SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES

PVTA vs CIR
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES
De Leon v. ESGUERRA
The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date, therefore,
the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been superseded. (Effectivity is
immediately upon ratification)

Gov. of the Phil. Islands vs. Monte de Piedad

Gonzales v. COMELEC
Nature of power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments thereto: not inherent
power of Congress but of the people; constituent power of Congress
Tolentino v. COMELEC
The condition and limitation that all the amendments to be proposed by the same convention
must be submitted in a single election or plebiscite.

Sanidad v. COMELEC
-Presidential exercise of legislative powers (and proposing amendments) is valid in martial law.
-Amending process is a sovereign act, although the authority to institute the same and the
procedure to be followed reside somehow in a particular body (Pres. Marcos).
Santiago v. COMELEC
The right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of
initiative would remain entombed in a cold niche until Congress provides for its implementation.
Section 2 of Article XVII is not self-executing.
Lambino v. COMELEC

Doctrine of Parens Patriae (state as guardian of the people)

Transfer of sovereignty; effect on laws:
- abrogation of laws in conflict with the political character of the substituted sovereign (political
law).
- great body of municipal law regarding private and domestic rights continue in force until
abrogated or changed by new ruler.

Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh

Imbong v. COMELEC
Competence of Congress acting as Constituent Assembly: Authority to call constitutional
convention as Constituent Assembly in enacting implementing details.

Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions obsolete.

Government has to provide for general welfare.

Continuity of Law: Law, once established, continues until changed by some competent legislative
power (not changed by mere change of sovereignty)
All acts and proceedings of the 3 gov. depts. of a de facto government are good and valid.
Kinds of De facto government:
(1) de facto proper government obtained by force or voice of the majority
(2) paramount force by military forces who invade the territory
(3) independent government established by inhabitants through insurrection
Republic of the Philippines (during Japanese occupation) was a de facto government.

People vs Gozo

Principle of Auto-limitation: Extent of Philippine sovereignty over American bases Philippine

Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory.

Laurel vs Misa

Nature of Allegiance to sovereign: Absolute and permanent

Effect of enemy occupation: sovereignty of the government not transferred to occupier

Ruffy v Chief of Staff

Essence of people's initiative: (1) people must author; (2) they must sign the proposal; (3)
proposal is embodied in petition

The rule that laws of political nature or affecting political relations are considered superseded or
held in abeyance during the military occupation, is intended for the governing of the civil
inhabitants of the occupied territory and not for the enemies in arms.

STATE IMMUNITY
CONCEPT OF STATE
Bacani vs NACOCO

The mere fact that the Government happens to be a major stockholder of a corporation does not
make it a public corporation.
Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions.

Sanders v Veridiano

Mere allegation that a government functionary is being sued in his personal capacity will not
automatically remove him from the protection of the laws of public officers and doctrine of state
immunity
Doctrine of state immunity applicable also to other states.

Republic v Sandoval

State cannot be held liable for the deaths that followed the incident; liability should fall on the
public officers who committed acts beyond their authority
3 instances when suit is proper:
1. when sued by its name
2. when unincorporated government agency is sued
3. when the suit is against a government employee but liability belongs to the government

Festejo v Fernando

Restrictive Application of State Immunity to foreign states: States may be sued when the proceedings
arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign.
The Holy See v Rosario, Jr.

Officer or employee committing the tort is personally liable and maybe sued as any other citizen
and held answerable for whatever injury

USA vs Guinto
-

- failure to allege in the complaint the existence of consent by the State is a fatal defect (construction
must be strict against conferment of waiver
- Immunity may be invoked by the courts at any point/stage of the proceedings.
USA vs. Ruiz

Republic vs. Villasor

A state may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to
have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts.

- Judgment against the State cannot be enforced by execution. It may limit claimants action only
up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the state of execution. Power of courts end when
judgment is rendered. [suability vs. liability]
- Functions and public services cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the disruption
of public funds.

Veterans Manpower vs CA
-

The state is deemed to have given tacitly its consent to be sued when it enters into a contract.
However, it does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions.

The Merritt vs Govt of the Phil

-

Pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic envoy is granted
immunity from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any real action
relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving state which the
envoy holds on behalf of the sending state for the purposes of the mission

By consenting to be sued, a state simply waives its immunity from suit. It does not thereby
concede its liability to the plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor, or extend its liability
to any cause not previously recognized. It merely gives remedy to enforce a pre-existing liability
and submit itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful
defense.

Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC

-

Not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a waiver of its non-suability.
Distinction must still be made between one which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign
function and another which is done in the proprietary capacity.
State gives consent upon moneyed claim arising from contract.

PNB vs. Pabalan

Amigable vs. Cuenca
The government, when it takes away a property from a private land owner for public use without
going through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may
properly maintain a suit against the government without thereby violating the doctrine of
governmental immunity from suit. This doctrine cannot be used in perpetrating injustice to a
citizen.

State immunity from suit cannot be validly invoked with regard to funds of public corporations.
[suable corporations] Public funds of corporations which can sue and be sued are not exempt
from gaarnishment.

Rayo vs. CFI of Bulacan

-

The character of an incorporated agency allows it to sue and be sued without qualification

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

-

When the state files an action, it divests itself of the sovereign character and shed its immunity
form suit, descending to the level of an ordinary litigant.

Republic vs. Feliciano

Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Assoc.

-

Acceptance of outside work and payment of overtime compensation does not make work of
Bureau of Printing proprietary.
Non-suability of the State is available to the agency even if it is shown that it is engaged not only
in governmental functions but also, incidentally, in proprietary enterprises (unincorporated

agency).

Mobil Phils. Exploration, Inc. vs. CA

If an agencys function is deemed proprietary, if such is a necessary incident of the primary and gov.
function of such agency, such agency is not suable (for an unincorporated agency only).

is a government of laws and not of men.

Section 2
Kuroda v. Jalandoni:
think Japanese Lieutenant-General charged before the military commission.
Held: The Philippines can adopt the rules and regulations laid down on the Hague and Geneva
Conventions notwithstanding that it is not a signatory thereto. It embodied generally accepted
principles of international law binding upon all states.

Civil Aeronautics Administration v. Court of Appeals

- Not all government entities whether corporate or not are immune from suits. Immunity from
suits is determined by the character of the objects for which the entity was organized.
- Suits against State agencies with relation to matters in which they have assumed to act in
private or non-governmental capacity, and various suits against certain corporations created by
the State to engage In matters partaking more of the nature of ordinary business are not
regarded as suits against the State.

Agustin v. Edu:
think triangular reflectorized early warning devices.
Held: Legislative enactment is not necessary in order to authorize the issuance of LOI
prescribing the use of triangular reflectorized early warning devices. This is also an illustration of
generally accepted principles of international law (Pacta sunt servanda).

Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Judge Firme

The test of liability of the municipality depends on whether or not the driver acting in behalf of the
municipality is performing governmental or proprietary functions. It has already been remarked
that municipal corporations are suable because their charters grant them the competence to sue
and be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for torts committed by them in the
discharge of governmental functions and can be held answerable only if it can be shown that
they were acting in a proprietary capacity. In permitting such entities to be sued, the state merely
gives the claimants the right to show the defendant was not acting in its governmental capacity
when the injury was inflicted or that the case comes under the exceptions recognized by law.
Failing this, the claimants cannot recover.

Ichong v. Hernandez:
think Retail Trade Nationalization Law which is against the principle of Pacta sunt
servanda.Held: the Retail Trade Nationalization Law is not unconstitutional because it was
passed in the exercise of the police power which cannot be bargained away through the medium
of a treaty.
Gonzales v. Hechanova:

Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez

Municipal funds in possession of municipal and provincial treasurers are public funds exempt
from execution. Municipal funds are held in trust for the people intended and used for the
accomplishments of the purposes for which municipal corporations are created and that to
subject said properties and public funds to execution would materially impede, even defeat and
in some instance destroy said purposes.

Prevalence of National or Municipal law over International law: Constitution authorizes the
nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but also when it runs
counter to an act of Congress.
In re Garcia

Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals

When a municipality fails or refuses without justifiable reason to effect payment of a final money
judgment rendered against it, the claimant may avail of the remedy of mandamus in order to compel
the enactment and approval of the necessary appropriation ordinance and the corresponding
disbursement of municipal funds.

