Final Digest Batch

ARTICLE IX . Constitutional Commissions A. Common Provisions Sec. 1.

The Constitutional Commission

Sec. 2-6. Independence of the Commissions 24 Sabili v. Comelec, GR 193261, 24 April 2012 (power to promulgate own rules on pleadings and practice before it) 25 Dumarpa v. COMELEC, GR. 192249, April 2, 2013 (power to promulgate rules on pleadings and practice before) 26 Trade and Investment Development Corp. v. CSC – (supra., A6, S.1) 691 SCRA 384 (rule-making authority limited to implementation of laws) 27 Funa v. Chairman, CSC, GR 191672, November 25, 2014. Sec. 7. Decisions of the Commissions 28 Fil. Engr. & Machine Shop v. Ferrer – 135 SCRA 25 [1985] (final orders reviewable by SC) 29 Saligumba v. CA – 117 SCRA 669 [1982] (extent of SC’s review power) 30 PTTC v. COA –146 SCRA 190 [1986] (extent of SC’s review power) 31 Cua v. COMELEC – 156 SCRA 582 [1987] (valid decision – no need for unanimity, majority vote only) 32 Mison v. COA – 187 SCRA 445 [1990] (COA as collegial body) 33 Paredes v. COMELEC –127 SCRA 653 [1984] (factual findings of COMELEC binding on SC in certiorari proceedings) 34 Ambil v. Comelec, GR 143398, October 25, 2000 (judicial review) 35 ABS-CBN v. Comelec, 323 SCRA 811 (judicial review) 36 Salva v. Makalintal, GR 132603, September 18, 2000 (judicial review) 37 Maria Laarni L. Cayetano v. Comelec, GR 193846, 12 April 2011. Reiterating Ambil v. Comelec: "the Court can only review via certiorari a decision, order, or ruling of the COMELEC en banc in accordance with Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution."

38 *Gualberto J. Dela Llana v. The Chairperson, Commission on Audit, GR 180989, 07 February 2012. (decisions and orders of the COA reviewable by the court via a petition for certiorari refer to the COA’s quasi-judicial capacity not its quasi-legislative or rule-making powers) 39 Cagas v. COMELEC – 663 SCRA 644 [2012] 40 Sevilla v. COMELEC, G.R. 203833, March 19, 2013 (majority vote of all its members) 41 Reblora v AFP, GR 195842, June 18, 2013 1 Sahali v. COMELEC – 688 SCRA 552 (only final decisions of COMELEC subject to SC judicial review in election cases within the original exclusive jurisdiction of COMELEC) 2 Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (supra. Art 2, Sec. 26) Sec.

8. Other functions as may be provided by law

B. Civil Service Commission 1

Sec. 1. Organization of the Commission Term 3 *Gaminde v. COA, GR 140335, December 13, 2000 Fiscal Autonomy 4 CSC v. DBM – 482 SCRA 233 Sec. 2. Scope of the System 5 Cuevas v. Bacal, GR 139382, December 6, 2000 Under Civil Service Law 6 *MWSS v. Hernandez –143 SCRA 602 [1986] (par. 1) (GOCC’s with charter and created by special law) 7 NSC v. NLRC – 168 SCRA 122 8 UP v. Regino –221 SCRA 598 [1993] (par. 1) 9 Mateo v. CA – 247 SCRA 284 [1995] (par. 1) 10 DOH v. NLRC – 251 SCRA 700 [1995] (par. 1) 11 Juco v. NLRC – 277 SCRA 528 [1997] (par. 1) 12 Felciano v. Gison – 629 SCRA 103 [2010] (par. 1) GOCCs under Corporation Code 13 *BLISS v. Callejo – 237 SCRA 271 [1994] (par. 1) (GOCC’s without charter and created under corporation code) 14 Postigo v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society – 479 SCRA 628 15 LRTA v. Venus – 485 SCRA 301 16 Trade and Investment Devt Corp v. CSC, GR 182249, March 5, 2013(includes GOCC as part of civil service) (supra Art VI, Sec 1) Classifications and Appointments 17 HIGC v. CSC – 220 SCRA 148 [1993] (par. 2) (requirements in appointments) 18 Mauna v. CSC – 232 SCRA 388 [1994] (par. 2) (limitation on CSC’s power of appointment) 19 Rimonte v. CSC – 244 SCRA 498 [1995] (par. 2) 20 Gloria v. De Guzman – 249 SCRA 126 [1995] (par. 2) (other factors for appointment) 21 Atty. Elias Omar A. Sana v. Career Executive Service Board, GR 192926, 15 November 2011. (Pres. GMA's EO 883 and Pres. Aquino's subsequent revocation of EO 883 by EO 3) Competitive 22 *Samson v. CA – 145 SCRA 654 [1986] (par. 2) (positions in competitive service) Non-competitive 23 Astraquillo v. Manglapus –190 SCRA 280 [1990] (par. 2) (non-competitive position)

