Consti 1outline (1)

7/28/2019 Consti 1outline (1)

1/20

1

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITYCOLLEGE OF LAW

COURSE OUTLINE INCONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

I. THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

A. Nature of the Constitution

1. Constitution defined.2. Purpose.3. Classification.

4. Qualities of a good written Constitution.5. Essential parts of a good written Constitution.6. Construction/Interpretation of Constitution.

- Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 83896, Feb. 22, 1991- Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003- Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997.- Pamatong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004

B. Brief Constitutional History

1. The Malolos Constitution

2. The American Regime and the Organic Acts made to apply to the Philippines3. The 1935 Constitution

- Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, 79 Phil. 1

4. The Japanese Occupation5. The 1973 Constitution

- Imbong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-32432, Sept. 11, 1970- Javellana v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. L-36142, March 31, 1963- Sanidad v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-44640, Oct. 12, 1976

6. The Snap Presidential Election of 19867. The EDSA Revolution and the Freedom Constitution

- Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v. Corazon C. Aquino, G.R. No.

73748, May 22, 1988- Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 112710, May 30, 2001

8. The 1987 Constitution- De Leon v. Esguerra, G.R. No. 78059,

C. Amendment/Revision of the Constitution

1. Amendment v. Revision


2/20

2

- Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, Oct. 25, 2006

2. Constituent v. Legislative Power- Imbong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-32432, Sept. 11, 1970

3. Steps in the amendatory process:[a] Proposal (Secs. 1-3, Article XVII)

[i] Congress- Occena v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-52265, Jan. 28, 1980[ii] Constitutional Convention (Sec. 3, Art. XVII)

[iii] People Through Initiative; limitation. (Sec. 2, Art. XVII)iiia] Republic Act No. 6735iiib] Procedure

Lambino v. COMELEC, supra.[b] Ratification (Sec. 4, Art. XVII)

[i] Doctrine of proper submission- Gonzales v. COMELEC- Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-35140, Oct. 16, 1971

4. Judicial Review of Amendments- Javellana v. Executive Secretary, supra.

D. The Power of Judicial Review

1. Judicial review, defined; basis.- Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139

2. Who may exercise the power(Sec. 4(2), Art. VIII)- Mirasol v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128448, Feb 1, 2001

3. Functions of judicial review..4. Requisites of judicial review:

[a] Actual case or controversy.- John Hay Peoples Alternative Coalition v. Lim, G.R. No. 119775,

Oct. 24, 2003[i] Request for advisory opinion not actual case

- PACU v. Secretary of Education, 91 Phil. 806

[ii] Issues must not be moot and academic; exceptions- Lacson v. Perez, G.R. No. 147780, May 10, 2001- David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006

[b] Constitutional question must be raised by the proper party[i] Locus standi; direct injury test to determine material interest

- IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000[ii] Liberal attitude of the Supreme Court

- David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, supra.- Abaya v. Ebdane, 515 SCRA 720- People v. Vera. 65 Phil. 56

[iii] Related principles- Kilosbayan v. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110- Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, July 9,

2002


3/20

3

[iv] Facial Challenge- Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, Nov. 19, 2001

[v] Void-for-Vagueness Rule- Romualdez v. COMELEC, 167011, April 10, 2008

[c] The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible

opportunity- Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002- Estarija v. Ranada, G.R. No. 159314, June 26, 2006

[i] Exceptions[d] The decision on the constitutional question must be determinative of

the case itself.- Planters Products v. Fertiphil Corporation, G.R. No. 166006, March

14, 2008- Tarrosa v. Singson, 232 SCRA 553

5. Effects of declaration of unconstitutionality[a] Orthodox view (Art. 7, Civil Code of the Philippines)

[b] Modern view- Manila Motors v. Flores, 99 Phil. 7386. Declaration of Partial Unconstitutionality

- In Re: Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534

II. THE PHILIPPINES AS A STATE

A.The State1. Defined.

