Article VIII: Judicial Department

Section 1. Judicial Power

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice 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 the Government.

Definition and Scope

Marbury v. Madison Cranch 137 [1803]
Santiago v. Baustista 32 SCRA 188 [1970]
Radiowealth v. Agregado 86 Phil. 429 [1950]
In re Laureta 148 SCRA 382 [1987]
In re Borromeo 241 SCRA 405 [1995]
Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice GR 132601, January 19, 1999
Planters v. Fertiphil 548 SCRA 485 [2008]
RE: Letter to UP Law Faculty, A.M. No. 10-10-4-C, June 7, 2011
Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary - 677 SCRA 408 [2012]
Limits
Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transit Co. 57 Phil. 60 [1932-1933]
Noblejas v. Teehankee 23 SCRA 405 [1968]
Erdito Quarto v. Honorable Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo, et al., GR 169042, 05 October
2011
Principle of Judicial Restraint
Francisco Jr v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 10 November 2003
Grave Abuse of Discretion
PCGG v. Desierto, GR 132120 , Feb. 10, 2003
Domingo v. Scheer 421 SCRA 468 [2004]
Presidential Ad Hoc v. Desierto 548 SCRA 295 [2008]
Reyes v. Belisario 596 SCRA 31 [2009]
Eloisa L. Tolentino v. Atty. Roy M. Loyola, et al., GR 153809, 27 July 2011
Advisory Opinions
Channie Tan v. Republic, 107 PHIL 632
Santiago, Jr v. Bautista, 32 SCRA 188
Felipe v. Leuterio, 91 PHIL 482
Director of Prisons v. Ang Cho Kio 33 SCRA 494 [1970]
Justiciable Controversy
Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil 134
US v. Nixon- 418 US 683 [1974]
Marcos v. Manglapus 177 SCRA 668 [1989]
Daza v, Singson 180 SCRA 496 [1989]
Garcia v. BOI 191 SCRA 288 [1990]
Djumantan v. Domingo 240 SCRA 746 [1995]
Mariano v. COMELEC 242 SCRA 211 [1995]
PPI v COMELEC -224 SCRA 272
SBMA v. COMELEC 262 SCRA 492 [1996]
Tanada v. Angara 272 SCRA 18 [1997]
Arroyo v. De Venecia -277 SCRA 268 [1997]
CIR v. Santos 277 SCRA 617 [1997]
Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio 278 SCRA 769[1997]
Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona, GR 134577, November 18, 1997
Tatad v. DOE 281 SCRA 330 [1997]
Telecom v. COMELEC - 289 SCRA 337 [1998]
Miranda v. Aguirre GR 133064, September 16, 1999

Cutaran v. DENR 350 SCRA 697 [2001]

Estrada v. Desierto GR 146740-15, March 2, 2001 and MR April 3, 2001
Cawaling v. COMELEC GR 146319, October 23, 2001
Montesclaros v. COMELEC GR 152295, July 9, 2002
John Hay Peoples Alternative Coalition v. Lim, GR 119775, October 24, 2003
Velarde v. Social Justice Society, GR 159357, April 28, 2004
Panganiban v. Philippine Shell, GR 131471, Jan. 22, 2003
SMART v. NTC, GR 151908, August 12, 2003
Buac v. COMELEC 421 SCRA 92
Information Technology v. COMELEC -460 SCRA 291
Senate v. Ermita, GR 169659, April 20, 2006
Garcia v. Executive Secretary 583 SCRA 119 [2009]
Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014
Distinguish from Declaration Relief
Macasiano v. NHA 224 SCRA 236 [1993]
Tano v. Socrates 278 SCRA 154 [1997]
Conclusive Character of Supreme Court Judgment
In re Subpoena Duces Tecum dated Jan. 11, 2011 614 SCRA 1
Plenary Judicial Power; Derivative; PET
Macalintal v. PET 635 SCRA 783 [2010]
Sec. 2. Power of Legislative Apportion Jurisdiction
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various
courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members.

Mantruste Systems v. CA -179 SCRA 136 [1989]

Malaga v. Penachos 213 SCRA 516 [1992]
Lupangco v. CA, 160 SCRA 848 (1988)
Sec. 3 Fiscal Autonomy
Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the
legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically and
regularly released.

Radiowealth v. Agregado 86 Phil. 429 [1950]

Bengzon v. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133 (1992)
In re clarifying and strengthening the Philippine Judicial Academy 481 SCRA 1
RE: Petition for the recognition of the exemption of GSIS, A.M. No. 08-2-01-0, February 11,
2010
In re COA Opinion on Computation of Appraised Value of Properties -678 SCRA 1 [2012]
Sec. 4. Composition; En Banc and Division Cases
Section 4.
1. The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en
banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within
ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
2. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which
shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are
required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of

presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be
decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on
the issues in the case and voted thereon.
3. Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of
the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and
in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is not
obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by
the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court
sitting en banc.

Filling-in Vacancy in Supreme Court; 90 days

De Castro v. JBC 615 SCRA 666 [2010]
Referral to En Banc; Par. 3; Case Only; Modification of Doctrine
Fortich v. Corona GR 131457, August 19, 1997
People v. Dy, GR 115326-37, Jan. 16, 2003
People v. Ebio, GR 147750, Sept 29, 2004
Firestone Ceramics v. CA, GR No. 127245, June 28, 2000
Republic v. Garcia 527 SCRA 495 [2007]
Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc v. Land Bank of the Philippines, GR 164195,
05 April 2011.
In re; Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Re: G.R. No. 178083 Flight Attendant and
Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v. Philippine Airlines, Inc (PAL), et al., A.M.
No. 11-10-1-SC, 13 March 2012
Sec. 5. Powers of Supreme Court
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may
provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
a. 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.
b. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.
c.

All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
e. All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
3. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary
assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned.
4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
5. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice,
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance
to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or
modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
6. Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.

Judicial Review
Requisites
Macasiano v. NHA 224 SCRA 236 [1993]
Liban v. Gordon 639 SCRA 709 [2011]
Belgica v. ES, GR 208566, November 19, 2013
Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014
Administrative Agencies; No Power
Serrano v. Gallant 582 SCRA 254 [2009]
First: Ripe for Adjudication
PACU v. Secretary of Education 97 Phil. 806 [1955]
Tan v. Macapagal 43 SCRA 678 [1972]
Solicitor General v. MMDA GR 102782, December 18, 1991
Militante
v.
CA,
GR
107040,
April
Pimentel v. HRET GR 14189, November 29, 2002
Constantino v. Cuisia 472 SCRA 505
Senate v. Ermita 488 SCRA 1 [2006]
David v. Arroyo 489 SCRA 162 [2006]
Suplico v. NEDA GR 178830, July 14, 2008
Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel
Lozano v. Nograles 589 SCRA 356 [2009]
Drilon v. De Venecia 594 SCRA 749 [2009]
De Castro v. JBC 615 SCRA 666 [2010]
LAMP v. Sec. of Budget and Management 670 SCRA 373 [2012]
Second: Standing
Legislators and Government Officials
Gonzales v. Macaraig, Jr.- 191 SCRA 452 [1990]
Philconsa v. Enriquez- 235 SCRA 506 [1994]
Del Mar v. PAGCOR, GR 138298, November 29, 2000
Sandoval v. PAGCOR- GR 138982, November 29, 2000
Jaworski v. PAGCOR- 419 SCRA 420
SANLAKAS v. Executive Secretary, GR 159085, Feb. 3, 2004
Farinas v. Executive Secretary, GR 147387, Dec. 10, 2003
Province of Batangas v. Romulo- 429 SCRA 736 [2004]
Disomangcop v. Datumanong-444 SCRA 203 [2004]
CHR- employees v. CHR- 444 SCRA 300 [2004]
Pimentel v. Executive Secretary- 462 SCRA 622
Pimentel v. Ermita- 495 SCRA 170 [2006]
Prov. Of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel- 564 SCRA 402 [2008]
Concepcion v. COMELEC- 591 SCRA 420 [2009]
Drilon v. De Venecia- 594 SCRA 749 [2009]
Biraogo v. PTC- 637 SCRA 78 [2010]
Taxpayers
Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works- 110 PHIL 331 [1960-1961]
Gonzales v. Marcos- 65 SCRA 624 [1975]
Gonzales v. Narvasa, GR 140835, August 14, 2000
Information Technology Foundation v. Comelec, GR 159131, Jan. 13 2004.
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary- 421 SCRA 656 [2004]
Velarde v. SJS- 428 SCRA 283 [2004]
Brillantes v. COMELEC- 432 SCRA 269 [2004]
Domingo v. Carague- 456 SCRA 450
Republic v. Nolasco- 457 SCRA 400
Constantino v. Cuisia- 472 SCRA 305
Abaya v. Ebdane- 515 SCRA 720 [2007]
Planters v. Fertiphil- 548 SCRA 485 [2008]
Roque v. COMELEC- 599 SCRA 62 [2009]
Mamba v. Lara, GR 165109, December 14, 2009
De la Llana v. Chairperson, COA- 665 SCRA 176 [2012]

12,

2000

Galicto v. Aquino-667 SCRA 150 [2012]