2

24 Office of the President v. Buenaobra – 501 SCRA 302 Policy-determining Primarily confidential 25 Borres v. CA – 153 SCRA 120 [1987] (par. 2) (confidential positions) 26 *Grino v. CSC – 194 SCRA 458 [1991] (par. 2) (test of confidentiality of positions) 27 Santos v. Macaraig – 208 SCRA 74 [1992] (par. 2) (security of tenure in confidential positions) 28 Hilario v. CSC – 243 SCRA 206 [1995] (par. 2) 29 Rosete v. CA – 264 SCRA 147 [1996] (par. 2) (loss of confidence) 30 *CSC v. Salas – 274 SCRA 414 [1997] (par. 2) (nature of duties determinative of the confidentiality of position) Highly technical Temporary 31 *Achacoso v. Macaraig –195 SCRA 235 [1991] (par. 2) (temporary appointments) 32 Felix v. Buenaseda – 240 SCRA 139 [1995] (par. 2) 33 Pamantasan ng Maynila v. CSC – 241 SCRA 506 [1995] (par. 2) (union busting – illegal cause for dismissal) 34 Province of Camarines Sur v. CA – 246 SCRA 231 [1995] (par. 2) (effect of passing civil service exam. on temporary appointees) 35 PEZA v. Mercado – 614 SCRA 683 [2010] 36 CSC v. CA – 635 SCRA 749 [2010] 37 De Castro v. Carlos – 696 SCRA 400 [ ] (assistant general manager within career executive service ; lacking eligibility) Permanent 38 Luego v. CSC – 143 SCRA 327 [1986] (par. 2) (authority limited to reviewing appointments in light of Civil Service Law) 39 Pangilinan v. Maglaya – 225 SCRA 511 [1993] (par. 2) (security of tenure in permanent appointees) Reorganization 40 *Santiago v. CSC – 178 SRA 733 [1989] (par. 2) (“next in rank rule” not mandatory) 41 Montecillo v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 131954, June 28, 2001 (classifying positions in non-career service) 1 Gatmaitan v. Gonzales – 492 SCRA 591 (reassignment) 2 Nieves v. Blanco – 673 SCRA 638 [2012] Appointment vs. designation 3 Binamira v. Garrucho – 188 SCRA 154 [1990] (par. 2) (designation by Dept. Sec.)