- Collector of Internal Revenue v. Campos Rueda,No. L-13250, Oct 29, 1971[a] Distinguished from nation.[b] Distinguished from government.

B. Elements of a State

1. People[a] As a requisite for statehood[b] Different meanings as used in the Constitution

2. Territory[a] National territory of the Philippines (Sec. 1, Art. I)[b] Components of territory.[c] The Philippine Archipelago[d] Other territories over which the Philippines exercises jurisdiction[e] The Archipelago Doctrine

[i] United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)3. Government

[a] Government of the Philippines defined (Sec. 2(1), Administrative Code)[b] Functions of Government


4/20

4

- Fontanilla v. Maliaman, G.R. No. L-55963, Dec. 1, 1989- Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration v. Court of Industrial Relations,

G.R. No. L-32052, July 25, 1975- Edu v. Ericta, G.R. No. L-32096, Oct. 24, 1970

[c] Doctrine of Parens Patriae

- Government of the Philippine Islands v. Monte de Piedad, G.R. No.L-9959, Dec. 13, 1916[d] Classification of Governments

[i] De jure and De facto[ii] Presidential and Parliamentary[iii] Unitary and Federal

4. Sovereignty[a] Defined.[b] Kinds[c] Characteristics[d] Effects of change in sovereignty

- People v. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887- Vilas v. City of Manila, 229 U.S. 345

[e] Effects of a belligerent occupation- Peralta v. Director of Prisons, 75 Phil, 285- Laurel v. Misa, 77 Phil. 856

C. State Immunity from Suit

1. Principle; rationale (Sec. 3, Art. XVI)- Republic v. Villasor, G.R. No. L-30671, Nov. 28, 1973

2. Immunity enjoyed by other States under the principle par in parem non habetimperium

[a] Immunity enjoyed by States diplomatic agents- Minucher v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142396, Feb 11, 2003

[b] The United Nations, its organs and specialized agencies enjoy immunity- Lasco v. United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Explora-

tion (UNRFNRE), G.R. No. 109095-109101, Feb 23, 1995

[c] Even international organizations or international agencies may enjoyimmunity from the jurisdiction of local courts and local administrativebodies- Southeast Asia Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) v. NLRC,

G.R. No. 86773, Feb. 14, 1992- Callado v. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), G.R. No. 106483

May 25, 1995

3. Test to determine if suit is against the State.- Sanders v. Veridiano, G.R. No. L-46930, June 10, 1988- Tan v. Director of Forestry, G.R. N o. L-24548, Oct 27, 1983

4. Suit against Govenrment agencies


5/20

5

[a] Incorporated agencies- Rayo v. CFI of Bulacan, G.R. No. L-55273-83, Dec 19, 1981- Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Judge Firme, G.R. No. L-

52179, April 8, 1991- National Irrigation Administration v CA, G.R. No. 129169, Nov. 17,

1999[b] Unincorporated agencies- Veterans Manpower & Protective Services v. Court of Appeals, G.R.

No. 91359, Sept 25, 1992- Mobil Philippines Exploration v. Customs Arrastre Service, G.R.

No. L-23139, Dec. 17, 1966

5. Suit against public officers- Sanders v. Veridiano, supra.

. - Shauf v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 713- Lansang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102667, Feb 23, 2000

6. Need for Consent

[a] Express consent through a general law or a special law- Republic v. Feliciano, 148 SCRA 424- Amigable v. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360

[b] Implied consent[i] When the State commences litigation

-Lim v. Brownell, 107 Phil. 345[ii] When the State enters into a commercial contract

- U.S. v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487- U.S. v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644- Republic (PCGG) v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 129406, Mar 6,

20067. Scope of Consent

- Larkins v. NLRC, 241 SCRA 598- National Housing Authority v. Quivelondo, G.R. No. 154411, June 19,

2003- Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez, 130 SCRA 56- Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 206- Pacific Products v. Ong, 181 SCRA 536