Initiatives for Dialogue v. PSALM- 682 SCRA 602 [2012]
Belgica v. ES, GR 208566, November 19, 2013
Citizens and Associations; Transcendental Importance
Legaspi v. CSC- 150 SCRA 530 [1987]
Oposa v. Factoran- 224 SCRA 792 [1993]
PASEI v. Torres-225 SCRA 417 [1993]
Joya v. PCGG- 225 SCRA 540 [1995]
Kilosbayan v. Morato- 246 SCRA 436 [1995]
Tatad v. Garcia 243 SCRA 436 [1995]
Board of Optometry v. Colet- 260 SCRA 88 [1996]
Anti-Graft League of the Philippines- 260 SCRA 250 [1996]
Telecom v. COMELEC- 289 SCRA 337 [1998]
Chavez v. PCGG- GR 130716 [May 19,1999]
IBP v. Zamora- GR 141284 [August 15, 2000]
Bayan v. Zamora- GR 138570, October 10, 2000
Cruz v. Secretary of DENR- gr 135385, December 6, 2000
Lozano v. Macapagal-Arroyo GR 146579, February 6, 2001
Lim v. Exec. Secretary- GR 151445 April 11, 2002
Chavez v. PEA- GR 133250, July 9, 2002
Tolentino v. COMELEC- 420 SCRA 438 [2004]
Agan v. PIATCO- 420 SCRA 575 [2004]
Tichangco v. Enriquez- 433 SCRA 324 [2004]
Automotive Industry Workers Alliance v. Rumolo- 449 SCRA 1
Pimentel v. Office of the Executive Secretary- 462 SCRA 622
Senate v. Ermita- 488 SCRA 1 [2006]
Purok v. Yuipco- 489 SCRA 382 [2006]
David v. Arroyo- 489 SCRA 162 [2006]
Holy Spirit v. Defensor- 497 SCRA 581 [2006]
Henares v. LTFRB- 505 SCRA 104 [2006]
Francisco v. Fernando- 507 SCRA [2006]
Public interest Center v. Roxas- 513 SCRA 457 [2007]
Garcia v. J.G. Summit- 516 SCRA 483 [2007]
Kilosbayan v. Ermita- 526 SCRA 353 [2007]
Tondo Medical v. CA- 527 SCRA 746 [2007]
Anak Mindanao v. Executive Secretary- 531 SCRA 583 [2007]
Pharmaceutical v. Duque- 535 SCRA 265
Chavez v. Gonzales-545 SCRA 441 [2008]
Akbayan v. Aquino- 558 SCRA 468 [2008]
SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board- 570 SCRA 410 [2008]
Garcillano v. House- GR 170338, Dec. 23,2008
White Light v. City of Manila- 576 SCRA 416 [2009]
Chamber of Real Estete v. Romulo- 614 SCRA 605 [2010]
Chamber of Real Estate v. ERC- 624 SCRA 556 [2010]
Southern Hemisphere v. ATC- 632 SCRA 146 [2010]
Orlando A. Reyes v. City of Manila, GR 196063, 14 December 2011.
Jelbert B. Galicto v. H.E. President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino, III, GR 193978, 28 February
2012.
Bayan v. Romulo- 641 SCRA 244 [2011]
Magallona v. Ermita- 655 SCRA 476 [2011]
Belgica v. ES, GR 208566, November 19, 2013
Other Rules: Raise at Earliest Opportunity and Constitutionality is the Very Lis Mota
People v. Vera- 65 PHIL. 56 [1937-1938]
Mirasol v. CA- 351 SCRA 44 [2001]
Matibag v. Benipayo- 380 SCRA 49 [2002]
La Bugal v. Ramos- 421 SCRA 148 [2004]
Estarja v. Ranada- 492 SCRA 652 [2006]
Moldex v. HLURB- 525 SCRA 198 [2007]
Gobenciong v. CA- 550 SCRA 502 [2008]

Heirs v. Marasigan- 548 SCRA 409 [2008]

Abakada v. Purisima- 562 SCRA 251 [2008]
ABS- CBN v. Phil. Multi-Media- 576 SCRA 262 [2009]
CSC v. Andal- 608 SCRA 370 [2009]
BPI v. Shemberg- 628 SCRA 70 [2010]
Macalintal v. PET- 635 SCRA 783 [2010]
Sergio I. Carbonilla, et al. v. Board of Airlines Representatives, GR 193247,
Office of the President v. Board of Airlines Representatives GR 194276, 14 September 2011
Reiterating Moldex v. HLURB
Hacienda Luisita v. PARC, GR 171101, November 22, 2011
Sana v. CESB, GR 192926, November 15, 2011
Gamboa v. Teves- 652 SCRA 690 [2011]
Moot Cases
David v. Arroyo, 489 SCRA 162 (2006)
Suplico v. NEDA, GR 178830, July 14, 2008
Mattel Inc. v. Francisco, GR No. 166886, July 30, 2008
Belgica v. ES, GR 208566, November 19, 2013
Araullo, et al v. Aquino, et al, GR No. 209287, July 1, 2014 (p. 22)
Narra Nickel Mining v. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp, GR 195580, April 21, 2014
Political Questions; Requisites
Baker v. Carr- 369 US 169 [1962]
Torrecampo v. Metropolitan- 649 SCRA 482 [2011]
Belgica v. ES, GR 208566, November 19, 2013
Textually Demonstrable Commitment
Osmena v. Pendatun- 109 PHIL. 683 [1960]
Arroyo v. De Venecia- 277 SCRA 268 [1997]
Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona- GR 134577, November 18, 1998
ICMC v. Calleja- GR 85750, September 28, 1990
Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 [1997]
Garcia v. Corona, GR 132451, Dec. 17, 1999
Judicially Discoverable and Manageable Standards
Liang v. People- GR 125865, March 26, 2001
Effect of Unconstitutionality; Par. 2(a); Operative Fact Doctrine
Article 7, New Civil Code
De Agbayani v. PNB- 38 SCRA 429 [1971]
Philippine Coconut v. Republic, supra.
Hacienda Luisita, Inc. v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, GR 171101, Nov. 22, 2011
(Operative Fact Doctrine applies to unconstitutional executive act)
CIR v. San Roque Power Corporation, GR 187485, Oct 8, 2013 (Operative Fact Doctrine
does not apply to a mere administrative practice; there must be a law or executive
issuance)
Automatic Review; Paragraph 2 (d)
Garcia, et al. v. People- 318 SCRA 434
Pearson v. IAC, GR 74454, Sept. 3, 1998
People v. Mateo- 433 SCRA 640
People v. Duavis, GR 190681, 07 December 2011
Question of Law; Paragraph 2(e)
Cebu Womans Club v. De la Victoria- GR 120060 [March 9, 2000]
Change of Venue; Paragraph 4
People v. Gutierrez- 36 SCRA 172 [1970]
Power to Promulgate Rules; Paragraph 5

Enforcement of Constitutional Rights, Pleading, Practice, and Procedure in All

Courts
First Lepanto v. CA- 231 SCRA 30 [1994]
Lina v. Purisima- 82 SCRA 344 [1978]
Santero v. CFI- Cavite- 153 SCRA 728 [1965]
Damasco v. Laqui- 166 SCRA 214 [1988]
Carpio v. Sulu Resources- GR 148267, August 8, 2002
Baguio Market Vendors v. Hon. Cortes- GR 165922, February 26, 2010
In re Petition for Recognition- 612 SCRA 193 [2010]
In re Exemption of NPC- 615 SCRA 1 [2010]
In re: in the matter of clarification of Exemption from payment of all Court Sheriffs Fees of
Cooperatives, A.M. 12-2-03-0,13 March 2012-668 SCRA 1 [2012]
Sto. Tomas v. Paneda- 685 SCRA 245 [2012]
Admission to the Practice of Law, the Integrated Bar, Disciplinary Powers, and
Legal Assistance to the Underprivileged
In re Cunanan- 94 PHIL. 534 [953-1954]
Javellana v. DILG 212 SCRA 475 [1992]
Velez v. De Vera- A.C. No. 6697, July 25, 2006
In re letter of UP Law Faculty- 644 SCRA 543 [2011]
Limits of Power
Simplified and Inexpensive Procedure for Speedy Disposition
Uniform for All Courts of the Same Grade
Not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights
Bustos v. Lucero- 81 PHIL. 648 [1948]
PNB v. Asuncion- 80 SCRA 321 [1977]
Fabian v. Desierto, GR 129742, September 16, 1998
People v. Lacson- 400 SCRA 267 [2003]
Planters v. Fertiphil- 426 SCRA 414 [2004]
Tan v. Bausch- 478 SCRA 115 [2005]
Republic v. Gingoyon- 478 SCRA 474 [2005]
Camp John Hay v. BIR- GR 172457, December 24, 2008
Procedure of Special Sourts and Quasi-Judicial
Disapproved by SC
LBP v. De Leon- GR 143275, September 10, 2002
Tan v. COMELEC- 507 SCRA 352 [2006]

Bodies

Effective

Unless

Supervision Over the Judiciary

Ampong v. CSC- 563 SCRA 293 [2008]
Sec. 6. Supervision of Courts
Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.

Maceda v. Vasquez- 221 SCRA 464 [1993]

De Vera v. Pelayo, GR 137354, July 6, 2000;
Caoibes v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 132177, July 19,2001;
Fuentes v. OMB, GR 124295, October 23, 2001
Dolalas v. Office of the Ombudsman-265 SCRA 819 [1996]
Garcia v. De la Pena, 299 SCRA 776 [1994]
Maningas v. Barcenas, AM P-99-1315, Nov. 3, 1999
Gorospe v. Sandoval, AM RTJ-00-1534, Feb. 15, 2000
Caoibes v. Ombudsman, GR 132177, July 19, 2001
Fuentes v. Ombudsman, GR 124295, Oct. 23, 2001
Adajar v. Develos- 475 SCRA 361 [2005]
Garcia v. Miro- 582 SCRA 127 [2009]
Escalona v. Padillo, AM P-10-2785, September 21, 2010
Sec. 7. Qualifications of Members of Judiciary

Section 7.
1. No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of
age, and must have been for fifteen years or more, a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of
law in the Philippines.
2. The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no person may be appointed
judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar.
3. A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.