A treaty cannot modify regulations governing admission to Philippine bar (that would be an
encroachment upon Supreme Court by the Executive)
Section 3
IBP vs. Zamora

Fundamental Principles and State Policies

Section 1
Villavicencio v. Lukban:
Mayors act is unconstitutional. It was not authorized by any law or ordinance. Our government

the deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach of the civilian supremacy clause. The
calling of the marines in this case constitutes permissible use of military asset for civilian law
enforcement. x x x The limited participation of the Marines is evident in the provisions of the
Letter of Instruction (LOI) itself, which sufficiently provides the metes and bounds of the Marines
authority. It is noteworthy that the local police forces are the ones charge of the visibility patrols
at all times, the real authority belonging to the PNP. In fact, the Metro Manila Police Chief is the
overall leader of the PNP-Marines joint visibility patrols.
Under the LOI, the police forces are tasked to brief or orient the soldiers on police patrol

procedures. It is their responsibility to direct and manage the deployment of the

marines. It is, likewise, their duty to provide the necessary equipment to the Marines
and render logistic support to these soldiers. In view of the foregoing, it cannot be
properly argued that military authority is supreme over civilian authority.
It is worth mentioning that military assistance to civilian authorities in various
forms persists in Philippine jurisdiction. The Philippine experience reveals that it is not
averse to requesting the assistance of the military in the implementation and execution
of certain traditionally civil functions. x x x Some of the multifarious activities wherein
military aid has been rendered, exemplifying the activities that bring both the civilian and
the military together in a relationship of cooperation are:
1. Elections;
2. Administration of the Philippine National Red Cross;
3. Relief and rescue operations during calamities and disasters;
4. Amateur sports promotion and development;
5. Development of the culture and the arts;
6. Conservation of the natural resources;
7. Implementation of the agrarian reform program;
8. Enforcement of customs laws;
9. Composite civilian-military law enforcement activities;
10. Conduct of licensure examinations;
11. Conduct of nationwide test for elementary and high school students;
12. Anti-drug enforcement activities;
13. Sanitary inspections;
14. Conduct of census work;
15. Administration of the Civil Aeronautic Board;
16. Assistance in installation of weather forecasting devices;
17. Peace and order policy formulation in local government units.
This unquestionably constitutes a gloss on executive power resulting from a
systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of Congress
and, yet, never before questioned. What we have here is a mutual support and
cooperation between the military and civilian authorities, not derogation of civilian
supremacy.
Section 4
People vs. Lagman
- Case at bar: accused is prosecuted for failure to register for military service under the National
Defense Act
- SC upheld the National Defense Act. To leave an organization of an army to the will of the
citizens would be to make this duty of the Government excusable should there be no sufficient
men who volunteer to enlist therein.

Section 6
Aglipay vs. Ruiz
-There is no violation of the principle of the separation of church and state. The issuance and
sale of the stamps in question may be said to be linked with an event of a religious character, but
the resulting propaganda, if any, received by the Catholic Church, was not the aim and purpose
of the government. The idea behind the issuance of the postage stamps was to attract tourists to
our country and not primarily the religious event.
- What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty , not mere religious toleration.
However, religious freedom is not inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial
of its influence in human affairs.
Austria vs. NLRC
an ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship between the church and its members and relates
to matter of faith, religious doctrines, worship and governance of the congregation. Examples of
these affairs in which the State cannot meddle are proceedings for excommunication, ordination
of religious ministers, administration of sacraments, and other activities to which is attached
religious significance. In this case, what is involved is the relationship of the church as an
employer and the minister as an employee. It is purely secular and has no relation whatsoever
with the practice of faith, worship or doctrine of the church.
Section 10
Calalang vs. Williams
-Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the
humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that
justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social
justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of
measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society,
through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the
members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable,
or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all
governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex. Social justice,
therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence among divers
and diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to
all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental
and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons,
and of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest number.

Section 5
Almeda vs. CA
Chavez vs. Romulo
Right to bear arms: It is statutory and not a constitutional right. The license to carry a firearm is
neither a property nor a property right. Neither does it create a vested right. Even if it were a
property right, it cannot be considered absolute as to be placed beyond the reach of police
power. The maintenance of peace and order, and the protection of the people against violence
are constitutional duties of the State, and the right to bear firearm is to be construed in
connection and in harmony with these constitutional duties.

-There exists a tenants right of redemption in sugar and coconut lands. Pursuant to Agricultural
Land Reform Code of 1963, it recognizes share tenancy in sugar lands which is in consonance
with the States promotion of social justice wherein it may regulate the acquisition, ownership,
use, enjoyment and disposition of private property, and equitably diffuse propertyownership
and profits.
Ondoy .vs. Ignacio

-The principle of social justice applied in this case is a matter of protection, not equality. The
Court recognized the right of the petitioner to the claim of compensation because her son was
shown to have died while in the actual performance of his work. To strengthen the constitutional
scheme of social justice and protection to labor, The Court made mention that as between a
laborer, usually poor and unlettered, and the employer, who has resources to secure able legal
advice, the law has reason to demand from the latter the stricter compliance.
Salonga vs. Farrales
-The plea of social justice of the plaintiff cannot be considered because it was shown that no
contract, either to sell or of sale, was ever perfected between him and the defendant. It must be
remembered that social justice cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of property owners
who under our Constitution and laws are also entitled to protection. The social justice
consecrated in our Constitution was not intended to take away rights from a person and give
them to another who is not entitled thereto.
Section 12

[Intergenerational Responsibility / Intergenerational Justice] the 34 minors duly joined by their

respective parents pleading the cause of inter-generational responsibility and intergenerational justice, had a valid cause of action in questioning the grant of Timber Licensing
Agreements (TLAs) for commercial logging purposes. The minors filed the action for themselves
as representing their generation as well as generations yet unborn. The SC, on the basis of
Section 16, Article II linked with the right to health, recognized a right to a balanced and healthful
ecology and the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
LLDA v. CA
The immediate response to the demands of necessities of protecting vital public interests gives
vitality to the statement on ecology embodied in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies
of the 1987 Constitution. Article II, Section 16. As a constitutionally guaranteed right of every
person, it carries the correlative duty of non-impairment. This is but the consonance with the
declared policy of the state to protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill
health consciousness among them.

Meyer vs. Nebraska

C&M Timber Corporation vs. Alcala
It is incompetent for the government to prohibit the teaching of a foreign language to students.
There is nothing harmful in the language that will impair the upbringing of the child.
Pierce vs. Society of Sisters
State may not require children to attend only public schools. The child is not a creature of the
State.

On the issue that the total log ban is a new policy which should be applied prospectively and
not affect the rights of petitioner vested under the Timber Licensing Agreement (TLA), the Sc
held that this is not a new policy but a mere reiteration of the policy of conservation and
protection the right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
Section 17
PRC vs. De Guzman

Virtuouso vs. Municipal Judge

Youthful Offender: A person charged with an offense but found to be a youthful offender could be
provisionally released on recognizance at courts decision.

Section 14
PT&T Co. vs. NLRC
the SC held that the petitioners policy of not accepting or considering as disqualified from work
any woman worker who contracts marriage, runs afoul of the test of, and the right against,
discrimination, which is guaranteed all women workers under the Constitution. While a
requirement that a woman employee must remain unmarried may be justified as a bona fide
occupational qualification where the particular requirements of the job would demand the same,
discrimination against married women cannot be adopted by the employer as a general principle.

while it is true that the SC has upheld the constitutional right of every citizen to select a
profession or course of study subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic
requirements, the exercise of this right may be regulated pursuant to the police power of the
State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety and general welfare. Thus,
persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or technical
knowledge may be required to take an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen
careers. This regulation assumes particular pertinence in the field of medicine, in order to protect
the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance.
PMMS, Inc. vs. CA
the Court said that the requirement that a school must first obtain government authorization
before operating is based on the State policy that educational programs and/or operations shall
be of good quality and, therefore, shall at least satisfy minimum standards with respect to
curricula, teaching staff, physical plant and facilities and administrative and management viability.
Section 18
Bernardo vs. NLRC

Section 16
Oposa vs. Factoran

The SC held that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that qualified disabled
persons be granted the same terms and conditions of employment as qualified able bodied

employees; thus, once hey have attained the status of regular workers, they should be accorded
all the benefits granted by law, notwithstanding written or verbal contracts to the contrary. This
treatment is rooted not merely in charity or accommodation, but in justice for all.

Local Autonomy under 1987 Constitution simply means the decentralization and does not make
the local governments sovereign within the State or an imperium imperio.
LIMBONA VS MANGELIN

Section 19

Decentralization of administration is merely delegation of administrative powers to the LGUs in

order to broaden the base of governmental power. Decentralization of power is the abdication by
the national government powers.

Garcia vs. BOI

BOI committed grave abuse of discretion because it repudiates the independent policy of
government to run its affairs the way it deems best for the national interest.
Every provision of the Constitution on the national economy and patrimony is infused with the
spirit of national interest. The non-alienation of national resources, the State full control over the
development and utilization of contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the
country and the regulation of foreign investment in accordance to national goals and priorities are
too explicit not to be noticed and understood.
Section 20
Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators vs. PCA,
the SC said that although the Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it nevertheless
reserves to the Government the power to intervene whenever necessary for the promotion of the
general welfare as reflected in Sections 6 & 19 of Article XII.

Section 26
Pamatong vs. COMELEC
- There is no constitutional right to run for or hold public office and, particularly, to seek the
presidency. What is recognized is merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law.
Section 26, Article II of the Constitution neither bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to
the level of an enforceable right. There is nothing in the plain language of the provision which
suggests such a thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort. The "equal access" provision is a
subsumed part of Article II of the Constitution, entitled "Declaration of Principles and State
Policies." The provisions under the Article are generally considered not self-executing, and there
is no plausible reason for according a different treatment to the "equal access" provision. Like the
rest of the policies enumerated in Article II, the provision does not contain any judicially
enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for legislative or executive action.
The disregard of the provision does not give rise to any cause of action before the courts.
Section 30

Pest Management Association of the Philippines vs. Fertilizer and Pesticide

Authority, and Pharmaceutical and Health
Care Association of the Philippines vs. Sec. Duque III
Despite the fact that our present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it
nevertheless reserves to the Government the power to intervene whenever necessary to
promote the general welfare. Free enterprise does not call for removal of protective regulations.
It must be clearly explained and proven by competent evidence just exactly how such protective
regulation would result in the restraint of trade.