8. Suability not equated to liability- Merritt v. Government of the Philippines, 34 Phil. 311

III. PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

A. Preamble

1. Function of the Preamble.

B. Republicanism(Sec. 1, Art. II)


6/20

6

1. Essential features: representation and renovation2. Manifestations

- Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 7783. Doctrine of Separation of Powers

[a] Purpose- La Bugal Blaan Tribal Association v. Ramos, G.R. No. 127882,Dec. 1, 2004

[b] Application- Maceda v. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464

[c] Principle of Blending of Powers[d] Principle of Checks and Balances[e] Role of the Judiciary

[i] Sec. 1, Art. VIII.[ii] Political and justiciable questions

- Casibang v. Aquino, 92 SCRA 642

- Tanada v. Cuenco, 100 Phil. 11014.Principle of Non-delegation of Power[a] Rule; basis[b] Permissible delegation

[i] Tariff powers to the President (Sec. 28(2), Art. VI)- Garcia v. Executive Secretary, 211 SCRA 219

[ii] Emergency powers to the President (Sec. 23(2), Art. VI)- Rodriguez v. Gella, 92 Phil. 603- David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, supra.

[iii] Delegation to the People (Sec. 32, Art. VI; Sec.10 Art. X; Sec. 2,Art. XVII; R.A. 6735)

[iv] Delegation to local government units (R.A. 7160)[v] Delegation to administrative bodies

- Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies v. POEA, 243 SCRA666

[c] Tests of Valid Delegation[i] Completeness test.

- U.S. v. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil. 1[ii] Sufficient Standard test

- Gerochi v. Department of Energy, G.R. No. 159796, July 17,2007

C. The Incorporation Clause(Sec. 2, Art. II)

1. Renunciation of war; historical development.2. The Doctrine of Incorporation.

- Kuroda v. Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1949

[a] Incorporation vs. Transformation- Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines,

G.R. No. 173034, October 9, 2007


7/20

7

[b] Conflict between international law and municipal law- Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 115- Secretary of Justice v. Judge Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, Jan. 18,

2000.

D. Civilian Supremacy(Sec. 3, Art. II)

1. Relate to Sec. 18, Art. VII- Alih v. Castro, 151 SCRA 279

E. Duty of Government; People to defend State(Secs. 4 & 5, Art. II)

1.Relate to Secs. 4 & 5, Art. XVI.- People v. Lagman, 66 Phil. 13

2. Right to bear arms- Chavez v. Romulo, G.R. No. 157036, June 9, 2004

F. Separation of Church and State(Sec. 6, Art. II)

1. Other constitutional provisions that reinforce the principle: (Sec. 5, Art. III;Sec. 2(5), Art. IX-C; Sec. 5(2) Art. VI; Sec. 29(2), Art. VI)

2. Exceptions: (Sec. 28(3), Art. VI; Sec. 29(2), Art. VI; Sec. 3(3), Art. XIV; Sec.4(2), Art. XIV)

G. Independent foreign policy and nuclear-free Philippines (Secs. 7 & 8, Art. II)

1. Relate to Sec. 2, Art. II and Sec. 25, Art. XVIIII.- Lim v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 151445, April 11, 2002

H. Just and dynamic social order(Sec. 9, Art. II)

1. Relate to Preamble.

I. Promotion of Social Justice

1. Social Justice, defined.- Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726

J. Respect for human dignity and human rights (Sec. 11, Art. II)

1. Relate to Secs. 17-19, Art. XIII.

K. Family and the youth (Secs. 12 & 13, Art. II)

1. Relate to Art. XV.- Cabanas v. Pilapil, 58 SCRA 94


8/20

8

2. Relate to R. A. 7610.- People v. Larin, G.R. No. 128777, Oct. 7, 1990

L. Fundamental equality of men and women(Sec. 14, Art. II)

1. Relate to Sec. 13, Art. XIII- Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118978,May 23, 1997

M. Promotion of health and ecology (Secs. 15 & 16, Art. II)

1. Relate to Secs. 11-13, Art. XIII.- Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792- C & M Timber v. Alcala, G.R. No. 111088, June 13, 1997.

