 530 SCRA 235 [2007] do Republic v. Vda. De Jason, GR 163767, March 10, 2014(State ownership) 2! Republic v. Remman Enterprises, GR 199310, February 19, 2014 (burden of proof) 22 4 Narra v, Redmont, GR 195580 , January 28, 2013 Sec. 3. Lands of the Publie Domain % Dir. of Lands v. Aquino ~ 192 SCRA 296 [1990] (power te 44 Republic v. CA — 160 SCRA 228 claim) & "Dir. of Lands v. IAC — 146 SCRA 509 [1986] (right of corporations to acquire land) 4% Chavez v. PEA, supra. 27 Republic v. Southside ~ 502 SCRA 587 8 Republic v. T.A.N — 555 SCRA 477 [2008] 24 Fortuna v. Republic, GR 173423, March 5, 2014 classify) [1988] (conversion of land by perfection of a mining 52Sec. 4. Forest Lands and Parks Sec. 5. Ancestral Lands and Domain 7° *Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, GR 135385, December 6, 2000 (IPRA Law) 41 >& Paje v. Casifio (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 16; Art. 6, Sec. 5(2): Art. 8, Sec. 5(5) and, Art. 10, Sec. 2 See. 6. Common Good % Telebap v. COMELEC — 289 SCRA 337 [1998] (supra, Art. 8, Sec. } and Sec. 5, and Art. 9- ® C, Sec. 4) (social function of the use of property) Sec. 7. Private lands 38 *Ramirez y. Vda. De Ramirez — 111 SCRA 704 [1982] (usufruet) 34 *Halili v. CA - 287 SCRA 465 [1998] (subsequent sale to Filipinos) 35 Lee v. Republic, G.R. No. 128195, October 3. 2001 (reiterates previous ruling) % Leatfer v. Wolff 1 SCRA 584 [2004] 32 Muller v. Muller —500 SCRA 65 98 Ting Ho v. Teng ~ 558 SCRA 421 [2008] #1 Hulst v. PR Builders — $66 SCRA 333 [2008] 4 *Osmena v. Osmena- 611 SCRA 164 [2010] (forgien ownership of lands) 1 Bewuner v. Amores - 686 SCRA 770 [2012] 4 #Republic v. Huang Te Fu, GR 200983, March 18, 2015 Sec. 8. Exemption for Former Filipino Citizens ‘P *Republic v. CA ~ 235 SCRA 567 [1994] (citizenship at time of acquisition) Sec. 9. Economic and Planning Agency Sec. 10. Filipinization ‘4 *Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS — 267 SCRA 408 [1997] (national patrimony) 5 *Army and Navy v. CA —271 SCRA 36 [1997] (historical landmark) 4 Tafiada v. Angara ~ 272 SCRA 18 [1997] (supra, Art. 2, preliminary issue, Sec. 2, and Sec. 19, and Art. 7, Sec, 21) (preference for Filipinos) 4% Republic v. CA, 299 SCRA 199 49 J.G. Summit Holdings v. CA, GR 124293, November 20, 2000 Sec. 11. Public Utilisies 44 Bagatsing v. Committee — 246 SCRA 344 [1995] (definition of public utility) B Albano v. Reyes ~ 175 SCRA 264 [1989] (power to grant franchise) Tatad ¥, Garcia ~243 SCRA 436 {1995} (franchise to operate) &4 Telebap v. COMELEC — 289 SCRA 337 [1998] (supra, Art. 8, See. 1 and Sec. 5, and Art. 9- * C, Sec. 4 and Art. 12, Sec. 6) (amendinent to franchise) 5% Republic v. Express Telecom, 373 SCRA 316 St Del Mar v. Pagcor, [2001] § PTC y. NIC, GR 138295, Aug. 28, 2003 5S Royal Cargo Corp v. CAB - 421 SCRA 21- participation of executive and managing officers in governing body of public utility enterprise 33S¥ Metropolitan v. Adala ~ 526 SCRA 465. [2007] ‘Francisco v. TRB - 633 SCRA 470 [2010] (power to grant license) S1 Wilson P, Gamboa v. Finance Secretary Margarito B. Teves, GR 176579, 28 June 2011. Go, Express Investment v. Bayantel — 687 SCRA 5¢ [2012] Gt of Hontiveros-Baraquel v. TRB (supra; Art. 7, S. 20) Sec. 12. Filipino First Policy G2 Tafiada v. Angara — 272 SCRA 18 [1997] (supra, Art. 2, preliminary issue, Sec. 2 and Sec. 19, and Art. 7, Sec. 21 and Art. 12, Sec. 10} (Filipino first policy) Sec. 13. Economie Exchange % Espina v. Zamora ~ 631 SCRA 17 Sec. 14, Filipino Professionals and skilled workers Sec. 15, Development of Cooperatives Sec. 16. Private Corporations 44 NDC v. PVB - 192 SCRA 257 [1990] (civation of GOCC) && Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. COA, GR 177131, 07 June 2011. Gb Mendoza v. COA, GR 195395, September 10, 2013 (GOCC special charter) Sec. 17, Temporary Take-Over G1 Agan Jr. v. PIATCO- 420 § 575 [2004] C# “David v. Atroyo ~ (supra. A7, Sec. 18) Sec. 18. Nationali-ation Telephone Interconnections @ “Republic v. PLDT ~ 26 SCRA 620 {1968] (national welfare and power of eminent domain) 4 PLDT v. NTC ~ 190 SCRA 717 [1990] (economic efficiency) ‘1 PLDI v. Eastern Telecom — 213 SCRA 16 [1992] (no franchise to operate telephone system) See. 19. Monopolies aned combinations 72 Tatad v. DOE ~ 281 SCRA 330 [1997] and MR — 282 SCRA 337 [1997] (supra, Art. 6, Sec. 7% Land Art. 8, Sec.1) ‘ EASCO v. LTPRB, GR 149717, Oct. 7, 2003 44 Agan Jr. v. PIATCO- supra 3S *Avon v. Luna S11 SCRA 376 (exclusivity clause) ‘% Pharmaceutical v. Duque ~ (supra.) Sec. 20. Central Monetary AuthoritySec. 21, Foreign Loans Sec. 22. Penal Sanctions ‘Supplement: See the Proceedings of the Preparatory Commission on Constitutiona! Reform, 1999, (CD). 35ARTICLE XVI. General Provisions Sec. 1. The Flag > Kalaw v. Femandez, GR 166357, January 14, 2015 Sec. 2. National name, anthem and seal Sec. 3 Kalaw v, Fernandez (supra Sec. 1) mmonity from Suit Liang v. People, GR 125865, Jonuary 28, 2000 Calub v. CA, GR 115634, April 27, 2000 Lansang v. CA, GR 102667, February 23, 2000 Mancenido v. CA, GR 118605, April 12, 2000 Shell v. Jalos - 630 SCRA 399 [20101 China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) v. Hon. Cesar D. Santamaria, GR 185572, 07 February 2012, 665 SCRA 189 [2012] (Revisits and reiterates several cases: GTZ v. CA, Holy See v. Rosario, DFA v. NLRC.) Aa oto e Foundation of the Rule: A suit against the State € Santos v. Santos - 92 PHIL. 281 [1952-1953] 4 Republic v, Feliciano — 148 SCRA 424 1987] Jo *Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzons (2005) — Unincorporated Agencies it Metran v. Paredes ~ 79 PHIL. 819 (1947-1948) 2. NAC v. Teodoro 91 PHIL. 203 [1952] B *Mobil Philippines v. Customs Arrastre ~ 18 SCRA 1120 [1966] Hf *Del Mar v. PVA — 51 SCRA 340[1973] Is CAA v. CA ~167 SCRA 28 [1988] fe Farolan v. CTA ~217 SCRA 217 [1993] i