3

Removal for Cause / Security of Tenure Cause for removal Loss of confidence 4 *Hernandez v. Villegas – 14 SCRA 544 [1965] (par. 3) (loss of confidence as ground for termination – expiration of term not removal from office) Abolition of office 5 *Briones v. Osmeña – 104 PHIL. 588 [1958] (par. 3) (abolition in good faith) 6 Eugenio v. CSC – 243 SCRA 196 [1995] (par. 3) (office created by law can only be abolished thru a law) Reorganization 7 Romualdez-Yap v. CSC – 225 SCRA 285 [1993] (par. 3) (reorganization in good faith) 8 DTI v. CSC – 227 SCRA 199 [1993] (par. 3) (reorganization not in good faith) 9 Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas – 242 SCRA 192 [1995] (par. 3) (reorganization as management prerogative of CSC) 10 Chato v. Natividad – 244 SCRA 787 [1995] (par. 3) (reorganization as cause provided by law amount to reassignment) 11 Divinagracia v. Sto. Tomas – 244 SCRA 595 [1995] (par. 3) (arbitrary transfer without just cause) 12 Vinzons-Chato v. Zenarosa, GR 120539, October 20, 2000 13 De Guzman v. Comelec, GR 129118, July 19, 2000 14 Padolina v. Fernandez, GR 133511, October 10, 2000 15 Cuevas v. Bacal, GR 139382, December 6, 2000 Qualifications for eligibility 16 Mayor v. Macaraig – 194 SCRA 672 [1991] (par. 3) (no retroactive effect of new eligibility qualifications) Abandonment; acceptance of incompatible position/other employment 17 Canonizado v. Aguirre, 323 SCRA 312 [2001] 18 Salvador v. CA, GR 127501, May 5, 2000 Due process in removal 19 Enrique v. CA – 229 SCRA 180 [1994] (par. 3) (concurrent jurisdiction in disciplinary matters) 20 CSC v. Magnaye – 619 SCRA 347 [2010] (par. 3) (right to due process) 21 Rubenecia v. CSC – 244 SCRA 640 [1995] (par. 3) (right to due process) 22 Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office Board of Directors v. Marie Jean C. Lapid, GR 191940, 12 April 2011. (right to due process) Security of tenure 23 Chua v. CSC – 206 SCRA 65 [1992] (par. 3) 24 NLTD v. CSC – 221 SCRA 145 (par. 3) (security of tenure)

4

25 Cabagnot v. CSC – 223 SCRA 59 (par. 3) (security of tenure) 26 Marohombsar v. CA, GR 126481, February 18, 2000 27 Ong v. OP – 664 SCRA 413 [2012] Electioneering or Partisan Political Activity 28 *Santos v. Yatco – 106 PHIL 21 29 People v. De Venecia – 14 SCRA 864 [1965] (par. 4) Right to Self-Organization and Right to Strike 30 SSS Employees v. CA – 175 SCRA 686 [1989] (par. 5) 31 Bangalisan v. CA – 276 SCRA 557 [1997] (par. 5) 32 Jacinto v. CA – 281 SCRA 557 [1997] (par. 5) 33 De la Cruz v. CA – 305 SCRA 303 34 *GSIS v. Kapisanan - 510 SCRA 622 (no strike) Temporary Employees 35 *Gloria v. CA, GR 119903, August 15, 2000 Sec.

3. Powers of the Commission 36 Light Railway Transit Authority v. Salvaña, GR 192074, June 10, 2014

Sec.

4. Oath to Defend the Constitution

Sec.

5. Standardization of Compensation

Sec.

6. Political Lame Ducks

Sec. 7. Political Opportunism and Spoils 37 *Flores v. Drilon – 223 SCRA 568 [1993] (supra, Art. 7, Sec. 13) (prohibition against designation of elective officer during tenure) 38 RE: Gross Violation of Civil Service Law on the Prohibition Against Dual Employment and Double Compensation in the Government Service Committed by Mr. Eduardo V. Escala, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division, Office of Administrative Services., A.M. No. 2011-04-SC, 05 July 2011. 39 La Carlota City v. Rojo, GR 181367, 24 April 2012 (prohibition against designation of elective officer during tenure) 40 Posadas v. Sandiganbayan, GR 168951 and 169000, July 17, 2013 ; 701 SCRA 405 (prohibition to holding any other office or position in the govt) Chancellor of U.P. appointed as Director of Technology Management Center ; invalid Sec. 8. Additional or Double Compensation Present, Emolument, Office or Title from a Foreign State 41 *Saduesta v. Municipality of Surigao – 72 PHIL. 482 [1941] (specific authority from law to review additional compensation) 1 Peralta v. Mathay – 38 SCRA 296 [1971] (purpose of prohibition; public office is a public trust)

5

2 NEA v. CSC – 611 SCRA 14 [2010] (double compensation) 3 Yap v. COA – 619 SCRA 154 [2010] (double compensation) 4 Sergio I. Carbonilla, et al. v. Board of Airlines, GR 193247; Office of the President v. 5 Board of Airlines, GR 194276, 14 September 2011. (overtime pay, travel and meal allowances paid after regular office hours do not constitute double compensation)