N. Priority to education, science, technology, etc. (Sec. 17, Art. II)

1. Relate to Art. XIV.- Philippine Merchant Marine School v. Court of Appeals, 244 SCRA 770- Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 730- PRC v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004

O. Protection to Labor(Sec. 18, Art. II)

1. Relate to Sec.8, Art. III; Sec. 2(5), Art. IX-B; Sec. 3, Art. XIII- JMM Promotion and Management v. CA, 260 SCRA 319- Philippine Association of Service Exporters v. Drilon, 163 SCRA 386- Bernardo v. NLRC, G.R. No. 122917, July 12, 1999

P. Self-reliant and independent economic order(Secs. 19 & 20, Art. II)

1. Relate to Art. XII.- Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18- Association of Philippine Coconut Dessicators v. Philippine Coconut

Authority, G.R. No. 110526, Feb 10, 1998- Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Duque,

G.R. No. 173034, Oct. 9, 2007

Q. Land Reform(Sec. 21, Art. II)

1. Relate to Secs. 4-10, Art. XIII- Association of Small Landowners of the Philippines v. Secretary of

Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343

R. Indigenous Cultural Communities(Sec. 22, Art. II)


9/20

9

1. Relate to Sec. 5(2), Art. VI; Sec. 5, Art. XII; Sec. 17, Art. XIV,

S. Independent peoples organization (Sec. 23, Art. II)

1. Relate to Secs. 15-16, Art. XIII

T. Communication and information in nation-building (Sec. 24, Art. II)

1. Relate to Secs. 10-11, Art. XVI; Sec. 23, Art. XVIII.

U. Autonomy of local governments (Sec. 25, Art. II)

1. Relate to Art. X.- Basco v. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 52- Limbonas v. Mangelin, 170 SCRA 786- Lina v. Pano, G.R. No. 129093, Aug. 30, 2001

V. Equal access of opportunities for public service (Sec. 26, Art. II)

1. Relate to Sec. 13, Art. VII; Secs. 1-2, Art. XIII.- Pamatong v. COMELEC, supra.

W. Honest public service and full public disclosure (Secs. 27 & 28, Art. II)

1. Relate to Sec. 7, Art. III; Secs. 12 & 20, Art. VI; Sec. 20, Art. VII;Sec. 4,Art. IX-D; Secs. 4-15 & 17, Art. XI; Secs. 12 & 21, Art. XII.- Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, supra.-- Hilado v. Reyes, G.R. No. 163155, July 21, 2006

IV. THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

A. The Legislative Power

1. Defined; where vested.2. Sec. 32, Art. VI.3. R. A. 6735

[a] Initiative and Referendum

B. Congress

1. Bicameralism v. unicameralism2. Composition of Congress (Sec. 1, Art. VI)

C. The Senate


10/20

10

1. Composition (Sec. 2, Art. VI)2. Qualifications of Senator(Sec. 3, Art. VI)3. Term of Office; limitation (Sec. 4, Art. VI)

D. House of Representatives

1. Composition (Secs. 5(1) & (2), Art. VI)2. Apportionment of legislative districts (Secs. 5(3) & (4), Art. VI)

- Macias v. COMELEC, 3 SCRA 1- Mariano v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 118577, March 7, 1995- Montejo v. COMELEC. G.R. No. 118702, March 16, 1995- Sema v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 177597, July 16, 2008.

