GR NO.

158466 (June 15, 2004)

PABLO V. OCAMPO, Petitioner vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and MARIO B.
CRESPO a.k.a. MARK JIMENEZ, Respondent

FACTS:

On May 23, 2001, Mario B. Crespo a.k.a. Mark Jimenez is proclaimed as the duly elected Congressman of
the 6th District of Manila. Twenty-two (22) months later he was declared ineligible for the position for
lack of residency requirement and therefore, ordered to vacate his office. The petitioner then protested
that due to the disqualification of the respondent, he should assume the position as he obtained the
second highest number of votes.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the candidate who achieved the second highest number of votes should be declared the
winner in a congressional election due to the disqualification of the candidate who garnered majority of
votes.

RULING:

No. The candidate who was declared winner due to garnering majority of votes and later found
disqualified and ineligible for the public position does not entitle the second placer of the election to
take over the position. It is well settled in Article II, Section 1 of the Philippine Constitution that the
Philippines is a democratic and republican state, thus, the declared winner should obtain plurality of
votes. The only recourse is to hold another election in order to determine the candidate who shall
assume the position.
GR NO. 195649 (April 16, 2013)

CASAN MACODE MAQUILING, Petitioner vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO y CAGOCO,
LINOG G. BALUA, Respondents.

FACTS:

Arnado filed for certificate of candidacy, he was a natural born Filipino Citizen and later undergo
naturalization process for American Citizenship thereby losing his Filipino Citizenship. Upon intending to
go back to the Philippines his repatriation was granted along with his executed Affidavit of Renunciation
for foreign citizenship. Arnado garnered majority of votes in the election and was declared Mayor of
Kauswagan, Lanao Del Norte.

Soon after the proclamation, one of the contenders for the position, filed an election protest alleging
that Arnado should be disqualified due to the fact he is not a Filipino Citizen shown by his travel records
to America using his United States of America issued passport for about six (6) times even after his
renunciation of American Citizenship. Therefore, Arnado is having a dual citizenship.

Moreover, Maquiling then filed a petition stating that as the second placer of votes in the election he
should be declared as the winner and Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao Del Norte.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a dual citizen can run for a local elective position?

RULING:

No. As duly anchored in the Philippine Constitution and Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code
which effectively disqualifies the running of candidates for public office position having a dual
citizenship, it is clearly reiterated that running for local position in the government of the Philippines
should only be exclusive to Filipino Citizens. Therefore, recognizing the policy and principles of the
Philippine Constitution regarding to public service, the Court ordered Arnado’s immediate
disqualification.
G.R. No. 85279 (July 28, 1989)

SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (SSSEA), DIONISION T. BAYLON, RAMON MODESTO,
JUANITO MADURA, REUBEN ZAMORA, VIRGILIO DE ALDAY, SERGIO ARANETA, PLACIDO AGUSTIN, VIRGILIO
MAGPAYO, Petitioner vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS), HON. CEZAR C.
PERALEJO, RTC, BRANCH 98, QUEZON CITY, respondents.

Vicente T. Ocampo & Associates for petitioners.

FACTS:

The petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss with its allegation that the Court has no jurisdiction in taking
cognizance over a matter that falls under the DOLE or National Labor Relations Commission jurisdiction
involving labor dispute.

The case stemmed from the petitioners which is the Social Security System Employees Association
(SSEA), they went on strike when their demand concerning implementation of their Collective
Bargaining Agreement was not granted by the Social Security System.

The SSS counters its allegations stating that SSS is governed by Civil Service Laws and not the NLRC or
DOLE, therefore the petitioners should comply with the rules and regulation of the Civil Service, thus,
having no right to strike and the Court may enjoin the petitioners from striking.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals have no right to exercise jurisdiction over the SSS labor dispute

Whether or not SSS employees have the right to strike

HELD:

Yes. The Court has absolute right to exercise jurisdiction over enjoining the petitioners from striking
under Section 1 of Executive Order No. 180, Civil Service Commission governs government employees
and that the SSS being created under Republic Act No. 1161, having an original charter is a government-
controlled corporation concerned with the public welfare of the Filipino Citizens.

No. The SSS employees are covered by the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission that prohibits the
employees to strike according to its rules and regulations, therefore the SSS shall comply given that
there is an absence of any legislation allowing government employees to strike. However, the Philippine
Constitution recognizes Human Rights and Social Justice that guarantees workers the right to organize
and conduct harmless and peaceful activities of strikes. On the other hand, under Section 14 of
Executive Order No. 180 provides that Civil Service Commission governs government employees as its
denominator and its rules and regulations prohibiting strike shall be observed subject to any legislation
of the Congress’ enactment.
410 US 113 (Jan. 22, 1973)

JANE ROE vs. WADE

FACTS:

The appellant, who is pregnant, filed a suit in behalf of the women who share the same situation with
her that contends the enforcement of Texas legislation instituting criminality against women who will
attempt or undergo abortion with the exception if it is medically advised by an expert with the purpose
of saving the mother’s life.