6 PEZA V. COA -675 SCRA 513 [2012] 7 Dimagiba v. Espartero – 676 SCRA 420 [2012] 8 Ocampo v COA, GR 188716, June 10, 2013 (retiree receiving pension can continue to receive the same even if he accepts another govt office or position) C. Commission on Elections Sec. 1. Composition, qualifications, appointment, term 9 Matibag v. Benipayo – 380 SCRA 49 10 *Cayetano v. Monsod – 201 SCRA 210 [1991] (meaning of practice of law) 11 Brillantes v. Yorac – 192 SCRA 358 [1990] (appointment in temporary / acting capacity) Sec. 2. Powers and Functions of COMELEC Administrative power 12 Afiado v. Comelec, GR 141787, September 18, 2000 (power to enforce; recall) 13 Columbres v. Comelec, GR 142038, September 18, 2000 (power to enforce; recall) 14 Sahali v. Comelec, GR 134169, February 2, 2000 (power to enforce; recall) 15 Claudio v. Comelec, GR 140560, May 4, 2000 (power to enforce; recall) 16 De Guzman v. Comelec, GR 129118, July 19, 2000 (power to enforce; recall) 17 Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147571, May 5, 2001 18 Information Technology Foundation v. Comelec, GR 159139, Jan. 13, 2004 19 Buac v. Comelec, 421 SCRA 92 20 Capalla v. COMELEC – 673 SCRA 1 [2012] 21 Dumarpa v. COMELEC, GR. 192249, April 2, 2013(supra Art IX-A, Sec 6) Election contests 22 Flores v. COMELEC – 184 SCRA 484 [1990] (brgy. elections appeal to COMELEC) 23 Galido v. COMELEC – 193 SCRA 78 [1991] (jurisdiction of SC over COMELEC’s decision 24 Mercado v. BES – 243 SCRA 422 [1995] (SK elections) 25 Relampagos v. Cumba – 243 SCRA 690 [1995] (power to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus) 26 People v. Delgado – 189 SCRA 715 [1990] (COMELEC subject to authority of trial judge) 27 Garces v. CA – 259 SCRA 99 [1996] (adjudicatory / quasi-judicial power) 28 Zarate v. Comelec and Lallave – GR 129096 [November 19, 1999] (division before en banc) 29 Regalado v. CA, GR 115962, February 15, 2000 (questions affecting elections) 30 Faelnar v. People, GR 140850-51, May 4, 2000 (questions affecting elections) 31 Tan v. Comelec, GR 148575, Dec. 10, 2003 32 Alauya v. Comelec, GR152151, Jan. 22, 2003 33 Cipriano v Comelec, GR 158830, Aug 10, 2004 6

Powers not given Deputizing law enforcement agencies 34 People v. Basilla – 179 SCRA 87 [1989] (power to deputize fiscal) Registration of parties and organizations 35 LDP v. Comelec, GR 161265, Feb. 24, 2004 36 *Atienza v. COMELEC – 612 SCRA 761 [2010] 37 Lokin v. COMELEC – 674 SCRA 538 [2012] 38 Dayao v. COMELEC, GR 193643, Jan 29, 2013 (power to review and cancel registration) (supra Art VI, sec 5) 39 Alcantara v. COMELEC, GR 203646, April 16, 2013 (power to register political parties) 40 Senior Citizens Party-list v. COMELEC (power to register party-list) Prosecution of election offenses 41 People v. Inting – 187 SCRA 788 [1990] (power to conduct preliminary investigation) 1 Corpus v. Tanodbayan – 149 SCRA 281 [1987] (exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute election offenses) 2 COMELEC v. Silva – 286 SCRA 177 [1998] (power to conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute) 3 Comelec v. Hon. Espanol, GR 149164, Dec. 10, 2003 4 *Arroyo v. DOJ – 681 SCRA 181 [2012] Recommendatory powers Sec. 3. Commission Decisions 5 Pangilinan v. COMELEC – 228 SCRA 36 [1993] (jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies) 6 Sarmiento v. Comelec – 212 SCRA 307 [1992] (COMELEC en banc authority on MR) 7 Carnicosa v. COMELEC – 282 SCRA 512 [1997] (Division- hear and decide cases, en banc – MR) 8 Ramas v. COMELEC – 286 SCRA 189 [1998] (writ of execution) 9 Garvida v. Sales – 271 SCRA 767 [1997] (division only can hear and decide cases) 10 Velayo v. Comelec, GR 135613, March 9, 2000 11 Sebastian v. Comelec, GR 139573-75, March 7, 2000 12 Soller v. Comelec, GR 139853, September 5, 2000 13 Barroso v. Ampig, et al., GR 138218, March 17, 2000 14 Maruhom v. Comelec, GR 139357, May 5, 2000 15 Balindong v. Comelec, GR 153991-92, Oct. 16, 2003 16 Jaramilla v. Comelec, GR 155717, Oct. 23, 2003 17 Bautista v. Comelec, GR 154796-97, Oct. 23, 2003 18 De Llana v. Comelec, GR 152080, Nov. 28, 2003 19 Repol v. Comelec, GR 151418, Apr. 28, 2004