In re JBC v. Judge Quitain, JBC No. 013, August 22, 2007

Kilosbayan v. Ermita, GR No. 177721, July 3, 2007
Topacio v. Ong, GR No. 179895, December 15, 2008
Sec. 8. Judicial and Bar Council
Section 8.
1. A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of
the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress
as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the
Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.
2. The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a term of four years with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, the representative of the
Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for three years, the retired Justice for two
years, and the representative of the private sector for one year.
3. The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a record of
its proceedings.
4. The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be determined by the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations for the Council.
5. The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the judiciary. It may exercise
such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.

Composition
Chavez v. JBC-676 SCRA 579 [2012]
De Castro v. JBC- 615 SCRA 666 [2010]
Sec. 9. Appointment of Justices and Judges
Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President
from a list of at least three nominees preferred by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such
appointments need no confirmation.
For the lower courts, the President shall issued the appointment within ninety days from the submission of the list.

Sec. 10. Diminution of Salary

Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges of
lower courts shall be fixed by law. During the continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased.

Nitafan v. CIR- 152 SCRA 284 [1987]

Sec. 11. Security of Tenure; Power to Discipline
Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower court shall hold office during good
behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office.

The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a
vote of majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted in
thereon.

Vargas v. Rilloraza- 80 PHIL. 297 [1948]

De La Llana v. Alba- 112 SCRA 294 [1982]
People v. Gacott- 246 SCRA 52 [1995]
Lumpas v. Tamin, AM no. RTJ-99-1519
Sec. 12. Non-Judicial Assignments
Section 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to
any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative function.

In Re Judge Manzano, 166 SCRA 246

Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, 635 SCRA 783 [2010]
Sec. 13. Conclusions of the Supreme Court-How Reached?
Section 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for the decision en banc or in
division shall be reached in consultation before the case the case assigned to a Member for the writing of the
opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof
attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any Member who took no part, or dissented, or
abstained from a decision or resolution must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed
by all lower collegiate court.

Consing v. Court of Appeals, GR 78272, August 29, 1989

Sec. 14. Contents of Decision; Petition for Review; Motion for Reconsideration
Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts
and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or
denied without stating the legal basis therefor.

Decision expressing clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
based
Sufficient
Air France v. Carrascoso- 18 SCRA 155 [1966]
People v. Bravo- 227 SCRA 285 [1993]
Hernandez v. CA- 208 SCRA 429 [1993]
Francisco v. Permskul- 173 SCRA 324 [1989]
People v. Landicho- 285 SCRA 1 [1996]
People v. Co- 245 SCRA 733 [1995]
People v. Macoy- 275 SCRA 1 [1997]
ABD v. NLRC- 286 SCRA 454 [1998]
People v. Gastador, GR 123727 [April 14, 1999]
People v. Ordonez, GR 136591, July 10, 2000
People v. Orbita, GR 1365891, July 11, 2002
Lorbes v. CA, 351 SCRA 716
People v. Mendoza, GR 143702, Sept. 13, 2001
Asia Traders v. CA- 423 SCRA 114 [2004]
Tichangco v. Enriquez- 433 SCRA 324 [2004]
Ceferina Lopez Tan v. Spouses Antazo, GR 187208, 23 February 2011.
Donnina C. Halley v. Printwell, Inc. GR 157549, 30 May 2011.
Hon. Waldo Q. Flores v. Atty. Antonio F. Montemayor, GR 17046, 8 June 2011
Reiting Solid Homes v. Laserna. Art VIII, Section 14 applies only to the judiciary)
Insufficient
People v. Escober- 157 SCRA 541 [1988]
Nicos v. CA 206 SCRA 127 [1992]

People v. Viernas 262 SCRA 641 [1996]

People v. Bugarin 273 SCRA 384 [1997]
People v. Nadera 342 SCRA 490 [2000]
Madrid v. CA, GR 130683, May 31 2000
Yao v. CA, GR 132428, October 24, 2000
People v. Dumaging, GR 135516, September 20, 2000
Ong Chiu Kwan, GR 13006, November 23, 2000
Spouse Yu Eng Cho v. Pan America World Airways, Inc., GR 123560, March 27, 2000
Kao v. C.A., G.R. No. 105014, December 18,2001
People v. Pastor, 379 SCRA 181 (2002)
People v. Lizada, GR 143468, Jan 24, 2003
Consing v. CA-425 SCRA 192 [2004]
Velarde v. SJS-428 SCRA 283 [2004]
Report on the Judicial Audit (MTC of Tambulig)- 472 SCRA 419 [2005]
Lacurom v. Tienzo- 535 SCRA 252 [2007]
Salazar v. Marigomen- 537 SCRA 25 [2007]
De la Pena v. CA- 579 SCRA 396 [2009]
Office of the President and Presidential Anti- Graft Commission v. Calixto R. Cataquiz, GR
183445, 14 September 2011.
Republic of the Philippines (University of the Philippines) v. Legaspi, GR 177611, 18 April
2012
Legal basis must be stated if a petition for review or motion for reconsideration
of a decision shall be refused due course or denied
Borromeo v. CA- 186 SCRA 1 [1990]
JRB Realty v. CA-271 SCRA 229 [1997]
Komatsu v. CA-289 SCRA 604 [1998]
Martinez v. CA, GR 123547, May 21, 2001
Protacio v. Laya-582 SCRA 417 [2009]
Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Ronald P. Valderama, GR 186614, 23
February 2011. Reiterating Philippine Health care Providers, Inc. v. CIR.
Re: Verified Complaint of Engr. Oscar L. Ongjoco, A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-184-CA-J, 31 January
2012.
Agoy v. Araneta Center, GR 196358, 21 March 2012. Reiterating Borromeo v. CA
Sec. 15. Period for Making Decisions
Section 15.
1. All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within
twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme
Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.
2. A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading,
brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.
3. Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or
the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or
matter, and served upon the parties. The certification shall state why a decision or resolution has not been
rendered or issued within said period.
4. Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, without prejudice to such
responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or
matter submitted thereto for determination, without further delay.

Dizon v. Judge Lopez- 278 SCRA 483 [1997]

Mosquera v. Legaspi, AM RTJ-99-1511, July 10,2000
OCA v. Salva, AM RTJ-98-1412, July 19, 2000
Dela Cruz v. Bersamira, AM RTJ-00-1567, July 24, 2000
Heirs of Sucaldito v. Cruz, AM RTJ-991456, July 27, 2000
Sulla v. Ramos, AM-MTJ-00-1319, September 27, 2000
Seares v. Salazar, AM MTJ-98-1160, November 22, 2000
Gil v. Jonolo, AM RTJ-00-1602, December 5, 2000

10

Aslarona v. Echavez, AM RTJ-03-1803, Oct. 2, 2003

Unitrust Devt Bank v. Caoibes, AM RTJ-03-1745, Aug, 20, 2003
Re: Request of Judge Javellana, AM 01-6-314-RTC, June 19, 2003
Salud v. Alumbres, AM RTJ-00-1594, June 20,2003
Samson v. Mejia, AM RTJ-02-1710,June 17,2003
Supplemnent:
Sibayan-Joaquin v. Judge Javellana, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601, Nov. 13,2001
Sec. 16. Report to the President and to Congress
Section 16. The Supreme Court shall, within thirty days from the opening of each regular session of the
Congress, submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on the operations and activities of the
Judiciary.

Article IX: Constitutional Commissions

11

A. Common Provisions
Section 1. Independent Commissions
A. COMMON PROVISIONS
Section 1. The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Service Commission, the
Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.

Macalintal v. COMELEC, GR 157013, July 10, 2003

Ombudsman v. Civil Service Commission, GR No. 159940, February 16, 2005
Section 2. Prohibition on Members
Section 2. No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or
employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management or control of
any business which, in any way, may be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be financially
interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the Government,
any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations or
their subsidiaries.

Section 3. Salary
Section 3. The salary of the Chairman and the Commissioners shall be fixed by law and shall not be decreased
during their tenure.

Section 4. Power to Appoint

Section 4. The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint their officials and employees in accordance with law.

Section 5. Fiscal Autonomy

Section 5. The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Their approved annual appropriations shall be
automatically and regularly released.

CSC v. DBM, 482 SCRA 233

Section 6. Promulgation of Rules
Section 6. Each Commission en banc may promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it
or before any of its offices. Such rules, however, shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.

Macalintal v. COMELEC, GR No. 157013, July 10, 2003

Sabili v. COMELEC, GR 193261, April 24, 2012
Section 7. Decisions of the Commissions
Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members, any case or matter brought
before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed
submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the
rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any
decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved
party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.

Review of final orders, resolutions and decisions:

1. Rendered in the exercise of quasi-judicial functions
2. Rendered in the exercise of administrative functions
Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v. Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25
Saligumba v. CA, 117 SCRA 669
PTTC v. COA, 146 SCRA 190 (1986)

12

Cua v. COMELEC, 156 SCRA 582 (1987)

Estrella v. COMELEC, GR No. 160465, May 27, 2004
Mison v. COA, 187 SCRA 445 (1990)
Paredes v. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 653 (1984)
Ambil v. COMELEC, 344 SCRA 358 [2000]
Mateo v. CA, GR No. 113219, August 14, 1995
Reyes v. Regional Trial Court, GR No. 108886, May 5, 1995
ABS-CBN v. COMELEC, 323 SCRA 611
Salva v. Makalintal, GR 132603, September 18, 2000
Garces v. CA, GR. No. 114 795, July 17, 1996
Dumayas v. COMELEC, GR Nos. 141952-53, April 29, 2001
Aguilar v. COMELEC, GR No. 185140, June 30, 2009
Cayetano v. COMELEC, GR 193846, April 12, 2011
Dela Llana v. The Chairperson, COA, GR 180989, February 7, 2012
Cagas v. COMELEC, 663 SCRA 644 (2012)
Section 8. Other Functions
Section 8. Each Commission shall perform such other functions as may be provided by law.