Section 21

Legspi vs CSC
The constitutional right to information on matters of public concern is self-executing without the
need for any ancillary act of legislation.
Valmonte vs de Villa
The constitutional right to information is limited on matters of public concern and is further
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. However, although citizens are afforded
the right to information, the Constitution does not accord them the right to compel the custodians
of official records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to acquire
information of public concern.

ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHIL. vs. SEC. OF AGRARIAN REFORM

Aquino-Sarmiento vs Morato
Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that enables it to forcibly acquire private lands
intended for public use upon payment of just compensation to the owner. Private rights must
yield to the irresistible demands of the public interest on the time-honored justification, as in the
case of the policed power, that the welfare of the people is the supreme law.

Section 25
BASCO VS PAGCOR

- When a committee or board is created as public in its very existence and character such as the
MTRCB, there can be no valid claim to privacy. Here, decisions of Board and individual voting
slips are public in character.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

In re Manzano
- Members of the SC and other courts shall not be designated to any agency performing quasijudicial or administrative functions.
- The committee performs administrative function* which under Section 12, Article VIII of the
Constitution prohibits members of the SC and other courts established by law to be designated
to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. To quote CJ Fernando in
Garcia vs. Macaraig, he said that while the doctrine of separation of powers is a relative theory
not to be enforced with pedantic rigor, the practical demands of government precluding its
doctrine application, it cannot justify a member of the judiciary being required to assume a
position or perform a duty non-judicial in character.

Administrative functions are those which involves the regulation and control the conduct
and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations
to better carry out the policy of the legislative or such as are devolved upon the
administrative agency by the organic law of its existence.

Sanidad v. COMELEC
On whether the case is justiciable
Political questions are associated with the wisdom of the legality of a particular act. Where the
vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act, that matter is
definitely justiciable or non-political. If the Constitution provides how it may be amended, the
judiciary as the interpreter of that Constitution, can declare whether the procedure followed or the
authority assumed was valid or not.
On whether the President may propose Constitutional amendments
If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the interim
Assembly, there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the function of that Assembly to
propose amendments to the Constitution, which is but an adjunct, although peculiar, to its gross
legislative power.
(Note that at the time Prez. Marcos had legislative powers and there was no legislative
department at the time)

Angara vs. Electoral Commission

- Separation of powers as actual division than obtained through express provision
- Judiciary is the only Constitutional Arbiter to allocate Constitutional Boundaries
- Judicial Supremacy = supremacy of the Constitution asserted by the judiciary (not supremacy
of the judiciary itself)
- Judicial Review is limited to Actual Litigation. Judiciary does not pass upon questions of
wisdom, justice or expediency of litigation.
- The Electoral Commission is an independent, impartial, and non-partisan tribunal. The sole
power to determine contests regarding the elections, returns, and qualifications of the members
of the National Assembly has been transferred in totality to the Electoral Commission. Its power
is clear, complete, and exclusive.
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA
- Legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be delegated. What can
be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced.
- Completeness test and Sufficient Standard Test:
Completeness Test = complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such
that what is left is merely its enforcement.
Sufficient Standard Test = adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries
of the delegates authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.
- Subordinate Legislation = delegated power to issue rules to carry out the general provision of
the statute. (Administrative bodies implement the broad policies by promulgating their
supplementary regulations.)
Casibang vs. Aquino
- Political Question = question of policy; question to be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity or full discretionary authority
- Justiciable Question = implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable; an act or
omission violative of such right, and a remedy, granted or sanctioned by law for said breach of
right.

Daza v. Singson
Where the legality or validity of the act is in question and not the wisdom of the act, the Court
may take jurisdiction and decide on the acts validity. Even in political questions the Court may
take jurisdiction under the expanded judicial power extended to it by Art 8 Sec. 1 of the
Constitution.
(Judicial power includes the duty to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of Government.)

Delegation of Powers
Garcia v. Exec. Secretary
The Congress may authorize the President to fix tariff rates and duties subject to such limitations
and restrictions that they may impose. This is expressly provided for in Art 6, Sec 28 par 2 of the
Constitution.
Araneta v. Dinglasan
The delegation of emergency powers by Congress to the President may be limited by Congress
subject to restrictions it may provide. Congress may withdraw the delegated power at any time.
In this case, the emergency power was withdrawn at the time Congress became able to exercise
its legislative duties again.
Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA
The principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all three branches of government

specifically in the case of the legislative. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine
how the law may be enforced and not what the law shall be since the ascertainment of the latter
subject is within the prerogative and determination of the legislature. Delegation of legislative
power is permitted and valid provided that is passes the two accepted tests- completeness test
and the sufficient standard test. The reason for such delegation is the increasing complexity of
the task of the government and the growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the
myriad problems demanding its attention.

Section 5
Tobias v. Abalos
The creation of a new congressional district is but a natural consequence of a municipalitys
conversion into a city. The Constitution provides that a city should have a population of at least
250,000 and is entitled to at least 1 representative.
Mariano Jr. v. Comelec

Rodriguez v. Gella
Act No. 671 was expressly in pursuance of the constitutional limitation of the delegation of
emergency powers. It is presumed that the National Assembly intended it to be for a limited
period. Executive Orders Nos. 545 and 546, which was anchored to the said Act are declared
null and void and the respondents are ordered to desist from appropriating, releasing and
allotting expending funds set aside therein.

As decided in Tobias v. Abalos, the Constitution provides that the compositions of the House
should not be more than 250 members, unless otherwise provided by law. The natural result in
the creation of a new legislative from a special law whose purpose is to convert a municipality
into a city is sanctioned by the Constitution.
Montejo v. Comelec
The Comelec has no power to reapportion districts but only to make minor adjustments.

People v. Vera
Act No. 4221 is tantamount to an undue delegation of legislative power. The powers of the
government are distributed among three coordinate and substantially independent organs: the
legislative, the executive and the judicial. Each of the departments of the government derives its
authority from the Constitution.

Republic Act No. 7941 An act providing for the election of the party-list representatives through
the party-list system and appropriating funds therefrom.
Section 13
Zandueta vs. De la Costa

US vs. Ang Tang Ho

If the act within itself does not define a crime and is not complete, legislative act remains to be
done to make it a law or a crime, the doing of which is vested in the Gov, generally, the act is a
delegation of legislative power, and is thus unconstitutional and void.
Ynot vs. IAC
There is no standard that the officials must observe in determining to whom to distribute the
confiscated carabaos and carabeef. There is thus an invalid delegation of legislatie power.

When a judge of first instance, presiding over a branch of a Court of First Instance of a judicial
district by virtue of a legal and valid appointment, accepts another appointment to preside over
the same branch of the same Court of First Instance, in addition of another Court of First
Instance to the old one, enters into the discharge of the functions of his new office and receives
the corresponding salary, he abandons his old office and cannot claim to be entitled to repossess
it or question the constitutionality of the law by virtue of which his new appointment has been
issued; and, said new appointment having been disapproved by the Commission on
Appointments of the National Assembly, neither can he claim to continue occupying the office
conferred upon him by said new appointment, having ipso jure ceased in the discharge of the
functions thereof.

Tablarin vs. Gutierez

Because the necessity standards are set forth in the statute (RA No. 2383), providing for standardization
and regulation of education, delegation is valid.
Section 14
Pelaez vs. Auditor General
The two tests (Completeness test and Sufficient Standard test) must be applied together.
Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita
Where the effectivity of the law is made dependent on the verification by the executive of the existence of
certain conditions, the verification is delegated to the executive. (This is an example of contingent legislation
- a valid delegation of law execution).
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Puyat vs. De Guzman

No Member of the Batasang Pambansa shall appear as counsel before any court without
appellate jurisdiction, before any court in any civil case wherein the Government, or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party, or in any criminal case
wherein any officer or employee of the Government is accused of an offense committed in
relation to his office,or before any administrative body.
Neither shall he, directly or indirectly be interested financially in any contract with, or in any
franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation, during his
term of office.

He shall not accept employment to intervene in any cause or matter where he may be called to
act on account of his office.
Section 16
Santiago vs. Guingona, Jr.
Where no provision of the Constitution, the laws or even the rules of the Senate has been clearly
shown to have been violated, disregarded or overlooked, grave abuse of discretion cannot be
imputed to Senate officials for acts done within their competence and authority.
Avelino vs. Cuenco
The constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own president should not be
interfered with, nor taken over, by the judiciary.
When the constitution declares that a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum, it does
not mean all of its members. Majority of all the members constitute the House. Hence, 12
senators who unanimously voted constitute a majority of 23 senators (10 walked out, 1 out of the
country).
OSMEA VS. PENDATUN
The House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behavior as conferred upon by the
Constitution. Also, Congress has the inherent legislative prerogative of suspension.
PAREDES, JR. VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Sandiganbayan has the authority to suspend a district representative in violation of the Anti-Graft
Law as it is being imposed on the representative NOT as a member of the House.