7

20 Pedragoza v. COMELEC – 496 SCRA 513 21 Cayetano v. COMELEC – 479 SCRA 514 22 Munoz v. COMELEC – 495 SCRA 407 23 Tan v. COMELEC – 507 SCRA 352 24 Enriquel v. COMELEC – 613 SCRA 809 25 Mendoza v. COMELEC – 616 SCRA 443 26 Maria Laarni L. Cayetano v. Comelec, GR 193846, 12 April 2011 (also in Sec 7, Art IXA): (only final orders of the COMELEC in Division may be raised before the COMELEC en banc; Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution mandates that only motions for reconsideration of final decisions shall be decided by the COMELEC en banc.) 27 Jalosjos v. COMELEC, GR 205033, June 18, 2013 (motion for reconsideration should be decided en banc)

Sec. 4. Regulation of Public Utilities, Media, Franchises 28 Sanidad v. COMELEC – 181 SCRA 529 [1990] (no power to regulate media practitioners during plebiscite) 29 NPC v. COMELEC – 207 SCRA 1 [1992] (power to supervise franchises) 30 Osmeña COMELEC – 199 SCRA 750 [1991] (regulation of media to ensure equal opportunity) 31 Telecom v. COMELEC – 289 SCRA 337 [1998] (supra, Art. 8, Sec. 1 and Sec. 5) (grant free time during election period) 32 Bankers Association v. COMELEC, GR 206794, November 26, 2013 (Money Ban Resolution- power of COMLEC over BSP) 33 Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 26) 34 1-UTAK v. COMELEC, GR 206020, April 14, 2015 Sec. 5. Pardons, etc. 35 Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC and Estrada (supra., Art. 7, Sec. 19) 36 GMA Network v. COMELEC and Cayetano, GR 205357, September 2, 2014 Sec. 6-8. Political Rights 37 Tecson v. Comelec, 423 SCRA 277 Sec. Sec. Sec.

9. “Election Period” 10. Equal Protection of Candidates 11. Fiscal Autonomy

D. Commission on Audit Sec. 1. Purpose, organization, composition, appointment 38 *Mison v. COA – 187 SCRA 445 [1990] (COA as collegial body) 39 Funa v. COA, GR 192791, 24 April 2012 (promotional appointments; nothing in Sec. 1(2), Article IX(D) explicitly precludes a promotional appointment from Commissioner to Chairman) Sec.