The appellant declares that the statute violates the right of privacy which is recognized by the Bill of
Rights of its Constitution and raises an injunction to prevent the enforcement of the statutes.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Texas statute concerning the criminality against abortion based upon the right to
privacy is unconstitutional

RULING:

Yes. The Court declared that the right to privacy under the Bill of Rights concerning the prohibition of
abortion with exception if the case is life-saving, unconstitutional. On the other hand, the Court does
allow regulation and prohibition of the statute if it is concerned with the public interest of preserving
the life and health of the mother and the viable fetus.
262 US 510 (June 1, 1925)

PIERCE, Appellant vs. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, Appellee

FACTS:

The appellant seeks to reverse the order of the Court concerning the prohibited enforcement of the
Oregon Act. The aforesaid act requires the parents and legal guardians to transfer their children to
public school.

The Society of Sisters is a Corporation that can establish academies or schools and the Hill Military
Academy is a private organization providing elementary, college preparatory, and military training
school.

The Compulsory Education Act may contradict the 14th Amendment which provides liberty of choice to
the parents and legal guardians in their mode of preference for the schooling of their children. Appellee
who will absorb great impact due to the act is protected by the Preliminary Restraining Order granted by
the Court.

ISSUE:

Whether the act interferes with the liberty of the parents and legal guardians to determine their own
choice of educational upbringing for their children.

RULING:

Yes. The act violates the 14th Amendment which provides freedom of the parents and legal guardians to
choose the educational institution that is best for the good of their children. Albeit, the States has the
power to control and regulate the educational program of the schools, enforcing rules and regulations,
still the liberty is within the parents and legal guardians of the children in determining the school that
will give due benefit for the children’s education.

The act does not also significantly concern public interest that may have detrimental effect to the
society. It will only result to obstruction of private schools that has also the right to provide academic
services.
GR NO. 118295 (May 2, 1997)

TAÑADA, et. al., Petitioner vs. ANGARA, et. al., Respondent

FACTS:

The Senators which is the Petitioners contended the constitutionality of the Philippine Senate of the
President’s ratification of the international agreement for the creation of World Trade Organization
(WTO). Their ground states that the WTO is not aligned with the Philippine Constitution under Article II,
Section 19.

Therefore, it would violate the principle of “Filipino First” if the foreign products will have the same equal
chance with locally produced goods.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the established World Trade Organization is constitutional

RULING:

Yes. According to Section 19 of Article II in the Philippine Constitution it provides that the State shall
develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively CONTROLLED by Filipinos, it
prioritizes the local products produced by Filipino citizens but it does not isolate foreign products that
could be entertained in the country.

Further, the Constitution does not encourage and tolerate continued entry of foreign goods, services and
investments in the Philippines and it does not prohibit either. It is anchored on the principle of equality
and reciprocity of fair competition.

Limitations are also provided to prevent these foreign goods and services from taking over the Filipino
economy.
G.R. No. L-68635 (May 14, 1987)

IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY. WENCESLAO LAURETA, AND
OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST EVA MARAVILLA-ILUSTRE in G.R. No. 68635, entitled "EVA
MARAVILLA-ILUSTRE, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL."

FACTS:

Private citizen, Eva Maravilla-Ilustre, and her counsel, Attorney Wenceslao Laureta both receive
allegations. The private citizen in her fourth case before the Supreme Court, was ordered in contempt
due to several grounds, her complaint against the Supreme Court together with Atty. Laureta, the letters
she sent to individual Justices, and her schemes to depreciate the image of the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, her counsel has been suspended indefinitely due to committed acts resulting to conduct of
unbecoming an officer in the Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the acts of Ilustre and Laureta violated the Principle of Separation of Powers

RULING:

Yes. The efforts of Ilustre and Laureta of exposing the alleged corruption of the Supreme Court through
the use of media in ways of threatening the judicial department and their other complaints that
attempts to subject judicial branch for questioning of their alleged acts that involve corruption which
has no legal basis and held as mere allegations, in the executive department directly violates the
Principle of Separation of Powers.

The aforesaid doctrine which is found in the Philippines Constitution vests distinct and interdependent
jurisdiction over the three branches of the government which is the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary;
In order to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of these allocated legitimate powers the System of
Checks and Balance are being followed.
G.R. No. 127882 (December 1, 2004)

LA BUGAL B’LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION INC., et. al., petitioners vs. RAMOS, Secretary Department of
Environment and Natural Resources; H. RAMOS, Director, Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB-DENR); R.
TORRES, Executive Secretary; and WMC (PHILIPPINES) INC., respondents

FACTS:

Petitioners contend that the Republic Act 7942 known as the Philippine Mining Act is unconstitutional. It
took effect on April 9, 1995 and later the President signed an agreement called Financial and Technical
Assistance Agreement (FTAA) with WMCP, a corporation organized under Philippine laws, covering close
to 100,000 hectares of land in South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Davao del Sur and North Cotabato. On
August 15, 1995, the Environment Secretary Victor Ramos issued DENR Administrative Order 95-23,
which was later repealed by DENR Administrative Order 96-40, adopted on December 20, 1996.

The petitioners’ ground states that it is violative to the constitution that they would permit fully owned
foreign corporations to the exploitation and development of Philippine mineral resources.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Republic Act 7942 (Philippine Mining Act) is unconstitutional for allowing fully
foreign-owned corporations to exploit and develop Philippine mineral resources.

RULING:

Yes. The Court declared that the RA 7942 is unconstitutional from the basis of the Regalian Doctrine
under Article XII, Section II of the Philippine Constitution which provides that “All lands of the public
domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all
forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural
resources are owned by the State. The same section also states that, ―the exploration and development
and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State.”