3. Qualifications (Sec. 6, Art. VI)- Imelda R. Marcos v. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300- Coquilla v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002

4. Term of Office (Sec. 7, Art. VI)

5. The Party-List System (R.A. 7941)- Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 136781, Oct 6, 2000- Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147589,

June 26, 2001- Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency

(BANAT) v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009

E. Election

1. Regular or Special (Secs. 8 & 9, Art. VI)

F. Salaries(Sec. 10, Art. VI)

G. Privileges (Sec. 11, Art. VI)

1. Freedom from Arrest. Reinforced by Art. 145, Revised Penal Code.- People v. Jalosjos, G.R. No. 132875, Feb 3, 2000- Trillanes IV v. Judge Pimentel, G.R. No. 179817, June 27, 2008

2. Privilege of Speech and of Debate- Osmena v. Pendatun, 109 Phil. 863

H. Disqualifications (Sec. 13, Art. VI)

1. Incompatible Office-Adaza v. Pacana, 135 SCRA 431

2. Forbidden Office

I. Other Inhibitions (Sec. 14, Art. VI)


11/20

11

1. Full disclosure of financial and business interests (Sec. 12, Art. VI)

J. Sessions

1. Regular(Sec. 15, Art. VI)

2. Special (Sec. 15, Art. VI)3. Joint Sessions[a] Voting separately[b] Voting jointly (Sec. 18, Art. VII)

4. Adjournment (Sec. 16(5), Art. VI)

K. Officers(Sec. 16(1), Art. VI)

L. Quorum (Sec. 16(2), Art. VI)

- Avelino v. Cuenco, 83 Phil. 17

- Arroyo v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, June 26, 1998

M. Rules of Proceedings (Sec. 16(3), Art VI)

- Pacete v. Secretary, Commission on Appointments, 40 SCRA 58

N. Discipline of Members (Sec. 16(3), Art. VI)

- Osmena v. Pendatun, 109 Phil. 863- Miriam Defensor-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055,

April 18, 2001

O. Records and books of accounts (Sec. 20, Art. VI)

P. Legislative Journal and Congressional Record (Sec. 16(4), Art. VI)

1. Matters which must be entered in the Journal.2. The Enrolled Bill Doctrine

- Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1- Casco (Phil.) Chemical v. Gimenez, 7 SCRA 347

3. Enrolled bill v. Journal Entry4. The Congressional Record

Q. Electoral Tribunals(Sec. 17, Art. VI)

1. Composition- Bondoc v. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792- Pimentel v. HRET, G.E. No. 141489, Nov. 29, 2002

2. Powers; jurisdiction- Sampayan v. Daza, 213 SCRA 807


12/20

12

- Vinzons-Chato v. COMELEC, G.R. No 172131, April 2, 2007- Pena v. HRET, G.R. No. 123037, March 21, 1997

R. Commission on Appointments (Sec. 18, Art. VI)

1. Composition- Daza v. Singzon, 180 SCRA 496- Guingona v. Gonzales, 214 SCRA 789

2. Powers.- Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549- Bautista v. Salonga, 172 SCRA 169

V. THE POWERS OF CONGRESS

A. General (plenary) legislative power(Sec. 1, Art. VI)

1. Limitations[a] Substantive

[i] Express[ii] Implied

[b] Procedural[i] Only one subject

- Tiu v. Videogram Regulatory Commission, 151 SCRA208

- Farinas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 147387, Dec.10, 2003

[ii] Three readings on separate days- Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455,

Oct. 30, 1995

2. Legislative Process[a] Requirements as to bills[b] Procedure[c] Approval of bills

[i] Veto- Gonzales v. Macaraig, 191 SCRA 452- Bengzon v. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133- Phiconsa v. Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506

[d] Effectivity of laws

B. Power of Appropriation

1. Need for appropriation- COMELEC v. Judge Quijano-Padilla, G.R. NO. 151992, Sept 18,


13/20

13

2. Appropriation law, defined. Classes.3. Extra-constitutional limitations on appropriation measures

- Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works & Communications, 110Phil. 331

- Guingona v. Carague, 196 SCRA 221

4. Constitutional limitations on special appropriation measures (Sec. 25(4),Art. VI)5. Constitutional rules on the general appropriations law (Sec. 25, Art. VI)