Coseteng vs Mitra
- Endorsement of other representatives (in COA) cannot be counted in favor of a representative if they do
not belong to the latter's party.
Guingona vs Gonzales
- Full complement of 12 seats in COA is not mandatory
Rounding out 0.5 to 1 is unconstitutional as it would deprive other parties of seats in COA.

Sec. 21:
Bengzon vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
- Investigation was not in aid of legislation where it merely aims at determining whether a law is violated. To
allow such investigation is to violate separation of powers.
Arnault vs Nazareno
- Power of Investigation includes power to punish a contumacious witness for contempt. Experience has
shown that mere requests for information are frequently unavailing.
- In aid of legislation - not difficult to satisfy. Necessity or lack of necessity for legislative action is
determined by the sum total of information to be gathered as a result of investigation, and not by a fraction
of such information elicited from single question. It is sufficient that the question is germane to the subject
matter of inquiry. There is no need for it to be directly related or connected to possible legislation.
Neri vs Senate Committee on Accountability
- Exception to legislative inquiry: Executive Privilege (which is extended to all close advisors of the
President)
- It is wrong for Senate to punish one for contempt where executive privilege is properly invoked.
- Senate's mistakes in the case at bar: (1) invitations to Neri did not include possible statute; (2) contempt
order lacks required # of votes; (3) Senate did not first rule on the claim of executive privilege and instead
dismissed Neri's explanation; (4) rules of procedure on inquiries in aid of legislation not duly published.

U.S. VS PONS
Sec. 21 and 22:
The Court may not go beyond the the recitals of the legislative journals for the purpose of
determining the date of adjournment when such journal are clear and explicit. To inquire the
veracity of journals, when they are clear and explicit, would be to violate both the letter and spirit
of the laws, to invade the coordinate and independent department of the government and to
interfere with the legitimate powers and functions of the Legislature.

CASCO PHIL CHEMICAL CO VS GIMENEZ

Enrolled bill doctrine- the term urea formaldehyde is conclusive upon the courts as regards the
tenor of the measure passed by the Congress and approved by the President.

Senate vs Ermita
- When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads are implementing the statutes, it
is not imperative.
- The oversight function of Congress may be facilitated by compulsory process only to the extent that it is
performed in pursuit of legislation.
- Appearance of department heads in question hour is discretionary.
- When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for the department heads to exempt
themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege.
- EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE privilege based on doctrine of separation of powers, exempting executive from
disclosure requirements where such exemption is necessary to the discharge of highly important executive
responsibilities. It covers categories of information not of persons.

Section 18

Sec. 24:

Daza vs Singson
- The sense of the Constitution is that the membership in the COA must always reflect political alignments
and must adjust to changes. Nowhere, however, in the Constitution require that the party must be a
registered party.

Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance

- The phrase originate exclusively does not refer to the appropriations law but to the appropriations bill. It
is sufficient that the House of Rep. initiated the passage of the bill.

Alvarez vs Guingona
- A bill of local application, such as one asking for the conversion of a municipality into a city, is deemed to
have originated from the House provided that the bill of the House was filed prior to the filing of the bill in the
Senate even if, in the end, the Senate approved its own version.
- The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill does not contravene the
constitutional requirement as long as the Senate does not act thereupon until it receives the House bill.
Sec. 25:
Garcia vs Mata
- RIDER a provision not related to the appropriation act (is prohibited)
Demetria vs Alba
- transfer of appropriations prohibited
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- The list of those who may be authorized to transfer funds is exclusive.
- Case at bar: Congressmen are allowed to determine the necessity of realignment, but House Speaker or
Senate Pres. will have to approve the realignment before items are realigned.
- Case at bar: Chief of Staff may not be give authority to realign appropriations.
Sec. 26:
Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board
- Imposition of tax is sufficiently related to the regulation of video industry where the title is comprehensive
enough to include such subject (taxation) related to the general purpose (creation of Videogram Board)
Phil. Judges Assoc. vs Prado
- Repeal/Withdrawal of franking privilege is germane to the object of the title, which is to create postal
service system. Hence, the same is embraced in the title/

Sec. 27:
Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance
- It is within the power of a conference committee to include in its report an entirely new provision not found
in either House Bill or Senate Bill. (Amendment in the nature of substitution is warranted as long as
amendment is germane to the subject matter of the bill)
- to disregard the enrolled bill is to disregard the respect due the other 2 departments.
Gonzales vs Macaraig
- President can veto an item
- Doctrine of inappropriate provisions a provision that is constitutionally inappropriate may be singled out
for veto if it is not an appropriation or revenue item. An inappropriate provision in an appropriations bill is an
item in itself.
Bengzon vs Drilon
- President's power to veto an item does not grant authority to veto part of an item (or provisions).
- President cannot veto a law or repeal a law.
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- Provisions that are germane to the specific appropriations cannot be vetoed.
- Requirement of Congressional approval for release of funds for modernization of AFP can be incorporated
in separate bill and hence inappropriate. It was properly vetoed.
- Executive Impoundment refusal of the President to spend funds already allocated by Congress for a
specific purpose (the duty to implement the law includes the duty to desist from implementing it when
implementation would prejudice public interest). The Court, however, did not rule on this issue, and rather
declared the provision concerning benefits of CAFGUs as an inappropriate provision.
Sec. 28:

Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance [Sec. 26 (1)]

- Withdrawing tax exemptions granted before is embraced in the subject of the title which is to widen the tax
base
Tan vs Del Rosario
- 3 purposes of Sec. 3(1), Art. VI:
(a) to prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation
(b) to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of provisions which might be
overlooked
(c) to fairly apprise the people of the subjects of legislation
Tobias vs Abalos
- Provision providing for a separate legislative district is germane to the subject of the bill creating the City of
Mandaluyong
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance [Sec. 26 (2)]
- IF it is only the printing that is being dispensed by presidential certification, the time saved would be so
negligible as to be of any use in ensuring immediate enactment. (Printing and Readings on separate days
both dispensable by pres. certification)
- Where no Senators controverted the reality of the factual basis of certification, growing budget deficit may
be considered as basis for presidential certification. Senators, in responding to the call of the Pres. by voting
on the bill, manifested their belief in the urgent need for certification of the bill.

Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pilipinas vs Tan

- a tax is considered uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the
subject may be found.
Province of Abra vs Judge Hernando
Abra Valley College vs Aquino
- Where a lot is not used exclusively for educational purpose, it may be taxed if the use is not incidental to
the attainment of main purpose.
Tan vs Del Rosario
- Uniformity of taxation means:
(a) standards that are used are substantial and not arbitrary
(b) categorization is germane to achieve legislative purpose
(c) law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future conditions
(d) classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same class
Sec. 29:
Pascual vs Sec. of Public Works

- Appropriation for a road owned by a private individual is invalid because it is not for a public purpose.
Subsequent donation did not validate the law because validity of a statute depends upon the power of
Congress at the time of its approval and not upon subsequent events.
Aglipay vs Ruiz
- Appropriation for special stamp issue is valid as it is not specifically made to benefit a religious
denomination but for a public purpose. The benefit acquired by the Church is incidental only.
Guingona vs Carague
- The Automatic Reappropriation Law for servicing foreign debts is valid because the amount is fixed by the
parameters of the law itself which requires the simple act of looking into the books of Treasure (the amount
is determinable).
- Budgetary process:
(a) budget preparation
(b) legislative authorization
(c) budget execution
(d) budget accountability
Osmena vs Orbos
- Increase of petroleum prices to resolve the Terminal Fund Balance deficit is valid as it was a valid exercise
of police power.

Marcos vs Manglapus
- The President has residual powers. The President is more than the sum of specific powers enumerated
in the Constitution.
- What is not part of the legislative and judicial departments is deemed part of the executive.
- The 1987 Constitution provided for a limitation of specific powers of the President, particularly those
relating to the commander-in-chief clause, but not a diminution of the general grant of executive power.
Soliven vs Makasiar
- The privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of Presidential duties free from any hindrance
or distraction considering that being the Chief Executive demands undivided attention.
- The privilege pertains to the President by virtue of the office and may be invoked only by the holder of the
office. There is nothing which prohibits the President to waive this privilege.
Estrada vs Desierto
- A non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity from suit (immunity is only during the tenure)
- Even a sitting President is not immune from suit for non-official acts or from wrongdoing. (Public office is a
public trust. The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the State and the officer who acts
illegally is not acting as such but stands in the same footing as any other trespasser.)
Sec. 13:

PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- Pork barrel provisions in the annual budget allowing members of Congress to perform executive function
of spending money appropriated are not in violation of separation of powers because Congress itself had
specified the uses of the fund and the power given was merely recommendatory to the President who could
approve or disapprove the recommendation.
Sec. 30:
First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs CA
- B.P. Blg. 129 granting exclusive appellate jurisdiction to CA over the decisions of quasi-judicial bodies is
not superseded by Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 providing that decisions of BOI are appealable to
SC because advice and concurrence of SC was not sought.
Diaz vs CA
- Sec. 10 of EO No. 170 stating a party adversely affected by a decision of ERB may file a petition with SC
was superseded by the Constitution stating that jurisdiction of SC cannot be made to increase without its
advice and concurrence.

