1. Angara vs.

Electoral commission
Issue:
 Has the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject
matter of the controversy
 Did the Electoral Commission act without or in excess of its jurisdiction in taking
cognizance of the protest filed against the election of the petitioner notwithstanding the
previous confirmation of such election by resolution of the National Assembly?

Ruling: The Court denied the petition of Angara. The Electoral Commission was acting within the
legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative in assuming to take cognizance of the protest filed by
the respondent Pedro Ynsua. The Electoral Commission is the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly. That confirmation by the
National Assembly of the election of any member against whom no protest had been filed prior to said
confirmation, does not and cannot deprive the Electoral Commission of its incidental power to prescribe
the time within which protests against the election of any member of the National Assembly should be
filed.

The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. Obtained not
through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution,

 Each department of the government is supreme within its own sphere

 The constitution does not intend them to be absolutely independent of each other.
 The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure
coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government.
 For example: the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the other
departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare
executive and legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution.
 courts accord the presumption of constitutionality to legislative enactments, not only because
the legislature is presumed to abide by the Constitution but also because the judiciary in the
determination of actual cases and controversies must reflect the wisdom and justice of the
people as expressed through their representatives in the executive and legislative departments
of the governments of the government
 the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine
the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral or
constituent units thereof.

2. Francisco vs. House of Representatives

“No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once
within a period of one year.”
  The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of
im
 The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.

Fact: • Various petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus were filed with the Supreme Court
against the House of Representatives, et. al., most of which petitions contend that the filing of the
second impeachment complaint is unconstitutional as it violates the provision of Section 5 of Article XI
of the Constitution that “[n]o impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more
than once within a period of one year.”

Issue: Whether the power of judicial review extends to those arising from impeachment proceedings.

Held: Considering that the first impeachment complaint, was filed by former President Estrada against
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., along with seven associate justices of this Court, on June 2, 2003 and
referred to the House Committee on Justice on August 5, 2003, the second impeachment complaint
filed by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William Fuentebella against the Chief Justice
on October 23, 2003 violates the constitutional prohibition against the initiation of impeachment
proceedings against the same impeachable officer within a one-year period.

Hence, Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings which
were approved by the House of Representatives on November 28, 2001 are unconstitutional.
Consequently, the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. which
was filed by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. Fuentebella with the Office
of the Secretary General of the House of Representatives on October 23, 2003 is barred under
paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution.

ACTUAL CONTROVERSY

1. PACU vs Secretary of Education – Issue: Whether or not Act No, 2706 as amended is
unconstitutional

Held: there is no justiciable controversy presented. PACU did not show that it suffered any injury from
the exercise of the Secretary of Education of such powers granted to him by the said law. PACU was
already issued a permit.

2. Mariano vs Comelec

Issue: Whether or not RA 7854 is unconstitutional.

Held: Petition dismissed for lack of merit. You have no personality to question because he is not
a candidate. Petitioner found to have no legal personality because most are not voters of
Makati; no rights involves
3. Cutaran vs DENR
Issue: WON SO 25 and DAO 2 are valid
Held: The petition was prematurely filed.