- Philconsa v. Enriquez, supra.- Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 SCRA 201- Manosca v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 196440, Jan 29, 1996

6. Impoundment and appropriation reserves- Philconsa v. Enriquez, supra.

C. Power of Taxation

1 Limitations: Sec. 28(3), Art. VI; Sec. 4(3), Art. XIV; Sec. 29(4), Art. VI.

D. Power of Legislative Investigation (Sec. 21, Art. VI)

1. Limitations[a] In aid of legislation

- Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA 767- Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate Committee on Banks,

G.R. No. 167173, Dec. 27, 2007

[b] In accordance with duly published rules of procedure- Neri v. Senate Committees, G.R. No. 180843, Mar 25, 2008

[c] Rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiryshall be respected.- Miguel v. Gordon, G.R. No. 174340, Oct 17, 2006

2. Power to punish contempt- Arnault v. Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29- Miguel v. Gordon, supra.

E. Question Hour(Sec. 22, Art. VI)

1. Distinction between Question Hour and Legislative Inquiry- Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006

F. War Powers(Sec. 23(1), Art. VI)

G. Power to act as Board of Canvassers in election of President (Sec. 4,Art. VII)

1. Delegation of power to Joint Bicameral Committee- Ruy Elias Lopez v. Senate, G.R. No. 163556, June 8, 2004

2. Canvass may proceed even after adjournment of regular session


14/20

14

- Pimentel v, Joint Committee, G.R. No. 163783, June 22, 2004

H. To call special elections for President and Vice President(Sec. 10, Art.VII)

I. To judge Presidents physical fitness to discharge functions of thePresidency (Sec. 11, Art. VII)

J. To revoke or extend suspencion of the privilege of habeas corpus ordeclaration of martial law (Sec. 18, Art. VII)

K. To concur in Presidential amnesties(Sec. 19, Art. VII)

L. To concur in treaties and international agreements (Sec. 21, Art. VII).

M. To confirm certain appointments/nominations made by President

(Sec. 9, Art. VII; Sec. 16, Art. VII))

N. Power of Impeachment (Sec. 2, Art. XI)

O. Power relative to natural resources (Sec. 2, Art. XII)

P. Power to propose amendments to the Constitution (Secs. 1 & 2, Art. XVII)

VI. THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

A. The President

1. Qualifications (Sec. 2, Art. VII)2. Election (Sec. 4, Art. VII)

[a] Regular election[b] Congress as Canvassing Board

- Macalintal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003- Ruy Elias Lopez v. Senate, supra.- Pimentel v. Joint Committee, supra.- Brillantes v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 163193, June 15, 2004

[c] Supreme Court as Presidential Electoral Tribunal- Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 191618, Nov

23, 2010

3. Term of Office4. Oath of Office (Sec. 5, Art. VII)5. Privileges (Sec. 6, Art. VII)

[a] Official residence


15/20

15

[b] Salary[c] Immunity from suit

- Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, Mar. 2, 2001[d] Executive Privilege

- Neri v. Senate Committees, G.R. No. 180843, March 25, 2008

- Senate v. Ermita, supra.6. Prohibitions and inhibitions (Secs. 6 & 13, Art. VII)[a] Shall not receive any other emolument from government or any

other source.- Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003

[b] Unless otherwise provided in the Constitution, shall not hold any otheroffice or employment

- Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317- National Amnesty Commission v. COA, G.R. No. 156982, Sept

8, 2004- Bitonio v. COA, G.R. No. 147392, Mar 12, 2004

[c] Shall not, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participatein any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in anyfranchise or special privilege granted by the government, or any sub-division, agency or instrumentality, including government-owned orcontrolled corporations

[d] Strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office[e] May not appoint spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the

fourth civil degree as Members of Constitutional Commissions, or theOffice of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmenor heads of bureaus or offices, including government-owned or controlledcorporations.