Doromal vs Sandiganbayan
- Sec Sec. 13, Art. VII is applicable in a case where the accused has not signed any document of any bid of
the family corporation of which he is a member, submitted to any government department.
- Case at bar: Petitioner has at least an indirect interest with the transaction with DECS and NMYC.
Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary
- EO No. 284 is unconstitutional insofar it allows a member of the Cabinet to hold not more than two
positions in the government. (Respondent's contention that Sec. 7, Art. IX-B is an exception would defeat
the obvious legislative intent which is to prohibit cabinet members from holding multiple offices.)
Aytona vs Castillo
- As a rule, once an appointment is issued, it cannot be reconsidered where the appointee has qualified.
Exception: ad interim appointments issued in the last hours of an outgoing Chief Executive (midnight
appointments made for buying votes).
In re Valenzuela and Vallarta
- Sec. 15 (President shall not make appointments within 2 months prior to the next Presidential election) is
applicable to the members of the Judiciary.
- This sort of appointment is made for partisan considerations.

Sec. 32:
De Castro vs. JBC
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs COMELEC
- Initiative is entirely the work of electorate; the process of law-making by the people themselves
- Referendum consists merely of the electorate approving or rejecting what has been drawn up or enacted
by a legislative body.
- Case at bar: COMELEC erred in implementing a Resolution when respondents filed petition for Initiative
and not Referendum.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Sec. 1:

Sec. 16:
Binamira vs Garrucho
- Appointment or designation involves exercise of discretion which cannot be delegated. Even if it be
assumed that the power could be exercised by Minister of Tourism, it could be recalled by the President.
- Designation is considered only an acting or temporary appointment, which does not confer security of
tenure.

Sarmiento vs Mison
- 4 groups of officers whom the President shall appoint:
(a) heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other whose appointments are
vested in him in this Constitution
(b) all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by
law
(c) those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint
(d) officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President
alone.
- Case at bar: Confirmation of COA is not needed in appointment of Commissioner of Bureau of Customs
because a bureau head is not among those within the first group of appointments where consent of COA is
required.
Bautista vs Salonga
- Confirmation of COA is not needed in appointment of Chairman of Commission of Human Rights because
such appointment is not vested in the President in the Constitution. The President appoints Chairman of
CHR pursuant to EO 163 (CHR Chairman is thus within the 3rd group of officers)
Quintos-Deles vs Commission of Appointments
- The appointment of Sectoral Representatives requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
The seats reserved for sectoral representatives may be filled by appointment by the President by express
provision of Sec.7, Article XVIII of the Constitution (hence, sectoral representatives are within the 1st group
of officers)
- Exceptions to those officers within the 1st group: (1) Ombudsman and his deputies, and (2) members of the
Supreme Court and judges of lower courts.
Calderon vs Carale
- Confirmation by COA is required only for presidential appointees that are within the 1st group of officers as
mentioned in Sarmiento vs Mison.
- Congress may not expand the list of appointments needing confirmation.
- Case at bar: RA 6715, which requires the COA confirmation in appointments of NLRC Chairman and
Commissioners, transgresses Sec. 16, Art. VII. The appointments of NLRC Chairman and Commissioners
do not need COA confirmation because they fall under the 3rd group of officers.
Tarrosa vs Singson
- affirmed the ruling in Calderon vs Carale
- Case at bar: Appointment of Central Bank Governor does not need COA confirmation.
Flores vs Drilon
- A law which limits the President to only one appointee is an encroachment to the prerogative of the
President because appointment involves discretion to choose who to appoint.
Luego vs Civil Service Commission
- CSC is without authority to revoke an appointment because of its belief that another person was better
qualified, which is an encroachment on the discretion vested solely in the appointing authority.
- The permanent appointment made by the appointing authority may not be reversed by CSC and call it
temporary.
Pobre vs Mendieta
- The vacancy in the position of Chairman of the Professional Regulation Commission cannot be filled by
the Senior Associate Commissioner by operation of law (or by succession) because it will deprive the
President of the power to appoint the Chairman.

Sec. 17
Drilon vs Lim
- Distinction between power and control:
An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act. if they are not followed, he may, in
his discretion, order the act undone or re-done by his subordinate or he may even decide to do it by
himself.
Supervision does not cover such authority. The supervisor merely sees to it that rules are followed,
but he himself does not lay down such rules, nor does he have the discretion to modify or replace them.
If the rules are not observed, he may order the work done or re-done but only to conform to the
prescribed rules. He may not prescribe his own manner except to see to it that the rules are followed.
(Note) Power of control pertains to power of an officer to alter, modify, nullify, or set aside what a
subordinate has done in the performance of his duties and to substitute his judgment to that of the former
[Mondano vs Silvosa]
Villena vs Secretary of the Interior
- Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency (alter ego principle) -acts of the Secretaries of Executive
Departments, when performed and promulgated in the regular course of business or unless disapproved or
reprobated by the Chief Executive, are presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive
- Case at bar: Secretary of the Interior is invested with the authority to order the investigation of the charges
against the petitioner and to appoint a special investigator for that purpose.
Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. vs Pano
- Department heads are President's men of confidence. His is the power to appoint them; his, too, is the
privilege to dismiss them at pleasure. Normally, he controls and directs their acts. Implicit then is his
authority to go over, confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by his department secretaries.
- Case at bar: The President, through his Executive Secretary, may undo an act of the Director of Lands
City of Iligan vs Director of Lands
- The President has the power to grant portions of public domain to any government entity like the City of
Iligan because he has control over the Director of Lands, who has direct executive control in the lease, sale
or any form of concession or disposition of the land of public domain.
Gascon vs Arroyo
- Case at bar: Executive Secretary has the power and authority to enter into the Agreement to Arbitrate with
the ABS CBN as he acted for and in behalf of the President when he signed it.
Kilusan Bayan vs Dominguez
- An administrative officer has only such powers as are expressly granted to him and those necessarily
implied in the exercise thereof. These powers should not be extended by implication beyond what may be
necessary for their just and reasonable execution.
Angangco vs Castillo
- The power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint, but not with regard to those officers or employees
who belong to the classified service for as to them the inherent power cannot be exercised
NAMARCO vs Arca
- Executive power of control extends to government-owned corporations.
Sec. 18:
Guazon vs De Villa
- The President has the power to ordain saturation drives. There is nothing in the Constitution which denies

the authority of the Chief Exec. to order police actions to stop unabated criminality, rising lawlessness, and
alarming communist activities.
Ruffy vs Chief of Staff
- Courts martial are simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided by the Congress for the
President as Commander in chief to aid him in properly commanding the army and navy and enforcing
discipline therein and utilize under his order those of his authorized military representatives.

- [Compare with Garcia vs COA]

Llamas vs Orbos
- In granting the power of executive clemency, the Constitution does not distinguish between criminal and
administrative cases.
Sec. 18:

Olaguer vs Military Commission No. 34

- Due process of law demands that in all criminal prosecutions the accused be entitled to a trial. The trial
contemplated by the due process clause is trial by judicial process. Military Commissions are not courts
within the Philippine judicial system. Judicial power is vested only in the courts. Military commissions pertain
to the executive department and are instrumentalities of the President as commander-in-chief to aid him in
enforcing discipline in the armed forces.
Quilona vs General Court Martial
Gudani vs Senga
- The President has constitutional authority to prevent a member of the armed forces from testifying before a
legislative inquiry, by virtue of her power as commander-in-chief, and that as a consequence, a military
officer who defies such injunction is liable under military justice. At the same time, the Court also holds that
any chamber of Congress which seeks the appearance befoe it of a military officer against the consent of
the President has adequate remedies under law to compel such attendance. Any military officer whom the
Congress summons to testify before it may be compelled to do so by the President. If the President is not so
inclined, the President may be commanded by judicial order to compel the attendance of the military officer.
Final judicial orders have the force of the law of the land which the President has the duty to faithfully
execute.
Sec. 19:
Torres vs Gonzales
- A judicial pronouncement is not necessary in determining whether the conditions in the pardon are
violated. The determination of whether there is a violations of the conditions rests exclusively in the sound
judgment of the President.
Monsanto vs Factoran
- Pardon implies guilt. While it relieves the party pardoned from all punitive consequences of his criminal
act, it relieves him from nothing more. It does not, therefore, restore a convicted felon to public office
forfeited by reason of conviction.

