Final Exam Reviewer
Such rules however shall not diminish, increase, or
CONSTI LAW I
By: JM Dela Paz
Article IX: Constitutional Commissions
A. Common Provisions
Section 1. Independent Commissions
a. Civil Service Commission
b. Commission on Elections
c. Commission on Audit
Macalintal v. COMELEC
Joint Congressional Oversight Committee is unconstitutional
for having a power to review, revise, amend and approve the
Implementing Rules and Regulations promulgated by the
COMELEC violating Section 1, ARTICLE IX-A.
Section 2. Prohibition on Members
a. During his tenure, hold any other office or
employment.
b. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any
profession
c. Or in the active management or control of any
business which in any way be affected by the
functions of his office
d. 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 (Chairman and Commissioners)
a. Shall be fixed by law
b. Shall not be decreased during their tenure.
Section 4. Power to Appoint
- Constitutional Commissions shall appoint their
officials and employees in accordance with law.
Section 5. Fiscal Autonomy
- Their approved annual appropriations shall be
automatically and regularly released.
CSC v. DBM
“No report, no policy” may not validly enforced against offices
which are given fiscal autonomy.
Section 6. Promulgation of Rules
a. Commission en banc - concerning pleadings and
practice before it or before any of its offices.
b.
modify substantive rights.
Macalintal v. COMELEC
Congress may not assume power to review rules promulgated
by the commission.
Sabili v. COMELEC
Supreme Court on promulgation
 Promulgation is the process by which a decision is
published, officially announced, made known to the
public or delivered to the clerk of court for filing,
coupled with notice to the parties or their counsel
 The additional requirement imposed by the
COMELEC rules of notice in advance of promulgation
is not part of the process of promulgation. Hence, we
do not agree with petitioners’ contention that there
was no promulgation of the trial court's decision. The
trial court did not deny that it had officially made the
decision public.
 We further held in the same case that failure to
receive advance notice of the promulgation of a
decision is not sufficient to set aside the COMELECs
judgment, as long as the parties have been afforded
an opportunity to be heard before judgment is
rendered.
Section 7. Decisions of the Commissions
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)
Estrella v. COMELEC
Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its
members any case brought before it within 60 days from the
date of submission for decision or resolution.
Mison v. COA, 187 SCRA 445 (1990)
Paredes v. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 653 (1984)
Ambil v. COMELEC
Resolution becomes binding only after it is promulgated and
not before. Accordingly, one who is no longer a member of
the Commission at the time the final decision or resolution
promulgated cannot validly take part in the decision or
resolution.
Mateo v. CA, GR No. 113219, August 14, 1995
Reyes v. Regional Trial Court, GR No. 108886, May 5, 1995
Page 1 of 11
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
B. Civil Service Commission
Section 1. Composition; Qualifications; Term
Gaminde v. COA –347 SCRA 655 (2000)
Mathay Jr. v. CA, GR No. 124374, December 15, 1999
Section 2.Scope of the system
Cuevas v. Bacal, GR 139382, December 6 2000
Under Civil Service Law
PARAGRAPH 1
MWSS v. Hernandez – 143 SCRA 602 [1986]
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]
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
Page 2 of 11
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
Lazo v. CSC, 236 SCRA 469
Section 4. Oath or Affirmation
Section 5. Standardization of Compensation
Section 6. Prohibition of Appointment of “Lame Ducks”
People v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 164185, July 23, 2008
Section 7. Prohibitions; Appointments; Office; Employment
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
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
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
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
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]
Page 3 of 11
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
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
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
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 6. Free and Open Party System
Liberal Party v. COMELEC, GR No. 191771, May 6, 2010
Section 7. No Block-Voting
Section 8. Prohibition on Political Parties
Section 9. Election Period
Section 10. No Harassment and Discrimination
Section 11. Funds
D. Commission of Audit
Section 1. Qualifications; Term
Mison v. COA, 187 SCRA 445
Section 2. General Function; Powers
Sec. 2 Powers and Functions
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
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
Page 4 of 11
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
Luciano Veloso v. Commisssion on Audit, GR 193677, 6
September 2011
Section 4. Annual Report to the President and to Congress
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
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 People’s 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
Page 5 of 11
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]
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)
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
Page 6 of 11
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
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
Page 7 of 11
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]
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] (prosecutor’s
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-B’laan 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)
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 Dev’t 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-B’laan 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
Page 8 of 11
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)
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
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,
Page 9 of 11
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
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. Manila’s 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
Page 10 of 11
Section 2. Initiative Rumualdez v. Sandiganbayan – 244 SCRA 152 [1995]
Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 (1997); MR (authority over ill-gotten wealth) Republic v. Sandiganbayan –
(1997) 240 SCRA 376 [1995] judicial action)
Lambino v. COMELEC, 505 SCRA 160 (2006)
Section 27. Effectivity
Section 3. Constitutional Convention De Leon v. Esguerra, 152 SCRA 602 (1987)
Section 26. Ill-Gotten Wealth; Sequestration/Freeze Orders
Section 4. Ratification Cojuangco v. Roxas, 195 SCRA 797 (1991)
Gonzales v. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774 (1967)
Tolentino v. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702 (1971) Section 27. Effectivity
De Leon v. Esquerra, 152 SCRA 602 (1987)
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. 9 Sub-Provinces
Sec. 10-11 Security of Tenure Judges
Sec. 12-14 Cases Filed Prior to Effectivity of New Constitution
Sec. 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. 17-18 Readjustment of salary

Sec. 19-21 Reversion of lands and real rights illegally acquired
Sec. 22 Idle/Abandoned lands
Sec. 23 Advertising Entities
Sec. 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)

Page 11 of 11