B. Civil Service Commission

Section 1. Composition; Qualifications; Term
1. The civil service shall be administered by the Civil Service Commission composed of a Chairman and two
Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment,
at least thirty-five years of age, with proven capacity for public administration, and must not have been
candidates for any elective position in the elections immediately preceding their appointment.
2. The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed,
the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, a Commissioner for five years, and another Commissioner
for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term
of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting
capacity.

Gaminde v. COA 347 SCRA 655 (2000)

Mathay Jr. v. CA, GR No. 124374, December 15, 1999
Section 2.Scope of the system
Section 2.
1. The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.
2. Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be determined, as
far as practicable, and, except to positions which are policy-determining, primarily confidential, or highly
technical, by competitive examination.
3. No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by
law.
4. No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or
partisan political campaign.
5. The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees.
6. Temporary employees of the Government shall be given such protection as may be provided by law.

Cuevas v. Bacal, GR 139382, December 6 2000

Under Civil Service Law
PARAGRAPH 1
MWSS v. Hernandez 143 SCRA 602 [1986]

13

NSC v. NLRC 168 SCRA 122

UP v. Regino 221 SCRA 598 [1993]
Mateo v. CA 247 SCRA 284 [1995]
DOH v. NLRC 251 SCRA 700 [1995]
Juco v. NLRC 277 SCRA 528 [1997]
Feliciano v. Gison 629 SCRA 103 [2010]
GOCCs Under the Corporation Code
BLISS v. Calejo 237 SCRA 271 [1994]
Postigo v. Philippine Tuberculosis society 479 SCRA 628
LRTA v. Venus 485 SCRA 301
PARAGRAPH 2
Classifications and Appointments
HIGC v. CSC 220 SCRA 148 [1993]
Mauna v. CSC 232 SCRA 388 [1994]
Rimonte v. CSC 244 SCRA 498 [1995]
Gloria v. De Guzman 249 SCRA 126 [1995]
Atty. Ellas Omar A Sana v. Career Executive Service Board, GR 192926, 15 November 2011
Competitive
Samson v. CA 145 SCRA 654[1986]
Non-Competitive
Astraquillo v. Mangalupas 190 SCRA 280 [1990]
Office of the President v. Buenaobra 501 SCRA 302
Policy-Determining
Primarily Confidential
Borres v. CA 153 SCRA 120 [1987]
Grino v. CSC 194 SCRA 458 [1991]
Santos v. Macaraig 208 SCRA 74 [1992]
Hilario v. CSC 243 SCRA 206 [1995]
Rosete v. CA 264 SCRA 147 [1996]
CSC v. Salas 274 SCRA 414 [1997]
Acahacoso v. Macaraig 195 SCRA 235 [1991]
Felix v. Buenaseda 240 SCRA 139 [1995] (par.2)
Pamantasan ng Maynila v. CSC 241 SCRA 503 [1995]
Province of the Camarines Sur v. CA 246 SCRA 231 [1995]
PEZA v. Mercado 614 SCRA 683 [2010]
CSC v. CA 635 SCRA 749 [2010]
Permanent
Luego v. CSC 143 SCRA 327 [1986]
Pangilinan v. Maglaya 225 SCRA 511 [1993] (par.2)
Reorganization
Santiago v. CSC 178 SCRA 733 [1989]
Montecillo v. Civil Service Commission, GR NO. 131954. June 28, 2001
Gatmaitan v. Gonzales 492 SCRA 591
Nieves v. Blanco 673 SCRA 638 [2012]
Appointment vs. designation
Binamira v. Garucho 188 SCRA 154 [1990] (par.2) (designation by Dept. Sec.)
Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure
Cause for Removal: PARAGRAPH 3
1. Loss confidence
Hernandez v. Villegas 14 SCRA 544 [1965]

14

2. Abolition of Office
Briones v. Osmena 104 PHIL. 588 [1958]
Eugene v. CSC 243 SCRA 196 [1995]
3. Reorganization
Romualdez-Yap v. CSC 225 SCRA 285 [1993]
Fernandez v. Sto Tomas 242 SCRA 192 [1995]
Chato v. Natividad 244 SCRA 787 [1995]
Divinagracia v. Sto. Tomas 244 SCRA 595 [1995] (par.3)
Vinzon-Chato v. Zenarosa, GR 120539, October 20, 2000
De Guzman v. Comelec, GR 129118, July 19, 2000
Cuevas v. Bacal, GR 139382, December 6, 2000
4. Qualification for Eligibility
Mayor v. Macaraig 194 SCRA 672 [1991
5. Abandonment; Acceptance of Incompatible/Other Employment
Canonizado v. Aguirre, 323 SCRA 312 [2001]
Salvador v. CA, GR 127501, May 5, 2000
Due Process in Removal
Enrique v. CA 229 SCRA 180 [1994]
CSC v. Magnaye 619 SCRA 347 [2010]
Rubenecia v. CSC 244 SCRA 640 [1995]
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office Board Of Directors v. Marie Jean C. Lapid, GR
191940, 12 April 2011
Security of Tenure
Chua v. CSC 206 SCRA 65 [1992]
NLTD v. CSC 221 SCRA 145
Cabagnot v. CSC 223 SCRA 59 (
Marohombsar v. CA, GR 126481, February 18, 2000
Ong v. OP 664 SCRA 413 [2012]
Electioneering or Partisan Political Activity
Santos v. Yatco 106 PHIL 21
People v. De Venecia 14 SCRA 864 [1965]
Right to Self-Organization and Right to Strike
SSS Employees v. CA 175 SCRA 686 [1989]
Balingasan v. CA 276 SCRA 557 [1997]
Jacinto v. CA 281 SCRA 557 [1997]
De la Cruz v. CA 305 SCRA 303
GSIS v. Kapisanan 510 SCRA 622
Temporary Employees
Gloria v. CA, GR 119903, August 15, 2000
Section 3. Purpose of a Civil Service System
Section 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the Government, shall establish a
career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and
courtesy in the civil service. It shall strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all human resources
development programs for all levels and ranks, and institutionalize a management climate conducive to public
accountability. It shall submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on its personnel programs.

Lazo v. CSC, 236 SCRA 469

Section 4. Oath or Affirmation

15

Section 4. All public officers and employees shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this
Constitution.

Section 5. Standardization of Compensation

Section 5. The Congress shall provide for the standardization of compensation of government officials and
employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, taking into
account the nature of the responsibilities pertaining to, and the qualifications required for, their positions.

Section 6. Prohibition of Appointment of Lame Ducks

Section 6. No candidate who has lost in any election, shall within one year after such election, be appointed to
any office in the Government or any Government-owned or controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.

People v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 164185, July 23, 2008

Section 7. Prohibitions; Appointments; Office; Employment
Section 7. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office
or position during his tenure.
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any
other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
Government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

Flores v. Drilon 223 SCRA 568 (1993)

In re Eduardo Escala, 653 SCRA 141
La Carlota City v. Rojo , GR 181367, 24 April 2012
Sec. 8 Prohibitions; Compensation; Foreign Gift/Office/Title
Section 8. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect
compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, nor accept without the consent of the Congress, any present,
emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign government.
Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional, double, or indirect compensation.

Sedusasta v. Municipality of Surigao 72 PHIL. 482 [1941]

Peralta v. Mathay 38 SCRA 296 (1971)
Santos v. CA GR No. 139792, Nov. 22, 2000
Cabili v. CSC, GR No. 156503, June 22, 2006
Benguet State University v. Colting, GR No. 169637, June 8, 2007
Herrera, et al v. NPC, GR No. 166570, December 18, 2009
NEA v. CSC 611 SCRA 14 [2010]
Yap v. COA 619 SCRA 154 [2010]
Sergio I. Carbonilla, et al v. Board of Airlines, GR 193247
Office of the President v. Board of Airlines, GR 194276, 14 September 2011
PEZA V. COA 675 SCRA 513[2012]
Dimagiba v. Espartero 676 SCRA 420 [2012]
C. Commission on Elections
Section 1. Composition; Qualifications; Term
Section 1.
1. There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be
natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of
age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective positions in the
immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members
of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

16

2. The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed,
three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five years, and the last Members for
three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of
the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting
capacity.

Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210 (1991)

Brillantes v. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358 (1990)
Matibag v. Benipayo, 380 SCRA 49
Section 2. Powers and Functions
Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:
1. Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum, and recall.
2. Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications
of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving
elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay
officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and
barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable.
3. Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including determination
of the number and location of polling places, appointment of election officials and inspectors, and
registration of voters.
4. Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the
Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free,
orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
5. Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other
requirements, must present their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens' arms of the
Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered. Those which seek
to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this
Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall likewise be refused registration.
Financial contributions from foreign governments and their agencies to political parties, organizations,
coalitions, or candidates related to elections, constitute interference in national affairs, and, when
accepted, shall be an additional ground for the cancellation of their registration with the Commission, in
addition to other penalties that may be prescribed by law.
6. File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of
voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts
or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.
7. Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election spending, including limitation of
places where propaganda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and penalize all forms of election
frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance candidacies.
8. Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it has deputized, or the imposition of
any other disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience to, its directive, order, or
decision.
9. Submit to the President and the Congress, a comprehensive report on the conduct of each election,
plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.