7. Rules on Succession[a] Vacancy at the beginning of the term[b] Vacancy during the term

- Estrada v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001[c] Temporary disability[d] Constitutional duty of Congress in case of vacancy in office of the

President and Vice President8. Removal of the President (Secs. 2 & 3, Art. XI)

B. The Vice President

1. Qualifications, election, term of office, removal (Sec. 3, Art. VII)2. Vacancy in the office of Vice President (Sec. 9, Art. VII)


16/20

16

VII. POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT

A. The Executive Power(Secs. 1 & 17, Art. VII)- National Electrification Administration v. CA, G.R. No. 143481, Feb 15, 2002- Domingo v. Zamora, G.R. No. 142283, Feb 6, 2003

- Malaria Employees and Workers Association of the Philippines (MEWAP) v.Romulo, G.R. No. 160093, July 31, 2007

B. The Power of Appointment (Sec. 16, Art. VII)

1. Appointment, defined.2. Appointments, classified.

- Binamira v. Garrucho, 188 SCRA 154- Matibag v. Benipayo, supra.

3. Officials to be appointed by the President- Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549

- Soriano v. Lista, G.R. No. 153881, March 24, 2003- Calderon v. Carale, 208 SCRA 251- Manalo v. Sistoza, G.R. No. 107369, Aug. 11, 1999- Rufino v. Endriga, G.R. No. 113956, July 21, 2006

4. Steps in the appointing process- Lacson v. Romero, 84 Phil. 740

5. Discretion of appointing authority- Lapinid v. Civil Service Commission, 197 SCRA 106- Pimentel v. Ermita, G.R. 164978, Oct 13, 2005

6. Special constitutional limitations on the Presidents power to appoint(Secs. 13-15, Art. VII)

- In Re: Mateo Valenzuela, A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC, Nov. 9, 1998- De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 191002, Mar 17, 2010

7. The power of removal- Villaluz v. Zaldivar, 14 SCRA 710

C. The Power of Control (Sec. 17, Art. VII)

1. Control and the power to reorganize executive agencies- MEWAP v. Romulo, supra.

2. The doctrine of qualified political agency (alter ego principle)- City of Iligan v. Director of Lands, 158 SCRA 158

- Kilusang Bayan, etc. v. Dominguez, 205 SCRA 92- Angangco v. Castillo, 9 SCRA 6193. Control vs. Supervision

- Judge Dadole v. COA, G.R. No. 125350, Dec. 3, 2002- Pimentel v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, July 19, 2000

D. The Military Powers(Sec. 18, Art. VII)


17/20

17

1. The Commander-in-Chief clause.- Gudani v. Senga, G.R. No. 170165, Aug. 15, 2006

[a] The calling-out power- David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, supra.- IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, Aug 15, 2000

- Lacson v. Perez, G.R. No. 147780, May 10, 2001- Sanlakas v. Reyes, G.R. No. 159085, Feb 3, 2005[b] Power to organize courts-martial, create military commissions

- Ruffy v. Chief of Staff, 75 Phil. 875- Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34, 150 SCRA 144- Navales v. General Abaya, G.R. No. 162318, Oct 25, 2004

2. Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus- Lansang v. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448[a] Limitations[b] Power of Congress

3. Martial law

E. The Pardoning Power(Sec. 19, Art. VII)

1. Definition of terms.2. Limitations on exercise

- People v. Salle, 260 SCRA 44- People v. Nacional, G.R. No. 11294, Sept 7, 1995

3. Classification- Torres v. Gonzales, 152 SCRA 273

4. Amnesty- People v. Patriarca, G.R. No. 135457, Sept 29, 2000

F. The Borrowing Power(Sec. 20, Art. VII)

G. The Diplomatic Power(Sec. 21, Art. VII)- Bayan v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 138570, Oct 10, 2000