2. Powers and Functions 8

Examine and audit Government revenues Government expenditures 40 *Blue Bar Coconut Phil. Tantuico – 163 SCRA 716 [1988] (post-audit authority) 41 DBP v. COA – 231 SCRA 202 [1994] (post-audit authority) 1 Eslao v. COA – 236 SCRA 161 [1994] (limitations to post-audit authority) 2 J.F.F. Manacop v. CA – 266 SCRA 235 [1997] (limitations to post- audit authority) 3 Polloso v. Gangan, GR 140563, July 14, 2000 (prevention of unnecessary expenses) 4 Uy v. COA, GR 130685, March 21, 2000 (prevention of unnecessary expenses) 5 Aguinaldo v. Sandiganbayan – 265 SCRA 121 [1996] (independent administrative ruling) 6 DBP v COA, 422 SCRA 459. [2004] (SLP) 7 Home Dev’t Mutual Fund v. COA, GR 142297, June 15, 2004. 8 DBP v. COA – 498 SCRA 537 [2006] 9 Nava v. Palattao – 499 SCRA 745 [2006] 10 Gualberto Dela Llana v. Commission on Audit, GR 180989, 07 February 2012. (conduct of a pre-audit is not a mandatory duty that this Court may compel the COA to perform) 11 Candelario L. Versoza, Jr. v. Guillermo N. Carague, GR 157838, 07 February 2012. 12 Philippine Coconut v. Republic – 663 SCRA 514 [2012] 13 Funa v. MECO, G.R. 193462, February 2, 2014 (supra., A8, S.5) Audit jurisdiction 14 Caltex v. COA – 208 SCRA 726 [1992] (audit power) 15 Mamaril v. Domingo – 227 SCRA 206 [1993] (audit power) 16 Philippine Airlines v. COA – 245 SCRA 39 [1995] (power over GOCC) 17 CIR v. COA – 218 SCRA 203 [1993] (independent commission, not an executive agency) 18 CSC v. Pobre, GR 160568, Sept 15, 2004 19 Luciano Veloso, et al. v. Commission on Audit, GR 193677, 06 September 2011. 20 Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit, GR 177131, 07 June 2011. 21 De la Llana v. COA -665 SCRA 176 [2012] Settle government accounts 22 *POI v. Aud. Gen. – 94 PHIL. 868 [1953-1954] (power to settle accounts) 23 *ICNA v. Republic – 21 SCRA 40 [1967] (power to act on specific debt claim) 24 Dingcong v. Guingona – 162 SCRA 782 [1988] (power to disapprove payment) 25 NHC v. COA – 226 SCRA 55 [1993] (power to disapprove funds) 26 Euro-Med v. Prov. of Batangas – 495 SCRA 30 [2006] 27 Rallos v. City of Cebu – 704 SCRA 378 28 Ocampo v. COA – 698 SCRA 136 Define scope and techniques for its own auditing procedures 29 Danville Maritime v. COA – 175 SCRA 701 [1989] (power to determine meaning of public bidding)

9

30 The Special Audit Team v. CA, GR 174788, April 11, 2013 (power to define the scope of its audit and examination) Promulgate accounting and auditing rules 31 Leycano v. COA – 482 SCRA 215 Decide administrative cases involving expenditure of public funds 32 NCMH v. COA – 265 SCRA 390 [1996] (discretion to most competent people) 33 Ramos v. Aquino – 39 SCRA 256 [1971] 34 Salva v. Carague – 511 SCRA 258 (on personal liability) 35 Dimapilis- Baldoz v. COA, GR 199114, July 16, 2013 (COA has authority to determine the legality of expenditure) 9supra Art II, Sec 27) 36 City of Basilan v. Hechanova – 58 SCRA 711 [1974] (city council with no power to abolish COA position) Sec. 3. Exemption from Jurisdiction 37 Luciano Veloso v. Commission on Audit, GR 193677, 06 September 2011. Sec.

4. Annual Report

10

ARTICLE X. Local Government Sec.

1. Units of Local Government

Sec. 2. Local Autonomy 38 *San Juan v. CSC 196 SCRA 69 [1991] (power of governor to recommend) 39 Drilon v. Lim – 235 SCRA 135 [1994] (supervision) 40 Judge Leynes v. COA, GR No. 143596, Dec. 11, 2003 41 CREBA v. Sec. of DAR – GR 183409, June 18, 2010 1 Camp John Hay Devt. Corp. v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, GR 169234, October 2, 2013 2 Imbong v. Ochoa, GR No. 204819, April 8, 2014 (RH law) (supra Art II, Sec 12) 3 Belgica v. Ochoa, GR 208556, 19 November 2013 (PDAF) 4 City of General Santos v. COA, GR 199439, April 22, 2014 5 Demaala v. COA, (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 25) 6 Paje v. Casiño (supra., Art 2, Sec. 16); Art. 6, Sec. 5(2); Art. 8, Sec. 5 (5) 7 SJS v. Lim, GR 187836, November 25, 2014 Sec. 3. Local Government Code 8 Garcia v. COMELEC – 227 SCRA 100 [1993] (recall of governor) 9 Malonzo v. COMELEC – 269 SCRA 380 [1997] (recall of mayor) 10 Malonzo v. Zamora, 323 SCRA 875 (recall) 11 Demaala v. COA (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 25) 12 Jalover v. Osmeña, GR 209286, Sept. 23, 2014 Sec. 4. The President and Local governments 13 Ganzon v. CA – 200 SCRA 271 14 Joson v. Torres – 290 SCRA 279 (supra, Art. 7, Sec. 17) (disciplining v. investigative authority) 15 Bito-Onon v. Fernandez – 350 SCRA 732 16 National Liga v. Paredes – 439 SCRA 130 [2004] 17 SJS v. Atienza – 545 SCRA 92 [2009] 18 *Province of Negros Occidental v. COA – 631 SCRA 431 [2010] (power of general supervision v power of control) 19 League of Province of the PH v. DENR, GR 175368, April 11, 2013 (general supervision of the President) 20 Republic v. Bayao, GR 179492, June 5 , 2013 (general supervision of the President) Sec. 5. Sources of Revenue Powers of Local Government 21 LTO v. City of Butuan, 322 SCRA 805 22 Acebedo Optical v. CA, GR 100152, March 31, 2000