Administrative Power
Alfiado v. Comelec, GR 141787, September 18, 2000
Columbres v. Comelec, GR 142038,September 18, 2000
Sahali v. Comelec, GR 134169, February 2, 2000
Claudio v. Comelec, GR 140560, May 4, 2000
De Guzman v. Comelec, GR 129118, July 19, 2000
Social Weather Station, Inc v. COMELEC, GR NO. 147571, May 5, 2001

17

Information Technology Foundation v. Comelec, GR 159139, Jan 13, 2004

Buac v. Comelec, 421 SCRA 92
Capalla v. COMELEC 673 SCRA 1 [2012]
Election Contests
Flores v. COMELEC 184 SCRA 484 [1990]
Galido v. COMELEC 193 SCRA 78 [1991]
Mercado v. BES 243 SCRA 422 [1995]
Relampagos v. Cumba 243 SCRA 690 [1995]
People v. Delgado 189 SCRA 715 [1990]
Garces v. CA 259 SCRA 99 [1996]
Zarate v. Comelec and Lallave GR 129096, November 19, 1999
Regalado v. CA, GR 115962, February 15, 2000
Faelnar v. People,GR 140850-51, May 4, 2000
Tan v. Comelec, GR 148575, Dec. 10, 2003
Alauya v. Comelec, GR 158830, August 10, 2004
Powers Not Given
Deputizing Law Enforcement Agencies
People v. Basilla 179 SCRA 87[1989]
Registration of Parties and Organization
LDP v. Comelec, GR 161265, February 24, 2004
Atienza v. COMELEC 612 SCRA 761 [2010]
Lokin v. COMELEC 674 SCRA 538[2012]
Prosecution of Election Offenses
People v. Inting 187 SCRA 788 [1990]
Corpus v. Tanodbayan 149 SCRA 281[1987]
COMELEC v. Silva 286 SCRA 177[1998]
Comelec v. Hon. Espanol, GR 149164, Dec. 10, 2003
Arroyo v. DOJ 681 SCRA 181[2012]
Recommendatory Powers
Section 3. Decisions
Section 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of
procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre- proclamation controversies. All such
election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall
be decided by the Commission en banc.

Pangilinan v. COMELEC 228 SCRA 36[1993]

Sarmiento v. Comelec 212 SCRA 307[1992]
Carnicosa v. COMELEC 282 SCRA 512[1997]
Ramas v. COMELEC 286 SCRA 189[1998]
Garvida v. Sales 271 SCRA 767[1997]
Velayo v. Comelec, GR 135613, March 9, 2000
Sebastian v. Comelec, GR 139573, Mach 7, 2000
Soller v. Comelec, GR 139853, September 5, 2000
Barroso v. Ampig et al, GR138218, March 17, 2000
Maruhon v. Comelec, GR 139357, May 5,2000
Balindong v. Comelec, GR 153991, Oct. 16, 2003
Jaramilla v. Comelec, GR 155717, Oct. 23, 2003
Bautista v. Comelec, GR 154796-97, Oct. 23, 2003
De Llana v. Comelec, GR 152080, Nov. 28, 2003
Repol v. Comelec, GR 151418, Apr. 28, 2004
Pedragoza v. COMELEC 496 SCRA 513
Cayetano v. COMELEC 479 SCRA 514
Munoz v. COMELEC 495 SCRA 407
Tan v. COMELEC 507 SCRA 352

18

Enriquel v. COMELEC 613 SCRA 809

Mendoza v. COMELEC 616 SCRA 443
Maria Laarni L Cayetano v. Comelec, GR 193846, 12 April 2011 (also in Sec. 7, Art IX-A)
Section 4. Supervision/Regulation of Public Utilities, Media Grants, Privileges
Section 4. The Commission may, during the election period, supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of
all franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and other public utilities, media of communication or
information, all grants, special privileges, or concessions granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency,
or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation or its subsidiary. Such
supervision or regulation shall aim to ensure equal opportunity, time, and space ,and the right to reply, including
reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public information campaigns and forums among candidates in connection
with the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

Unido v. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 17

Sanidad v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 529 (1990)
Osmena v. COMELEC 199 SCRA 750 [1991]
Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC, GR No. 119654, May 22, 1995
Telecom v. COMELEC 289 SCRA 337 [1998]
ABS-CBN v. COMELEC, GR No. 133486, Jan. 28, 2000
SWS v. COMELEC, GR No. 147571, May 5, 2001
Section 5. Favorable Recommendation for Pardon, Amnesty, Parole or Suspension of
Sentence
Section 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for violation of election laws, rules, and
regulations shall be granted by the President without the favorable recommendation of the Commission.

Section 6. Free and Open Party System

Section 6. A free and open party system shall be allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the people,
subject to the provisions of this Article.

Liberal Party v. COMELEC, GR No. 191771, May 6, 2010

Section 7. No Block-Voting
Section 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those
registered under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution.

Section 8. Prohibition on Political Parties

Section 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list system, shall not be
represented in the voters' registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar
bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law.

Section 9. Election Period

Section 9. Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in special cases, the election period shall commence ninety
days before the day of election and shall end thirty days thereafter.

Section 10. No Harassment and Discrimination

Section 10. Bona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any form of harassment and
discrimination.

Section 11. Funds

Section 11. Funds certified by the Commission as necessary to defray the expenses for holding regular and
special elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recalls, shall be provided in the regular or special

19

appropriations and, once approved, shall be released automatically upon certification by the Chairman of the
Commission

D. Commission of Audit
Section 1. Qualifications; Term
Section 11. Funds certified by the Commission as necessary to defray the expenses for holding regular and
special elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recalls, shall be provided in the regular or special
appropriations and, once approved, shall be released automatically upon certification by the Chairman of the
Commission

Mison v. COA, 187 SCRA 445

Section 2. General Function; Powers
Section 2.
1. The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all
accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property,
owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and on a
post- audit basis:
a. constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this
Constitution;
b. autonomous state colleges and universities;
c.

other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and

d. such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through
the Government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a
condition of subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies
is inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or special preaudit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general
accounts of the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the
vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto.

Sec. 2 Powers and Functions

2. The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to define the
scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required therefor, and
promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and
disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses
of government funds and properties.

Examine and Audit: Government revenues and Government expenditures

Blue Bar Coconut Phil. Tantuico 163 SCRA 716 [1988]
DBP v. COA 231 SCRA 202 [1994]
Eslao v. COA 236 SCRA 161 [1994]
J.F.F. Manacop v. CA 266 SCRA 235 [1997]
Polloso v. Gangan, GR 140563, July 14, 2000
Uy v. COA, GR 130685, March 21, 2000
Aguinaldo v. Sandiganbayan 265 SCRA 121 [1996]
DBP v. COA, 422 SCRA 459 [2004]
Home Development Mutual Fund v. COA, GR 142297, June 15, 2004
DBP v. COA 498 SCRA 537 [2006]
Nava v. Palattao 499 SCRA 745 [2006]
Gualberto De Llana v. COA, GR 180989, 7 Feb. 2012
Candelario L. Versoza Jr. v. Guillermo N Carague, GR 157838, 7 February 2012

20

Philippine Coconut v. Republic 663 SCRA 514 [2012]

Audit Jurisdiction
Caltex v. COA 208 SCRA 726 [1992]
Mamaril v. Domingo 227 SCRA 206[1993]
Philippine Airlines v. COA 245 SCRA 39 [1995]
CIR v. COA 218 SCRA 203 [1993]
CSC v. Pobre, GR 160568, Sept. 15, 2004
Luciano Velos, et al. v. Commission On Audit, GR 193677,6 Sept. 20011
Boy Scout of the Philippines v. COA, GR 177131, 7 June 2011
Dela Llana v. COA 665 SCRA 176 [2012]
Settle Government Account
Philippine Operations, Inc. v. Auditor General, 94 Phil 868 [1953-1954]
ICNA v. Republic, 21 SCRA 40 [1967]
Dingcong v. Guingona, 162 SCRA 782 [1988]
NHC v. COA 226 SCRA 55 [1993]
Euro-Med v. Province of Batangas, 495 SCRA 30 [2006]
Define Scope and Techniques of Auditing Procedures
Danville Maritime v. COA,175 SCRA 701 [1989]
Promulgate Accounting and Auditing Rules
Leycano v. COA, 482 SCRA 215
Decide Administrative Cases Involving Expenditures of Public Funds
NCMH v. COA, 265 SCRA 390 [1996]
Ramos v. Aquino, 39 SCRA 256 [1971]
Salva v. Carague, 511 SCRA 258
City of Basilan v. Hechanova, 58 SCRA 711 [1974]
Section 3. COA Jurisdiction
Section 3. No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the Government or its subsidiaries in any guise
whatever, or any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit.

Luciano Veloso v. Commisssion on Audit, GR 193677, 6 September 2011

Section 4. Annual Report to the President and to Congress
Section 4. The Commission shall submit to the President and the Congress, within the time fixed by law, an
annual report covering the financial condition and operation of the Government, its subdivisions, agencies, and
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and non-governmental entities subject
to its audit, and recommend measures necessary to improve their effectiveness and efficiency. It shall submit
such other reports as may be required by law.