H. The Budgetary Power(Sec. 22, Art. VII)

I. The Informing Power(Sec. 23, Art. VII)

J. Other powers1. Call Congress to a special session (Sec. 15, Art. VI)2. Approve and veto bills (Sec. 27, Art. VI)3. Consent to deputation of government employees by COMELEC (Sec. 2(4),

Art. IX-C)4. To discipline such deputies (Sec. 2(8), Art. IX-C)

` 5. By delegation from Congress, emergency powers (Sec. 23(2), Art. VI) andTariff powers (Sec. 28(2), Art. VI)

6. General supervision over local governments (Art. X)


18/20

18

VIII. THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

A. The Judicial Power(Sec. 1, Art. VIII)

1. Defined.- De Leon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127182, Dec. 5, 2001

2. Where vested.3. Jurisdiction (Sec. 2, Art. VIII; Sec. 30, Art. VI)

- Villavert v. Desierto, G.R. No. 133715, Feb. 13, 2000

B. Constitutional safeguards to insure independence of the Judiciary

C. The power of judicial review

D. Appointments to the Judiciary

1. Qualifications (Sec. 7(1-3), Art. VIII)2. Procedure for appointment (Sec. 4(1) & Sec. 9, Art. VIII)

- In Re: Matwo Valenzuela, supra.- De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, supra.

3. The Judicial and Bar Council; composition; appointment; powers and duties(Sec. 8(1-5), Art. VIII)

E. The Supreme Court

1. Composition2. En banc and division cases

- Fortich v. Corona, G.R. No. 131457, Aug 19, 19993. Powers

[a] Original jurisdiction[b] Appellate jurisdiction

- Garcia v. People, G.R. No. 106531, Nov. 18, 1999- Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, Sept. 16, 1998- Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 135789, Jan 31, 2002

[c] Temporary assignment of judges[d] Order change of venue[e] Rule-making power; limitations

- In Re: Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, 49 SCRA 22- In Re: Edillon, A.C. No. 1928, Aug. 3, 1978- Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, Jan 19, 1999

[i] Rule on the Writ of Amparo, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC[ii] Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC

[f] Power of appointment


19/20

19

[g] Power of Administrative Supervision- Maceda v. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 460

[h] Annual report4. Consultations/Decisions of the Supreme Court

- Prudential Bank v. Castro, 158 SCRA 646

- Dizon v. Judge Lopez, A.M. No. RTJ-96-1338, Sept 5, 1997

F. Tenure of Justices/Judges

1. Supreme Court- Re: 1stIndorsement from Hon. Raul M./ Gonzalez, A.M. No. 88-4-5433,

Aug. 15, 19882. Lower Courts (Sec. 11, Art. VIII)

- People v. Judge Gacott, 246 SCRA 52- De la Llana v. Alba, 112 SCRA 294

G. Salaries- Nitafan v. Tan, 152 SCRA 284

H. Periods for Decision- Dizon v. Judge Lopez, supra.- In Re: Problem of Delay in Cases before the Sandiganbayan, A.M. No.

00-8-05-SC, Nov. 8, 2001

IX. THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

A. The three constitutional commissions (Sec. 1, Art. IX-A)

B. Safeguards that insure the independence of the commissions - Brillantes v. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358- Matibag v. Benipayo, supra.- Civil Service Commission v. DBM, G.R. No. 158701, July 22, 2005- Commission on Human Rights Employees Association v. Commission

On Human Rights, G.R. No. 155336, Nov 25, 2004

C. Inhibitions/Disqualifications

D. Rotational Scheme of Appointments- Gaminde v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 140335, Dec 13, 2000

E. Decisions(Sec. 7, Art. IX-A)- Estrella v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 160465, May 27, 2004- Alvarez v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 142527, March 1, 2001- Aratuc v. COMELEC, 88 SCRA 251


20/20

20

- Reyes v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 125129, March 29, 1999- Mahinay v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152457, April 30, 2008

F. Enforcement of Decision- Vital-Gozon v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 235

X. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Documents

Consti 1outline (1)