Constantino, Jr. vs Cuisia

- The debt-relief contracts, providing for buy-back and bond-conversion schemes, entered into pursuant to
Financing Program are not beyond the powers granted to the President under Sec. 20, Art. VII. The only
restriction that the Constitution provides, aside from the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, is that
loans must be subject to limitations provided by law. Accordingly, the contention that buy-back and bondconversion schemes are neither loans nor guarantees, and hence beyond the Presidents power to
execute, are without merit.
Sec. 21:
Commissioner of Customs vs Eastern Sea Trading (1961)
- The concurrence of the House of Congress is required by our fundamental law in the making of treaties
which are however distinct and different from executive agreements which may be validly entered without
such concurrence.
Pimentel, Jr. vs Exec. Sec.
- The power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate
is limited only to giving or withholding its consent or concurrence to the ratification. Hence, it is within the
authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or having secured its consent for its
ratification, refuse to ratify it. This discretion to ratify lies within the President's competence alone.
- 4 steps in treaty-making process:
(a) negotiation
(b) signing of the treaty (simply a means of authenticating the instrument and a symbol of good
faith)
(c) ratification (formal act by which a statute confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty)
(d) exchange of instruments of ratification
- In the case at bar, the treaty was merely signed.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
People vs Salle, Jr.
- Pardon may be granted only by final judgment. Where the judgment of conviction is still pending appeal,
executive clemency may not yet be granted. Before an appellant may be granted pardon, he must first ask
for the withdrawal of his appeal.
Garcia vs COA
- President's grant of executive clemency to a person dismissed from his office pursuant to an administrative
case (but where the latter has been acquitted in a criminal case based on the same facts alleged in the
criminal case) entitles the latter to automatic reinstatement and backwages.
Sabello vs DECS
- Pardon (in a criminal case) frees the individual from all the penalties and disabilities and restores him to all
his civil rights. Although such pardon may restore a person's eligibility to public office, it does not entitle him
to automatic reinstatement. He should apply for reappointment to said office.

Sec. 1:
Santiago vs Bautista
- The courts may not exercise judicial power when there is no applicable law.
- Case at bar: An award of honors to a student by a board of teachers may not be reversed by a
court where the awards are governed by no applicable law.
Daza v Singson
- Even if the issue presented was political in nature, the Court is still not be precluded from
resolving it under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon it that now covers, in proper cases,
even the political question.
- That where serious constitutional questions are involved, "the transcendental importance to the
public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely brushing aside, if we

must, technicalities of procedure."

Mantruste Systems v Court of Appeals
- There can be no justification for judicial interference in the business of an administrative
agency, except when it violates a citizen's constitutional rights, or commits a grave abuse of
discretion, or acts in excess of, or without jurisdiction.
- Courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the Asset Privatization Trust (administrative
body), nor block, by an injunction, the discharge of its functions and the implementation of its
decisions in connection with the acquisition, sale or disposition of assets transferred to it.
Malaga v Penachos, Jr.
- It was previously declared the prohibition pertained to the issuance of injunctions or restraining
orders by courts against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the exercise of
discretion in technical cases. The Court observed that to allow the courts to judge these matters
would disturb the smooth functioning of the administrative machinery. On issues definitely
outside of this dimension and involving questions of law, courts could not be prevented by any
law (in this case, P.D. No. 605) from exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative
acts.
PACU v Secretary of Education
- Judicial power is limited to the decision of actual cases and controversies.
(Mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education might under the law withdraw the permit of
one of petitioners does not constitute a justiciable controversy.)
- Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest therein
however intellectually solid the problem may be. This is especially true where the issues "reach
constitutional dimensions, for then there comes into play regard for the court's duty to avoid
decision of constitutional issues unless avoidance becomes evasion.
Mariano, Jr. v COMELEC
- Considering that those contingencies mentioned by the petitioners may or may not happen,
petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case or
controversy. Petitioners who are residents of Taguig (except Mariano) are not also the proper
parties to raise this abstract issue (city of Makati is involved). Worse, they raise this futuristic
issue in a petition for declaratory relief over which this Court has no jurisdiction.

possible opportunity; and, that the decision on the constitutional or legal question must be
necessary to the determination of the case itself. But the most important are the first two (2)
requisites.
- Not every action filed by a taxpayer can qualify to challenge the legality of official acts done by
the government. A taxpayer's suit can prosper only if the governmental acts being questioned
involve disbursement of public funds upon the theory that the expenditure of public funds by an
officer of the state for the purpose of administering an unconstitutional act constitutes a
misapplication of such funds, which may be enjoined at the request of a taxpayer.
Legaspi v Civil Service Commission
- It becomes apparent that when a Mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a public right,
the requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen,
and therefore, part of the general "public" which possesses the right.
-"Public" is a comprehensive, all-inclusive term. Properly construed, it embraces every person.
Dumlao v COMELEC
- For one, there is a misjoinder of parties and actions. One petitioner does not join other
petitioners in the burden of their complaint, nor do the latter join the former in his. They,
respectively, contest completely different statutory provisions.
- For another, there are standards that have to be followed in the exercise of the function of
judicial review, namely: (1) the existence of an appropriate case; (2) an interest personal and
substantial by the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the plea that the function be
exercised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the necessity that the constitutional question be
passed upon in order to decide the case.
Bugnay Const. and Devt. Corp. v Laron
- The doctrine holds that only when the act complained of directly involves an illegal
disbursement of public funds raised by taxation will the taxpayer's suit be allowed. The essence
of a taxpayer's right to institute such an action hinges on the existence of that requisite pecuniary
or monetary interest.
- It is not enough that the taxpayer-plaintiff sufficiently show that he would be benefited or injured
by the judgment or entitled to the avails of the suit as a real party in interest.
Kilosbayan v Guingona, Jr.

Macasiano v National Housing Authority

-It is a rule firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that the constitutionality of an act of the
legislature will not be determined by the courts unless that question is properly raised and
presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a determination of the case.
J. Joya v PCGG
- The rule is settled that no question involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or
governmental act may be heard and decided by the court unless there is compliance with the
legal requisites for judicial inquiry, namely: that the question must be raised by the proper party;
that there must be an actual case or controversy; that the question must be raised at the earliest

- A party's standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which it may, in the exercise of
its discretion, set aside in view of the importance of the issues raised.
- In line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi, ordinary taxpayers, members of
Congress, and even association of planters, and non-profit civic organizations were allowed to
initiate and prosecute actions before this Court to question the constitutionality or validity of laws,
acts, decisions, rulings, or orders of various government agencies or instrumentalities.
PHILCONSA v Enriquez
- The Senators have legal standing to question the validity of the veto. When a veto was made in
excess of the authority of the President, it impermissibily intrudes into the domain of the

Legislature. A member of Congress can question an act of the Executive which injures Congress
as an institution.
Tatad v Garcia, Jr.
-The prevailing doctrines in taxpayer's suits are to allow taxpayers to question contracts entered
into by the national government or government-owned or controlled corporations allegedly in
contravention of the law and to disallow the same when only municipal contracts are involved
(just like in Bugnay case since no public money was involved).
Oposa v Factoran, Jr.
- CLASS SUIT: The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to
several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it
becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court.
- Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the
concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
is concerned.
- Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and
harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the
minors` assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the
performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.

their resources with the wisdom and dispatch that their needs require. It recognizes the power
and authority to levy, assess and collect fees, fix rates of compensation not exceeding the
highest rates authorized by law for compensation and play plans of the government and allocate
and disburse such sums as may be provided by law or prescribed by them in the course of the
discharge of their functions. Fiscal autonomy means freedom from outside control.
- The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman must have the
independence and flexibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties. The imposition
of restrictions and constraints on the manner the independent constitutional offices allocate and
utilize the funds appropriated for their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative
not only of the express mandate of the Constitution but especially as regards the Supreme Court,
of the independence and separation of powers upon which the entire fabric of our constitutional
system is based
SECTION 4
Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. v Court of Appeals, et.al.
- Reorganization is purely an internal matter of the Court to which petitioner certainly has no
business at all.
- The Court with its new membership is not obliged to follow blindly a decision upholding a party's
case when, after its re-examination, the same calls for a rectification.
SECTION 5

Lozada v COMELEC
Drilon v Lim
- As taxpayers, petitioners may not file the instant petition, for nowhere therein is it alleged that
tax money is being illegally spent. It is only when an act complained of, which may include a
legislative enactment or statute, involves the illegal expenditure of public money that the socalled taxpayer suit may be allowed.
- The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a
personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct
injury as a result of its enforcement. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that
indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of
judicial resolution. When the asserted harm is a "generalized grievance" shared in substantially
equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant
exercise of jurisdiction.

- The Constitution vests in the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over final judgments and
orders of lower courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
- In the exercise of this jurisdiction, lower courts are advised to act with the utmost
circumspection, bearing in mind the consequences of a declaration of unconstitutionality upon
the stability of laws, no less than on the doctrine of separation of powers. As the questioned act
is usually the handiwork of the legislative or the executive departments, or both, it will be prudent
for such courts, if only out of a becoming modesty, to defer to the higher judgment of this Court in
the consideration of its validity, which is better determined after a thorough deliberation by a
collegiate body and with the concurrence of the majority of those who participated in its
discussion.

Kilosbayan v Morato
Larranaga v Court of Appeals
- The voting on petitioners' standing in the previous case was a narrow one, seven (7) members
sustaining petitioners' standing and six (6) denying petitioners' right to bring the suit. The majority
was thus a tenuous one that is not likely to be maintained in any subsequent litigation. In
addition, there have been charges in the membership of the Court, with the retirement of Justice
Cruz and Bidin and the appointment of the writer of this opinion and Justice Francisco. Given this
fact it is hardly tenable to insist on the maintenance of the ruling as to petitioners' standing.
SECTION 3
Bengzon v Lim
- What is fiscal autonomy? It contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and utilize

(Transfer the venue of the preliminary investigation from Cebu City to Manila because of the
extensive coverage of the proceedings by the Cebu media which allegedly influenced the
people's perception of petitioner's character and guilt.)
- The Court recognizes that pervasive and prejudicial publicity under certain circumstances can
deprive an accused of his due process right to fair trial. It was previously held that to warrant a
finding of prejudicial publicity there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been
unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by the barrage in publicity.
- In the case at bar, nothing in the records shows that the tone and content of the publicity that
attended the investigation of petitioners fatally infected the fairness and impartiality of the DOJ
Panel.