21

Article X. Local Government

Section 1. Territorial and Political Subdivisions of the Philippines
Cordillera Broad Coalition v. COA, GR No. 79956, January 26, 1990
Section 2. Local Autonomy
Limbona v. Conte Mangelin, et al, GR No. 80391, February 28, 1989
San Juan v. CSC, 196 SCRA 69 (1991)
Drilon v. Lim 235 SCRA 135 [1994]
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties, GR No. 111097, July 20, 1994
Judge Leynes v. COA, GR No. 143596, Dec. 11, 2003
Batangas CATV v. CA and Batangas City, GR No. 138810, September 29, 2004
CREBA v. Secretary of DAR, GR 183409, June 18, 2010
Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014
Section 3. Local Government Code
Garcia v. COMELEC, 227 SCRA 100 (1993)
Malonzo v. COMELEC, 269 SCRA 380 (1997)
Malonzo v. Zamora 323 SCRA 875
Section 4. Supervision by the President
Ganzon v. CA, 200 SCRA 271
Joson v. Torres, 290 SCRA 279
Drilon v. Lim, 235 SCRA 135 (1994)
Bito-onon v. Fernandez 350 SCRA 732
National Liga v. Paredes 439 130 [2004]
SJS v. Atienza 545 SCRA 92 [2009]
Province of Negros v. COA, GR No. 182574, September 28, 2010
Section 5. Taxation Power of Local Government
LTO v. City of Butuan, 322 SCRA 805
Lina v. Pano, 364 SCRA 76 (2001)
Petron v. Mayor, GR No. 158881, April 16, 2008

22

Yamane v. BA Lepanto Condominium, GR No. 154993, October 25, 2005

Philippine Petroleum v. Municipality of Pililla, GR No. 90773, June 3, 1991
Acebedo Optical v. CA, GR 100152, March 21, 2000
PLDT v. City of Davao, GR 143867, March 25, 2003
John Hay Peoples Alternative Coalition v. Lim, GR No. 119775, October 24, 2003
Manila Electric v. Province of Laguna, GR No. 131359, May 5, 1999
Batangas Power v. Batangas City, GR No. 152675, April 28, 2004
Smart Communications v. City of Davao, GR No. 155491, September 16, 2008
Section 6. Share in National Taxes
Pimentel v. Aguirre, 336 SCRA 201 (2000)
Province of Batangas v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 152774, May 27, 2004
Alternative Center v. Zamora, GR No. 144256, June 8, 2005
League of Cities v. COMELEC August 24, 2010
Section 7. Equitable Share in the National Wealth
Section 8. Term of Local Officials
Borja v. COMELEC, 295 SCRA 157
Lozanida v. COMELEC, GR No. 135150, July 28, 1999
Adormeo v. COMELEC, GR No. 147927, February 4, 2002
Socrates v. COMELEC, 391 SCRA 457 (2002)
Latasa v. COMELEC, GR No. 154829, Dec. 10, 2003
David v. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 90 (1997)
Rivera v. COMELEC 523 SCRA 41
Montebon v. COMELEC, 551 SCRA 50
Ong v. Alegre, GR No. 163295, January 23, 2006
Laceda v. Lumena GR 182867, November 25, 2008
Dizon v. COMELEC, GR No. 182088, January 30, 2009
Alboin v. COMELEC, GR No. 184836, December 23, 2009
Bolos v. COMELEC 581 SCRA 786 [2009]
Aldovino v. COMELEC 609 SCRA 234 [2009]
Datu Michel Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR 196271, February 2012
(reconsideration; holdover provision in RA 9054 Unconstitutional as Congress in passing RA
10153 has made clear)
Section 9. Sectoral Representatives
Supangan Jr. v. Santos, GR No. 84662, August 24, 1990
Section 10. Creation, Abolition, Change of Boundaries
Tan v. COMELEC, 142 SCRA 727 (1986)
Tobias v. Abalos 239 SCRA 106 [1994] (metes and bounds)
Mun. of Jimenez v. Judge Baz 265 SCRA 182 [1996](de jure corporation)
Cawaling v. COMELEC GR146319, October 26, 2001
League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC, GR 176951, Nov. 29, 2008
Sema v. COMELEC, 558 SCRA 700
Camid v. Office of the President, GR No. 161414, January 17, 2005
Navarro v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 180050, February 10, 2010
Section 11. Metropolitan Political Subdivisions
MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association Assoc., GR No. 135962, March 27, 2000
MMDA v. Garin, GR No. 130230, April 15, 2005
Gancayco v. City Government of Quezon City, 658 SCRA 853
Section 12. Highly Urbanized Cities, Component Cities
Abella v. COMELEC, GR No. 100710, September 3, 1991
Section 13. Local Government Units Grouping Themselves
Section 14. Regional Development Councils and Other Similar Bodies
Pimentel v. Ochoa 676 SCRA 551 [2012]

23

Sec. 15 Purpose, and how many Autonomous Regions

Section 15. Autonomous Regions
Disomangcop v. Sec. of DPWH,GR 149848, Nov. 25, 2004
Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR No. 196271, October 18, 2011
Section 16. General Supervision of the President
Ampatuan v. Hon Ronaldo Puno, GR 190259. 17 June 2011 (Proclamation 1946 and AOs
and 273 A do not violate the principle of local autonomy under Section 16, Article X of the
Constitution, and Section 1 Article V of the Expanded ARMM Organic Act)
Kulayan v. Tan 675 SCRA 482 [2012]
Section 17. Powers Not Vested to the ARMM
Datu Michel Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR 196271, 18 October 2011. (The
framers decided to reinstate the provision in order to make it clear, once and for all, that
these are the limits of the powers to the autonomous government; those not enumerated
are actually to be exercised by the national government; the autonomy granted to the
ARMM cannot be invoked to defeat national policies and concerns Since the
synchronization of elections not just a regional concerns but a national one, the ARMM is
subject to it; the regional autonomy granted to the ARMM cannot be used to exempt the
region from having act in accordance with national policy mandated by no less than the
Constitution)
Sections 18 and19. Organic Act for Autonomous Regions
Abbas v. COMELEC, 179 SCRA 287 (1989)
Ordillos v. COMELEC, 192 SCRA 100 (1990)
Badua v. CBA, 194 SCRA 101 (1991)
Atitiw v. Zamora, 471 SCRA 329
Cordillera Broad Coalition v. COA, GR No. 82217, Jan. 29, 1990
Pandi v. CA, GR No. 116850, April 11, 2002
Sema v. COMELEC, GR No. 177597, July 16, 2008
Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel
Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, February 2012 (means that only
amendments to, or revisions of, the organic Act Constitutionally-essential to creation of
autonomous regions i.e. , those aspects specially mentioned in the Constitution which
Congress must provide for the Organic Act require ratification through a plebiscite)
Section 20. Legislative Powers of the Autonomous Regions
Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Philippines Peace Panel, 568 SCRA 492
Section 21. Preservation of Peace and Order
Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers
Section 1. Public Office
Hipolito v. Mergas 195 SCRA 6 [1991]
Bornasal, Jr. v. Montes 280 SCRA 181 [1997]
Almario v. Resus AM NO. P941076, [November 22, 1999]
Juan v. People, GR 132378, January 18, 2000
Re; AWOL of Antonio Makalintal, AM 99-11-06-SC, February 15, 2000
Estrella v. Sandiganbayan, GR 125160, June 20, 2000
Malbas v. Blanco, A.M P99-1350, December 12, 2001
Manaois v. Lemeo, AM MTJ-03-1492, Aug. 26, 2003
Re; Gideon Alibang, AM 2003-11-SC June 15, 2004
ABAKADA v. Purisima 562 SCRA 251[2008]
Salumbides v. OMB, GR 180917, April 23, 2010
Section 2. Officers Subject to Removal by Impeachment
Ombudsman v. CA 452 SCRA 714 [2005] (exclusive list)

24

Section 3. Procedure for Impeachment

In re Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771 (1988)
Marcoleta v. Brawner 582 SCRA 474 [2009])
Romulo v. Yniguez, 141 SCRA 260 (1986)
Francisco v. House of Representatives, 415 SCRA 44
Estrada v. Desierto, 353 SCRA 452 (2001); MR, 356 SCRA 108 (2001)
Gutierrez v. Committee on Justice, 643 SCRA 198
Section 4. Sandiganbayan
Nunez v. Sandiganbayan 111 SCRA 433 [1982] (creation of Sandiganbayan)
Lecaros v. Sandiganbayan 128 SCRA 324 [1984] (crimes in relation to public office)
Cunanan v. Arceo 242 SCRA 88 [1995] (averment of the nature of the crime committed)
Balmadrid v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 58327, March 22, 1991
Azarcon v. Sandiganbanyan, GR No. 116033, February 26, 1997
Binay v. Sandiganbayan GR NO. 120681-83 [October 1, 1999]
Mayor Layus v. Sandiganbayan GR 134272, December 8, 1999
Abbot v. Mapayo, GR 134102, July 6, 2000
Defensor-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, 356 SCRA 636 (2001)
Section 5. Ombudsman
Baluyot v. Holganza, GR 136374, February 2000
Garcia v. Ombudsman, GR 127710, February 16, 2000
Lapid v. CA, GR 142261, June 29, 2000
Tirol v. COA, GR 133954, August 3, 2000
Mamburao v. Desierto, 429 SCRA 76
Carandang v. Desierto, 639 SCRA 293
Lacson v. ES, 649 SCRA 142
People v. Morales, 649 SCRA 182
Quarto v. Marcelo, 658 SCRA 580
Section 6. Appointments
Ombudsman v. CSC, GR No. 162215, July 20, 2007
Section 7. Tanodbayan as Special Prosecutor
Quimpo v. Tanodbayan 146 SCRA 137 [1986]
Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, 160 SCRA 843 (1988)
Acop v. Ombudsman, GR No. 120422, September 27, 1995
Deloso v. Domingo, 191 SCRA 545
Almonte v. Vasquez, GR No. 95367, May 22, 1995
Azarcon v. Guerrero, GR No. 121017, Feb 17, 1997
Azarcon v. Guerrero , GR No. 116033, Feb 26, 1997
Camanag v. Hon Guerrero 286 SCRA 473 [1997]
Buenasada v. Flavier, 226 SCRA 645
Macalino v. Sandiganbayan, 376 SCRA 452
BIR v. Ombudsman, GR No. 115103, April 11, 2002
Laurel v. Desierto, GR No. 145368, April 12, 2002
Office of the Ombudsman v. Valera 471 SCRA 715 [2005]
Perez v. Sandiganbayan 503 SCRA 252
Calingin v. Desierto 529 SCRA 720 [2007]
Lazatin v. Desierto 588 SCRA 285 [2009]
Section 8. Qualifications
Section 9. Appointments
Section 10. Rank
Section 11. Term
Section 12. Prompt Action on Complaints
Laurel v. Desierto, GR No. 145368, April 12, 2002