PNR v. IAC ~217 SCRA 401 [1993] {@ Republic v. Nolasco — 457 SCRA 460 {2005} 14 Republic y. Unimex ~ 518 SCRA 20 [2007] 2e Professional Video v. TESDA — 591 SCRA 83 [2009] 4% DOH y, Phil Phramaceuticals -691 SCRA 42i{ — j Government Officers 22 *Ministerio v, CPI — 40 SCRA 464 [1971] 2 *Syquia v. Almeda-Lopez — 84 SCRA 312{1978] 24 Festejo v. Femando — 94 SCRA 504 [1979] 2 Aberea v. Ver ~ 160 SCRA 590 [1988] ab *Shauf'v. CA - 191 SCRA 713 [1990] % Vidad v. RTC — 227 SCRA 271 [1993] 28 Regional Director v. CA 229 SCRA 557 [1994] 4 Affica v. PCGG/Villanueva v. Sandiganbayan— [January 1992] 30 DOH v. Phil, Pharmawealth — 518 SCRA 240 [2007] 56Foreign Government 41 *Baer v. Tizon — $7 SCRa | [1974] 32 *US v. Ruiz ~ 136 SCRA 487 [1985] 3 Sanders v. Veridiano— 162 SCRA 88 {1988] 3+ U.S. v. Reyes ~219 SCRA 192 [1993] 35 The Holy See v. Rosario ~ 238 SCRA 524 [1994] 3 JUSMAG v. NLRC - 239 SCRA 224 [1994] 34 Larkins v. NLRC — 241 SCRA 598 [1995] 38 Minucher v. CA — GR 142396, Feb. 11, 2003 34 Atigo v. Swift, GR 206519, September 16, 2014 (supra., Art Consent by Law 4 *Cerabao v. Agricultural Product Com. ~35 SCRA 224 [1970] At Arcoga v. CA ~ 66 SCRA 239 [1975] 42 Rayo v. CFI— 110 SCRA 456 [1981] % Municipality of San Fernando v. Firme — 195 SCRA 692 [1991] Republic v. NLRC — 263 SCRA 290 [1996] Exceptional Circumstance to avoid injustice 48 DOH v. Canchela ~ 475 SCRA 218 [2005] Agency ~ Propriety & *United States y. Guinto — 182 SCRA 644 [1990] 4 Fontanilla v. Maliaman — 194 SCRA 486 [1991] 4B PRC v. CA ~ 256 SCRA 667 [1996] Waiver f “Republic v, Purisma — 78 SCRA 470 [1977] Santiago v. Republic - 87 SCRA 294[1978] | Traders Royal Bank v. [AC ~ 192 SCRA 305 [1990] $2 Republic v. Sandoval ~ 220 SCRA 124 [1993] §4 Delos Santos v. IAC 223 SCRA 11 [1993] HDA v. NLRC — 227 SCRA 693 [1993] SS EPG v. Sec. of DPWH — 354 SCRA 566 [2001] Resuiting Liability Sb Philrock v. Board of Liquidators — 180 SCRA 171 [1989] 4 Liang v. People ~ GR 125865 [January 28, 2000] (ADB immunity) ‘$4 Republic v. Hidalgo - 477 SCRA 12 [2005] (writ of execution) $4 «Philippine Agila v. Lichauco - 489 SCRA 22 (2006] ‘@ Curato v. PPA — 590 SCRA 215 [2009] Gi ULP. v, Dizon -679 SCRA 54 [2012] 4. Armed Forces 5. Quality of Service (AFP) 37Sec. 6. Police Force Carpio v. Executive Secretary ~ 206 SCRA 290 [1992] 63 IBP v. Zamora, GR 141284, August 35, 2000 Sec. 7-8. Remuneration and Benefits @-Re: Application for Survivorship pension benefits under RA 9946, AM 1415S-Ret, ‘November 19, 2013 (state’s duty to upgrade pensions and other benefits) Sec. 9. Consumer Protection Sec. 10. Communication Policy Sec. 11. Media Sec. 12. Consultative Body for Indigenous Communities Ge fPaje v. Casifio (supra., Art. 2, See. 16; Art. 6, Sec. 5(2), Amt. 8, Sec. 5(5); Art. 10, See 2)ARTICLE XVI. Amendments or Revisions Sec. 1. Revision‘Amendment | *imbong v. COMELEC ~ 35 SCRA 28 [1970] (constituent assembly) See. 2. Direct Proposal 2 *Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC - 270 SCRA 106 [1997] and MR ~ {1997} (initiative and referendum) 3 *Lambino v. COMELEC — 505 SCRA 160 (unstated purpose) Sec, 3. Congressional Prerogative Sec. 4. Ratification and date of effectivity 4 "Gonzales v. COMELEC ~ 21 SCRA 774 [1967] (nature of power to amend the Constitution) & *Toleatino v. COMELEC ~41 SCRA 702 [1971] (single election) 39ARTICLE XVIN Transitory Provisions Sec. Hirst Elections Under the New Constitution Sec. 2. Team offirst House Members and first Local Officials Sec. 3. Status of Laws and other Legislation Passes Prior to the Constitution Sec. 4. Stutus of Treaties and International Agreements Sec. 5. Presidential Term and Synchronization Sec. 6. Presidential Legislative Powers Sec. 7. Sectoral Representation Sec. 8. Meiropolitun Authority | MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association, GR 135962, March 27, 2000 Sec. 9. Sub-Provinces Sec. 10-11. Security of Tenure of Judges Sec. 12-14. Cases filed prier to effectivity of New Constitution Sec. 15. Term of Carry-over Commissioners Sec. 16. Career Civil Service Officers 2 Dario v. Mison ~ 176 SCRA 84 [1989] (reorganization) 3 Mendoza v. Quisumbing — 186 SCRA 108 [1990] 4 Ontiveros v. C.A., G.R. No. 145401, May 7, 2001 See, 17-18, Readjustment of salaries See. 19-21. Reversion of lands and real rights illegally acquired Sec. 22, fdle/Abandoned lands Sec, 23 Advertising Entities Sec, 24. Private Armies Sec. 25. Foreign Military Bases, Troops or Facilities G “Bayan y. Zamora, GR 138570, October 10, 2000 (VFA) 60Supplement: Questions Frequently Asked on the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement, 3 Phil. Journal on Diplomacy and Dev't 58, # 1 (March 2000) Sec. 26, Sequestration Orders © Joya v. PCGG ~ 225 SCRA 568 [1993] 4 Republic v. Sandiganbayan ~ 221 SCRA 189 [1993] (powers of PCGG) % Cojuangco v. Roxas ~ 195 SCRA 797 [1991] (vote of sequestered shares) Araneta v. Sandigubayan — 242 SCRA 482 [1995] (investigate/prosccutory powers) to Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan - 244 SCRA 152 [1995] (authority over ill-gotten wealth} Republic v. Sandiganbayan — 240 SCRA 376 [1995] (judicial action) 2 Republic v. Sandiganbayan — 255 SCRA 438 [1996] (proper parties) 15. Republic v. Sandiganbayan — 258 SCRA 685 [1996] (powers of commissioners) +4 Republic v. Sandiganbayan ~ 269 SCRA 316 [1997] (rules) IS PCGG v. Sandigantavan ~ GR 125788 [June 5, 1998] (proper parties) { Republic v. Saludares, 327 SCRA 449 {7 Jalandoni v. Sec. of Justice, GR 115239-40, March 2, 2000 1 Antiporda v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 116941, May 31, 2001 19, PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 119609-10, September 21, 2001 ao Palm Avenue v. Sandiganbayan, GR 173082, August 6, 2014 See. 27. Date of Effectivity 2} De Leon v. Esquerra ~ 152 SCRA 602 [1987 (ratification) GO@ENDOS 61