Nitafan v Commissioner of Internal Revenue

First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v Court of Appeals
- It is intended to give the Supreme Court a measure of control over cases paced under its
appellate jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate
jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction can
unnecessarily burden the Court and thereby undermine its essential function of expounding the
law in its most profound national aspects.

- The clear intent of the Constitutional Commission was to delete the proposed express grant of
exemption from payment of income tax to members of the Judiciary, so as to "give substance to
equality among the three branches of Government.
SECTION 11
De La Llana v Alba

Aruelo v Court of Appeals

- Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC can not adopt a rule prohibiting the filing of certain
pleadings in the regular courts. The power to promulgate rules concerning pleadings, practice
and procedure in all courts is vested on the Supreme Court.
Javellana v DILG
(Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81
does not violate Article VIII. Section 5 of the Constitution. Neither the statute nor the circular
trenches upon the Supreme Court's power and authority to prescribe rules on the practice of
law.)
- The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simply prescribe rules
of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest between the discharge of their public
duties and the private practice of their profession, in those instances where the law allows it.
SECTION 6

-Judiciary Act does not violate judicial security of tenure. This Court is empowered "to discipline
judges of inferior courts and, by a vote of at least eight members, order their dismissal." Thus, it
possesses the competence to remove judges. Under the Judiciary Act, it was the President who
was vested with such power. Removal is, of course, to be distinguished from termination by
virtue of the abolition of the office. There can be no tenure to a non-existent office. After the
abolition, there is in law no occupant. In case of removal, there is an office with an occupant who
would thereby lose his position. It is in that sense that from the standpoint of strict law, the
question of any impairment of security of tenure does not arise. Nonetheless, for the incumbents
of inferior courts abolished, the effect is one of separation. As to its effect, no distinction exists
between removal and the abolition of the office. Realistically, it is devoid of significance. He
ceases to be a member of the judiciary.
People v Gacott, Jr.
- To require the entire Court to deliberate upon and participate in all administrative matters or
cases regardless of the sanctions, imposable or imposed, would result in a congested docket
and undue delay in the adjudication of cases in the Court, especially in administrative matters,
since even cases involving the penalty of reprimand would require action by the Court en banc.

Maceda v Vasquez
- In the absence of any administrative action taken against a person by the Court with regard to
his certificates of service, the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into
the Court's power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of
the doctrine of separation of powers.
- Where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee arises from their
administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to
the Court for determination whether said Judge or court employee had acted within the scope of
their administrative duties.
Raquiza v Judge Castaneda, Jr.
- The rules even in an administrative case demands that if the respondent Judge should be
disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense, the evidence presented against him
should be competent and derived from direct knowledge. The judiciary, to which respondent
belongs, no less demands that before its member could be faulted, it should be only after due
investigation and based on competent proofs, no less. This is all the more so when as in this
case the charges are penal in nature.

- Yet, although as thus demonstrated, only cases involving dismissal of judges of lower courts
are specifically required to be decided by the Court en banc, in cognizance of the need for a
thorough and judicious evaluation of serious charges against members of the judiciary, it is only
when the penalty imposed does not exceed suspension of more than one year or a fine of
P10,000.00, or both, that the administrative matter may be decided in division.
SECTION 12
In Re: Manzano
- As incumbent RTC Judges, they form part of the structure of government. Their integrity and
performance in the adjudication of cases contribute to the solidity of such structure. As public
officials, they are trustees of an orderly society. Even as non-members of Provincial/City
Committees on Justice, RTC judges should render assistance to said Committees to help
promote the landable purposes for which they exist, but only when such assistance may be
reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their judicial duties.
SECTION 14
Nicos Industrial Corp v Court of Appeals

('Misconduct' also implies 'a wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment. It results that
even if respondent were not correct in his legal conclusions, his judicial actuations cannot be
regarded as grave misconduct, unless the contrary sufficiently appears.)

- The Court is not duty bound to render signed decisions all the time. It has ample discretion to
formulate decisions and/or minute resolutions, provided a legal basis is given, depending on its
evaluation of a case.

SECTION 10
- As it is settled that an order dismissing a case for insufficient evidence is a judgment on the

merits, it is imperative that it be a reasoned decision clearly and distinctly stating therein the facts
and the law on which it is based.

-(certification issue) The requirement of a certification refers to decisions to judicial cases and not
to administrative cases. Besides, since the decision was a per curiam decision, a formal
certification is not required.

Mendoza v CFI
Oil and Natural Gas Commission v Court of Appeals
- What is expected of the judiciary "is that the decision rendered makes clear why either party
prevailed under the applicable law to the facts as established. Nor is there any regid formula as
to the language to be employed to satisfy the requirement of clarity and distinctness. The
discretion of the particular judge in this respect, while not unlimited, is necessarily broad. There is
no sacramental form of words which he must use upon pain of being considered as having failed
to abide by what the Constitution directs."

- The constitutional mandate that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing
therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based does not preclude the
validity of "memorandum decisions" which adopt by reference the findings of fact and
conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals.
SECTION 14 (not 16)

- The provision has been held to refer only to decisions of the merits and not to orders of the trial
court resolving incidental matters such as the one at bar. (content of the resolution: incident in
the prosecution of petitioner)
Borromeo v Court of Appeals
- The Court reminds all lower courts, lawyers, and litigants that it disposes of the bulk of its cases
by minute resolutions and decrees them as final and executory, as where a case is patently
without merit, where the issues raised are factual in nature, where the decision appealed from is
supported by substantial evidence and is in accord with the facts of the case and the applicable
laws, where it is clear from the records that the petition is filed merely to forestall the early
execution of judgment and for non-compliance with the rules. The resolution denying due course
or dismissing the petition always gives the legal basis.
- When the Court, after deliberating on a petition and any subsequent pleadings, manifestations,
comments, or motions decides to deny due course to the petition and states that the questions
raised are factual or no reversible error in the respondent court's decision is shown or for some
other legal basis stated in the resolution, there is sufficient compliance with the constitutional
requirement.
- Minute resolutions need not be signed by the members of the Court who took part in the
deliberations of a case nor do they require the certification of the Chief Justice.

Valdez v Court of Appeals

- The (lower) court statement in the decision that a party has proven his case while the other has
not, is not the findings of facts contemplated by the Constitution and the rules to be clearly and
distinctly stated.
- This Court has said again and again that it is not a trier of facts and that it relies, on the factual
findings of the lower court and the appellate court which are conclusive.
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
A. COMMON PROVISIONS
Aruelo v. CA
The rule of the Commission should prevail if the proceeding is before a Commission. But if the
proceeding is before a court, the Rules of Court prevails. (Sec. 6)
Cua v. Comelec
The 2-1 decision rendered by the First Division was a valid decision under Article IX-A, Section 7
of the Constitution. (Sec.7)
Vital-Gozon v. CA

Komatsu Industries (Phils.) Inc v Court of Appeals

- It has long been settled that this Court has discretion to decide whether a "minute resolution"
should be used in lieu of a full-blown decision in any particular case and that a minute Resolution
of dismissal of a Petition for Review on Certiorari constitutes an adjudication on the merits of the
controversy or subject matter of the Petition. It has been stressed by the Court that the grant of
due course to a Petition for Review is "not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion; and
so there is no need to fully explain the Court's denial. For one thing, the facts and law are already
mentioned in the Court of Appeals' opinion."

Execution of the Civil Service Commission's decision should have been ordered and effected by
the Commission itself, when de la Fuente filed a motion therefor. It declined to do so, however,
on the alleged ground, as de la Fuente claims he was told, that it "had no coercive powers
unlike a court to enforce its final decisions/resolutions." That proposition, communicated to de
la Fuente, of the Commission's supposed lack of coercive power to enforce its final judgments, is
incorrect. It is inconsistent with previous acts of the Commission of actually directing execution of
its decisions and resolutions, which this Court has sanctioned in several cases; and it is not in
truth a correct assessment of its powers under the Constitution and the relevant laws

Prudential Bank v Castro

Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v. Ferrer
- The Constitutional mandate that "no . . . motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court
shall be . . . denied without stating the legal basis therefor" is inapplicable in administrative
cases. And even if it were, said Resolution stated the legal basis for the denial and, therefore,
adhered faithfully to the Constitutional requirement. "Lack of merit," which was one of the
grounds for denial, is a legal basis.

While it may be true that the lower court has the jurisdiction over controversies dealing with the
COMELEC's award of contracts, the same being purely administrative and civil in nature,
nevertheless, herein petitioner has no cause of action on the basis of the allegations of its
complaint.