25

Almonte v. Vasquez, 244 SCRA 286 (1995)

Uy v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 105965, March 20, 2001
Raro v. Sandiganbayan, GR 108431, July 14, 2000
Bautista v. Sandiganbayan, GR 136082, May 12, 2000
Roxas v. Vasquez, GR NO. 114944, June 19, 2001
Kara-an v. Ombudsman, GR 119990, June 21, 2004
People v. Sandiganbayan 451 SCRA 413 [2005]
Laxina v. Ombudsman 471 SCRA 542 [2005]
Gemma P. Cabalit v. Commission On Audit-Region VII, Gr 180236, 17 January 2012 (power
of the Ombudsman to determine and impose administrative liability is mandatory)
Gonzales III v. OP 679 SCRA 614 [2012]
Section 13. Powers; Functions; Duties
In General
Cruz v. Sandiganbayan 194 SCRA 474 [1991]
Maceda v. Vasquez 221 SCRA 464 [1993]
Macalino v. Sandiganbayan 376 SCRA 452
Garcia v. Miro, GR No. 148944, Feb 5, 2003
Honasan II v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors GR No. 159747, April 13, 2004
Samson v. OMB, GR 117741, Sept 29, 2004
Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, GR 162214, Nov. 11, 2004
Khan, Jr. v. Ombudsman, GR No. 125296, July 20, 2006
Ombudsman v. Estandarte, GR No. 168670, April 13, 2007
Ombudsman v. Lucero, November 24, 2006
Ombudsman v. CA, GR No. 169079, July 17, 2007
Sangguniang Barangay v. Punong Barangay, GR No. 170626, March 3, 2008
Perez v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 166062, September 26, 2006
Buencamino v. CA, GR No. 175895, April 4, 2007
Medina v. COA, GR No. 176478, February 4, 2008
Villas Nor v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 180700, March 4, 2008
Ombudsman v. Rodriguez, GR No. 172700, July 23, 2010
OMB v. Estendarte 521 SCRA 155 [2007]
Salvador v. Mapa 539 SCRA 34 [2000]
OMB v. Masing 542 SCRA 253 [2008]
Medina v. COA 543 SCRA 684[2008]
Borja v. People 553 SCRA 250 [2008]
Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties
Buennaseda v. Favier 226 SCRA 645 [1993](when to suspension)
Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole 251 SCRA 243 [1995] (nature)
Vasquez v. Hobilla-Alinio 271 SCRA 67 [1997] (not in relation to duties)
OMB v. CA 491 SCRA 92
OMB v. Madriaga 503 SCRA 631
OMB v. CA 507 SCRA 593
Estorja v. Ranada 492 SCRA 652
OMB v. Lucero 508 SCRA 593
Balbastro v. Junio 527 SCRA 680 [2007]
OMB v. CA 527 SCRA 798 [2007]
COA v. CA 529 SCRA 245 [2007
OMB v. Santiago 533 SCRA 305 [2007]
Govenciong v. CA 550 SCRA 502 [2008]
Marohomsalic v. Cole 547 SCRA 98
OMB v. Lisondra 548 SCRA 83
Miro v. Abugan 549 SCRA 34
Cesa v. OMB 553 SCRA 357
OMB v. De Sahagun 562 SCRA 122
OMB v. Samaniego 564 SCRA 502
Boncalon v. OMB GR 171812, December 24, 2008
OMB v. Beltran 588 SCRA 574 [2009]

26

OMB v. Apolonio, GR 165132, 07 March 2012 (power to directly impose administrative

penalties, including removal from office)
Jurisdiction over Criminal Cases
Natividad v. Felix 229 SCRA 680 [1994] (amount)
Lastimosa v. Vasquez 243 SCRA 497 [1995] (prosecutors assistance)
Presidential v. desierto 528 SCRA 20 [2007]
Fact-finding distinguished from Preliminary Investigation
Raro v. Sandiganbayan, GR 108431, July 14, 2000
Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, GR 148468, Jan 28, 2003
Section 14. Fiscal Autonomy
Section 15. Right to Recover Properties Unlawfully Acquired
Heirs of Gregorio Licaros v. SB, GR 157438, October 18, 2004
Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-finding Committee on Behest Loans v. OMB Desierto, GR 135715,
13 April 2011. (reiterating Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v.
Desierto, GR 130140; provision applies only to civil actions for recovery of ill-gotten
wealth, and not to criminal cases)
Section 16. Loan, Guaranty or Other Form of Financial Accommodation
Section 17. Declaration of Assets and Liabilities
Section 18. Allegiance of Public Officers
Caasi v. CA, 191 SCRA 229 (1990)
Sampayan v. Daza 213 SCRA 807 (1992)
Article XII. National Economy and Patrimony
Section 1. Threefold Goal of the National Economy
Section 2. Regalian Doctrine
Public Domain and Regalian Doctrine
Lee Hong Kok v. David, 48 SCRA 372
Carino v. Insurer Government, 41 PHIL 935
Laurel v. Garcia, 187 SCRA 797 (1990)
Almeda v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 85322, April 30, 1991
Director of Lands v. Kalahi Investments, Inc, GR No. 48066, January 31, 1989
Land Mgt. Bureau v. CA, GR 112567, February 7, 2000
Republic v. De Guzman, GR 105630, February 23, 2000
Pua v. CA, GR 134992, November 20, 2000
Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, GR 135385, December 6, 2000
Chavez v. PEA, GR 133250, July 9, 2002
La Bugal-Blaan v. Ramos, GR 127872, Dec. 1, 2004
Dipido v. Gozun 485 SCRA 586
Chavez v. NHA 530 SCRA 235 [2007]
Republic v. Enciso, GR No. 160145, November 11, 2005
Philippine Geothermal v. Napocor, GR No. 144302, May 27, 2004
JG Summit v. CA, GR No. 124293, January 31, 2005
Alienation
Sta. Rosa Mining v. Lledo, 156 SCRA 1 [1987] (mining claims)
San Miguel Corporation v. CA, 185 SCRA 722 [1990] (possession in the concept of an
owner)
Republic v. Bantigue Point development Corporation, GR 162322, 14 March 2012
(burden on applicant to prove land sought to be registered is alienable or disposable on a
positive act the government)

27

Utilization
Miners v. Factoran 240 SCRA 100[1995] (jura regalia)
Tano v. Socrates 278 SCRA 154 [1997] (Subsistence fisherman)
Villaflor v. CA - 280 SCRA 297 [1997] (private ownership)
Republic v. CA and PREC GR 103882, [November 25, 1998] 299 SCRA 199
Republic v. Rosemoor Mining and Devt Corp. , GR 149927, Mar 30, 2004
Alvarez v. PICOP 606 SCRA 444 [2009]
IID v. PSALM 682 SCRA 602 [2012]
Narra Nickel Mining v. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp, GR 195580, April 21, 2014
Section 3. Lands of the Public Domain
Director of Lands v. Aquino, 192 SCRA 296 (1990)
Republic v. CA, 160 SCRA 228 (1988)
Apex Mining v. Southeast Mindanao Gold, Inc, GR No. 152613, June 23, 2006
Dir. of Lands v. IAC, 146 SCRA 509 (1986)
Ten Forty Realty v. Lorenzana, GR No. 151212, Sept. 10, 2003
Chavez v. PEA, GR No. 133250, July 9, 2002
Republic v. Southside, 502 SCRA 587
Republic v. T.A.N., 555 SCRA 477
Section 4. Specific Limits of Forest Lands and National Parks
La Bugal-Blaan Tribal Assn. v. DENR, GR127872, Jan 27, 2004, MR GR 127882, Dec. 1,
2004
Section 5. Ancestral Lands and Domain
Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, 347 SCRA 128 (2000)
Section 6. Common Good
Telecom v. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337 (1998)
Section 7. Private Lands
Republic v. CA, 235 SCRA 567
Zaragosa v. CA, GR No. 106401, September 29, 2000
Ramirez v. Vda. De Ramirez, 111 SCRA 704 (1982)
Halili v. CA, 287 SCRA 465 (1998)
Lee v. Republic, 366 SCRA (2001)
Frenzel v. Catito, GR No. 143958, July 11, 2003
Lentfer v. Wolff 441 SCRA 584 [2004]
Muller v. Muller 500 SCRA 65
Mulller v. Muller, GR No. 149615, August 29, 2006
Matthews v. Taylor Spouses, GR No. 164584, June 22, 2009
Hulst v. PR Builders, GR No. 156364, September 25, 2008
Ting Ho v. Teng 558 SCRA 421 [2008]
Hulst v. PR Builders 566 SCRA 333[2008]
Osmena v. Osmena 611 SCRA 164 [2010]
Beurmer v. Amores 686 SCRA 770 [2012]
Section 8. Exception for Former Filipino Citizens
Republic v. CA, 235 SCRA 567 (1994)
Section 9. Independent Economic and Planning Agency
Section 10. Filipinization
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408 (1997)
Army and Navy Club v. CA, 271 SCRA 36 (1997)
Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (1997)
Republic v. CA 299 SCRA 199
J.G. Summit Holdings v. CA, GR 124293, November 20, 2000
Section 11. Public Utilities
Bagatsing v. Committee, 246 SCRA 344 (1995)

28

Albano v. Reyes, 175 SCRA 36 (1997)