"The Commission on Elections shall have exclusive charge of the enforcement and
administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections and shall exercise all other functions
which may be conferred upon it by law. It shall decide, save those involving the right to vote, all
administrative questions affecting elections, including the determination of the number of location
of polling places, and the appointment of election inspectors and of other election officials . . .
The decisions, orders and rulings of the Commission shall be subject to review by the Supreme
Court."
Mateo v. CA
The hiring and firing of employees of government-owned and controlled corporations are
governed by the provisions of the Civil Service Law and Rules and Regulations.
SC Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95. Final resolutions of the Civil Service Commission
shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals. In any event, whether under the old rule or the
present rule, Regional Trial Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain cases involving dismissal of
officers and employees covered by the Civil Service Law.

Province of Camarines Sur v. CA

Lack of civil service eligibility makes an appointment temporary; thus, the appointment is
revocable at any time (without a fixed and definite term) or dependent upon the pleasure of the
appointing power. Obtaining the civil service legibility later on does not ipso facto convert a
temporary appointment into a permanent one.
SSS Employees Association v. CA
The right of government employees to organize does not include the right to strike.
Section 7
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary
While all other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold other office or
employment in the government during their tenure when such is allowed by tlaw and the primary
function of their office, Cabinet members, their deputies, and assistants may only do so when
expressly authorized by the Constitution itself.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Section 2
TUPAS v. NHC
Civil service now covers only government-owned or controlled corporations with original or
legislative charters, that is those created by an act of Congress or by special law, and not those
incorporated under and pursuant to a general legislation.
NHC is not covered by civil service so its employees undoubtedly have the right to form unions
or employees' organizations. The right to unionize or to form organizations is now explicitly
recognized and granted to employees in both the governmental and the private sectors.
De los Santos v. Mallare

Flores v. Drilon
The proviso which states, Provided, however, that for the first year of its operations from the
effectivity of this Act, the mayor of the City of Olongapo shall be appointed as the chairman and
chief executive officer of the Subic Authority, violates the constitutional prohibition against
appointment or designation of elective officials to other government posts.
Section 8
Quimson v. Ozaeta

The office of city engineer is neither primarily confidential, policy-determining, nor highly
technical. These positions mentioned are excluded from the merit system and dismissal at
pleasure of officers and employees appointed therein is allowed by the Constitution. Thus, the
city engineer cannot be removed without just cause.

The employment of a person as an agent collector is not itself unlawful because there is no
incompatibility between aid appointment and his employment as Deputy Provincial Treasurer and
Municipal Treasurer. There is no legal objection to government official occupying two government
offices and performing functions to both as long as there is no incompatibility. The Constitutional
prohibition refers to double appointments and performance of functions of more than one office.

Salazar v. Mathay
The tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions ends upon loss of confidence
because their term of office lasts only as long as confidence in them endures.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Section 1

Corpus v. Cuaderno
Cayetano v. Monsod
Highly technical employees cannot be removed by reason of lack or loss of confidence by the
one making the appointment.
Luego v. Civil Service Commission
The CSC has no authority to disapprove or revoke a permanent appointment on the ground that
another person is better qualified than the appointee. The CSC is not empowered to determine
the kind or nature of the appointment extended by the appointing officer, its authority being
limited to approving or reviewing the appointment in the light of the requirements of the Civil
Service Law. Approval is more appropriately called an attestation, that is, of the fact that the
appointee is qualified for the position to which he has been named.

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform
those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice
or render any kind of service which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill.
Brillantes v. Yorac
The President has no authority to make designation of a Comelec Chairman in an Acting
Capacity. The choice of temporary Chairman in the absence of the regular chairman comes

under the discretion of the Comelec. It cannot be exercised by the President. A designation As
Acting Chairman is by its very terms essentially temporary and therefore revocable at will. No
cause need be established to justify its revocation.
Lindo v. Comelec
Comelecs statement that fake and spurious ballots may have been introduced to increase the
votes of protestant cannot be made a basis for denying the execution pending appeal.
Section 3

The posting of decals and stickers on cars, calesas, tricycles, pedicabs and other moving
vehicles needs the consent of the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the preference of the citizen
becomes crucial in this kind of election propaganda not the financial resources of the candidate.
Whether the candidate is rich and, therefore, can afford to doleout more decals and stickers or
poor and without the means to spread out the number of decals and stickers is not as important
as the right of the owner to freely express his choice and exercise his right of free speech. The
owner can even prepare his own decals or stickers for posting on his personal property. To strike
down this right and enjoin it is impermissible encroachment of his liberties.
Sanidad vs. COMELEC

Sarmiento vs. Comelec

Pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. 7166, it provides:
"All pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be deemed terminated at the
beginning of the term of the office involved and the rulings of the boards of canvassers
concerned shall be deemed affirmed, without prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest
by the aggrieved party. However, proceedings may continue when on the basis of the evidence
thus far presented, the Commission determines that the petition appears meritorious and
accordingly issues an order for the proceeding to continue or when an appropriate order has
been issued by the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari."
Reyes vs. RTC of Oriental Mindoro
All election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, must be decided by the COMELEC
in division. Should a party be dissatisfied with the decision, he may file a motion for
reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc. It is, therefore, the decision, order or ruling of the
COMELEC en banc that, in accordance with Art. IX, A, Section 7, "may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari."
Section 4
National Press Club vs. Comelec
The Comelec has also been granted the right to supervise and regulate the exercise by media
practitioners themselves of their right to expression during plebiscite periods. Media practitioners
exercising their freedom of expression during plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holders
nor the candidates. In fact, there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite.

Comelec spaces and Comelec radio time may provide a forum for expression but they do not
guarantee full dissemination of information to the public concerned because they are limited to
either specific portions in newspapers or to specific radio or television times.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
SECTION 2
GUEVARA VS GIMENEZ
The Auditor-General has no madate to disapprove expenditures which in his opinion are
excessive and extravagant. His authority is limited to the auditing in expenditures of funds and
properties. such function is limited to a determination of whether there is a law appropriating
funds for a given purpose; whether a contract entered made by the proper officer has been
entered in conformity with the said appropriation law; whether the goods and services covered by
the said contract have been delivered or rendered in pursuance thereof, as attested by the
proper officer; and whether payment therefore has been authorized by the officials of the
corresponding department or bureau. If these requirements have been fulfilled, it is the
ministerial duty of the Auditor General to approve and pass in audit the voucher and treasury
warrant for said payment. No discretion to disapprove said payment on the ground that contract
was unwise or unreasonable.
OROCIO VS COA
To determine whether an expenditure of a government agency or instrumentality is irregular,
unnecessary, excessive, extravagant and unconscionable, the COA should not be bound by the
opinion of the legal counsel of a particular agency. Legal counsel can only offer legal advice.
OSMENA VS COA

Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines vs GMA

It is argued that the power to supervise or regulate given to the COMELEC under Art. IX-C,
Section 4 of the Constitution does not include the power to prohibit. In the first place, what the
COMELEC is authorized to supervise or regulate by Art. IX-C, Section 4 of the Constitution,
among other things, is the use by media of information of their franchises or permits, while what
Congress (not the COMELEC) prohibits is the sale or donation of print space or air time for
political ads. In other words, the object of supervision or regulation is different from the object of
the prohibition. It is another fallacy for petitioners to contend that the power to regulate does not
include the power to prohibit. This may have force if the object of the power were the same.
Adiong vs. COMELEC

A compromise agreement between a municipal corporation (Cebu City) and the parents of victim
(Spouses dela Cerna) was constitutional. The participation of the city in an amicable settlement
and eventual execution of a compromise is indubitable within the power and authority of a
municipal corporation. Notably, the compromise agreement was submitted to its legislative
council, which approved it conformably with its established rules and procedure.
SAMBELI VS PROVINCE OF ISABELA
COA has the regulatory power to ensure that government funds and properties are fully
protected and conserved and that irregular unnecessary, excessive, or extravagant expenditures
or uses of funds owned by, or pertaining to the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies

of instrumentalities are prevented.

BUSTAMANTE VS COA
Discretion exercised by COA in the denial of the appeal (on the decision of a Regional Auditor) is
within its power. Also, conclusions of a Board of Directors of a government-owned and
controlled corporation in safeguarding the proper use of the governments and peoples property
cannot prevail over the constitutional mandate on COA.
SALIGUMBA VS COA
Supreme Courts power to review COA decisions refers to money matters and not to
administrative cases (rape case vs. auditing examiner-respondent) involving the discipline of its
personnel.
SECTION 3
PHIL AIRLINES VS COA (more on section 2)
COA has the exclusive authority, subject to limitations, to define the scope of its audit and
examination, establish the techniques and methods required therefore. COA can adopt as its
own, simply by reiteration or by reference, without the necessity of repromulgation, already
existing rules and regulations. It may also expand the coverage thereof to agencies or
instrumentalities under its audit jurisdiction. COA can advised PAL to desist from bidding the its
fuel upon expiration of contracts
BAGATSING VS COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION
COA, the agency that adopted the rules on bidding procedure to be followed by government
offices and corporations, upheld the legality of bidding although there is only one offeror (2 were
disqualified- bid below floor price and technical reasons) since the COA Circular does not speak
of accepted bids but of offerors, without distinction as to whether they were disqualified. The
interpretation of an agency of its own rules should be given more weight than the interpretation
by the agency of the law it is merely tasked to administer.