Tatad v. Garcia, 243 SCRA 436 (1995)
Telecom v. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337 (1998)
JG Summit Holdings v. CA, 345 SCRA 143 (2000)
Republic v. Express Telecom 373 SCRA 316
Del Mar v. Pagcor [2001]
PTC v. NTC, GR 138295, Aug. 28, 2003
Associated Communications v. NTC, GR No. 144109, February 17, 2003
Eastern Telecom v. Telecom Technologies, GR No. 135992, July 23, 2004
Royal Cargo Corp. v. CAB 421 SCRA 21
Metropolitan v. Adala 526 SCRA 465 [2007]
PAGCOR v. BIR, 645 SCRA 338
Francisco v. TRB 633 SCRA 470 [2010]
Wilson P. Gamboa v. Finance Secretary Malgarito B Tebes, GR 176579, 28 June 2011.
Definition of capital refers only to share of stock entitled to vote in the election of
directors, and thus in the present case only to common share, and not the total
outstanding capital stock comprising
Express Investment v. Bayantel 687 SCRA 50 [2012]
Section 12. Filipino First Policy
Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (1997)
Section 13. Trade Policy
Espina v. Zamora, 631 SCRA 17
Section 14. Development and Practice of Professions
Section 15. Agency to Promote Cooperatives
Section 16. Corporations
NDC v. PVB, 192 SCRA 257 (1990)
Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. COA, GR 177131, 07 June 2011.
Section 16, Article XII should not be construed so as to prohibit Congress from creating
public corporation. In fact, Congress has enacted numerous laws creating public
corporations or government agencies or instrumentalities vested with corporate powers.
Moreover, Section 16, Article XII, which relates to National Economy and Patrimony, could
not have tied the hands of Congress in creating public corporation to serve any of the
constitutional policies or objective.
Section 17. Temporary Take-Over
Agan v. PIATCO, 420 SCRA 575
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, GR No. 171396, May 2006
Section 18. Nationalization
Republic v. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620 (1968)
PLDT v. NTC, 190 SCRA 717 (1990)
PLDT v. Eastern Telecom, 213 SCRA 16 (1992)
Section 19. Monopolies and Combinations
Energy Regulatory Board v. CA, GR No. 113079, April 20, 2001
Garcia v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 132451, December 17, 1999
Tatad v. Secretary of Energy, 281 SCRA 330
Eastern Assurance v. LTFRB, GR No. 149717, Oct. 7, 2003
Avon v. Luna, GR No. 153674, December 20, 2006
Section 21. Foreign Loans
Section 22. Acts Inimical to the National Interest
Article XVI. General Provisions

29

Section 1. Flag of the Philippines

Section 2. Name, National Anthem or a National Seal
Section 3. Immunity From Suit
Liang v. People GR 125865, January 28, 2000
Calub v. CA, GR 115634, April 27, 2000
Lansang v. CA, GR 102667 February 23, 2000
Mancenido v. CA, GR 118605, April 12, 2000
Shell v. Jalos 630 SCRA 399(2010)
China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) v. Hon. Cesar D. Santamaria,
Gr 185572, 07 February 2012, 665 SCRA 189 (2012) (Revisits and reiterates several
Cases : GTZ v. CA, Holy See v. Rosario, DFA v. NLRC)
Foundation of the Rule: A Suit Against the State
Santos v. Santos, 92 PHIL. 281 (1952-1953)
Republic v. Feliciano,148 SCRA 424) 1887
Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzons (2005)
Unincorporated Agencies
Mentran v. Paredes, 79 PHIL. 819 (1947-1948 )
NAC v. Teodoro, 91 PHIL. 203 (1952)
Mobil Philippines v. Customs Arrestre, 18 SCRA 1120 (1966)
Del Mar v. PVA 51 SCRA 340 (1973)
CAA v. CA 167 SCRA 28 (1988)
Farolan v. CTA 217 SCRA 340 (1993)
PNR v. IAC 217 SCRA 401 (1993)
Republic v. Nolasco 457 SCRA 460 (2005)
Republic v. Unimex 518 SCRA 20 (2007)
Professional Video v. TESDA 591 SCRA 83 (2009)
Government Officers
Ministero v. CFI 40 SCRA 464 (1971
Syquia v. Almeda-Lopez 84SCRA 312 [1978]
Festejo v. Fernando 94 SCRA 54 [1979]
Aberca v. Ver 160 SCRA 590 [1988]
Shauf v. CA 191 SCRA 713 [1990]
Vidad v. RTC 271 [1993]
Regional Director v. CA 229 SCRA 557 [1994]
Africa v. PCGG/Villanueva v. Sandiganbayan [January 1992]
DOH v. Phil. Pharmawealth 518 SCRA 240 [2007]
Foreign Government
Baer v. Tizon 57 SCRA 1 [1974]
US v. Ruiz 136 SCRA 487 [1985]
Sanders v. Veridiano 162 SCRA 88 [1988]
U.S v. Reyes 219 SCRA 192 [1993]
The Holy See v. Rosario 238 SCRA 524 [1994]
JUSMAG v. NLRC 239 SCRA 224 [1994]
Larkins v. NLRC 241 SCRA 598 [1995]
Minucher v. CA GR 142396, Feb, 11, 2003
Consent by Law
Carabao v. Agricultural product Com. 35 SCRA 224 [1970]
Arcega v. CA 66 SCRA 230 [1975]
Rayo v. CFI 110 SCRA 456 [1981]
Municipality of San Fernando v. Firme 195 SCRA 692 [1991]
Republic v. NLRC 263 SCRA 290 [1996]
Exceptional Circumstance to avoid injustice

30

DOH v. Canchela 475 SCRA 218 [2005]

Agency Propriety
United States v. Guinto 182 SCRA 644 [ 1990]
Fontanilla v. Maliaman 194 SCRA 486 [1991]
PRC v. CA 256 SCRA 667 [1996]
Waiver
Republic v. Purisima 78 SCRA 470 [1977]
Santiago v. Republic 87 SCRA 294 [1978]
Traders Royal Bank v. IAC 192 SCRA 305 [1990]
Republic v. Sandoval 220 SCRA 124 [1993]
Delos Santos v. IAC 223 SCRA 11 [1993]
DA v. NLRC 227 SCRA 693 [1993]
EPG v. Sec. of DPWH 354 SCRA 566 [2001]
Resulting Liability
Philrock v. Board of Liquidators 180 SCRA 171 [1989]
Liang v. People GR 125865 [January 28, 2000] ADB immunity)
Republic v. Hidalgo 477 SCRA 12 [2005] (writ execution)
Philippine Agila v. Lichauco 489 SCRA 22 [2006]
Curato v. PPA 590 SCRA 215 [2009]
U.P. v. Dizon 679 SCRA 54 [2012]
Section 4. AFP
Section 5. AFP Requirement and Goals
Section 6. Police Force
Quilonia v. The General Court Martial GR No. 9660, March 4, 1992
Carpio v. Executive Secretary 206 SCRA 290 (1992)
Department of Budget v. Manilas Finest, GR No. 169466, May 9, 2007
Mendoza v. PNP, GR No. 139658, June 21, 2005
Section 7. War Veterans
Section 8. Pensions and Benefits for Retirees
Section 9. Protection of Consumers from Trade Malpractices
Section 10. Development of Filipino Capability and Communication Structures
Section 11. Ownership and Management: Mass Media and Advertising
Section 12. Consultative Body for Indigenous Cultural Communities
Article XVII. Amendments or Revisions
Section 1. Amendment or Revision
Imbong v. COMELEC, 35 SCRA 28 (1970)
Lambino v. COMELEC, 505 SCRA 160
Section 2. Initiative
Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 (1997); MR (1997)
Lambino v. COMELEC, 505 SCRA 160 (2006)
Section 3. Constitutional Convention
Section 4. Ratification
Gonzales v. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774 (1967)

31

Tolentino v. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702 (1971)

Article XVIII

Transitory Provisions

Sec. 1 First Election Under the New Constitution

Sec. 2 Term of First House Members and Local Officials
Sec. 3 Status of Laws and other Legislation Passes Prior to the Constitution
Sec. 4 Status of Treaties and International Agreements
Sec. 5 Presidential Term and Synchronization
Sec. 6 President Legislative
Sec. 7 Sectorial Representation
Sec. 8 Metropolitan Authority
MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association, GR 135962, March 27, 2000
Sec.
Sec.
Sec.
Sec.

9 Sub-Provinces
10-11 Security of Tenure Judges
12-14 Cases Filed Prior to Effectivity of New Constitution
15 Term of Carry-over Commission

Sec. 16 Career Civil Service Officers

Dario v. Mison 176 SCRA 84 [1989] (reorganization)
Mendoza v. Quisumbing 186 SCRA 108 [1990]
Ontiveros v. CA. G.R. No. 145401 May 7, 2001
Sec.
Sec.
Sec.
Sec.
Sec.

17-18 Readjustment of salary

19-21 Reversion of lands and real rights illegally acquired
22 Idle/Abandoned lands
23 Advertising Entities
24 Private Armies

Sec. 25 Foreign Military Bases, Troops or Facilities

Bayan v. Zamora, GR 138570, October 10, 2000
Sec. 26 Sequestration Orders
Joya v. PCGG 225 SCRA 568 [1993]
Republic v. Sandiganbayan 221 SCRA 189 [1993] (powers of PCGG)
Cojuangco v. Roxas 195 SCRA 797 [1991] (vote of sequestered shares )
Araneta v. Sandiganbayan 242 SCRA 482 [1995] (investigate/prosecutory powers)
Rumualdez v. Sandiganbayan 244 SCRA 152 [1995] (authority over ill-gotten wealth)
Republic v. Sandiganbayan 240 SCRA 376 [1995] judicial action)
Section 27. Effectivity
De Leon v. Esguerra, 152 SCRA 602 (1987)
Section 26. Ill-Gotten Wealth; Sequestration/Freeze Orders
Cojuangco v. Roxas, 195 SCRA 797 (1991)
Section 27. Effectivity
De Leon v. Esquerra, 152 SCRA 602 (1987)

32