11

23 Lina v. Pano, G.R. No. 129093, August 30, 2001 24 PLDT v. City of Davao, GR 143867, March 25, 2003 25 Film Devt. Council of PH v. SM Prime Holdings, INC., GR 197937, April 3, 2013 (power to tax of LGU) 26 Pelizloy Realty Corp v. Province of Benguet, GR 183137, April 10, 2013 (Congress limitation) 27 Ruzol v Sandiganbayan, GR 186739-960, April 17, 2013 (power to create source of revenue and levy fees) 28 Smart Communications v. Municipality of Malvar, GR 204429, Feb 18, 2014 ((power to create source of revenue and levy fees) 29 Demaala v. COA (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 25) 30 Ca Suerte v. CA, (supra., Art. 6, Sec. 28(2) 31 Villafuerte v. Robredo, GR 195390, December 10, 2014 Sec. 6. Share in the National Taxes(IRA) 32 Pimentel v. Aguirre – GR 132988, July 19, 2000 33 Province of Batangas – 429 SCRA 736 [2004] 34 *Alternative Center v. Zamora – 459 SCRA 578 [2005] (not to pass law that will prevent the release of funds) 35 League of Cities v. Comelec, GR 176951, February 15, 2011, April 12, 2011. Sec.

7. Share in Proceeds from Natural Resources

Sec. 8. Term of Local Officials 36 David v. COMELEC – 271 SCRA 90 [1997] (term of brgy. officials) 37 *Borja v. COMELEC – 295 SCRA 157 (term limit for local elective officials) 38 *Adormeo v. COMELEC – 376 SCRA 90 (winner of recall election) 39 *Socrates v. COMELEC – GR No. 154152, November 12, 2002 (subsequent election) 40 *Latasa v. Comelec, GR No. 154829, Dec. 10, 2003 (component city) 41 *Ong. V. Alegre – 479 SCRA 473 (recall election in the mid-way of the term) 1 Rivera v. COMELEC – 523 SCRA 41 2 Monteban v. COMELEC – 551 SCRA 50 [2008] 3 Laceda v. Lumena – GR No. 182867, November 25, 2008 4 *Dizon v. COMELEC – 577 SCRA 589 [2009](involuntary severance of office) 5 *Bolos v. COMELEC – 581 SCRA 786 [2009] (abandonment) 6 *Aldovino v. COMELEC – 609 SCRA 234 [2009] (interruption) 7 *Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR No. 196271, February ? 2012 (reconsideration; holdover provision in RA 9054 unconstitutional, as Congress in passing RA 10153 has made clear)

8 Abundo v. COMELEC, GR No. 201716, Jan 8, 2013 (rules regarding the three-term limit) 9 Naval v. COMELEC, GR 207851, July 8, 2014 Sec.

9. Sectoral Representation

Sec. 10. Creation, division of boundaries 10 *Tan v. COMELEC – 142 SCRA 727 [1986] (creation of a province) 12

11 Tobias v. Abalos – 239 SCRA 106 [1994] (metes and bounds) 12 Mun. of Jimenez v. Judge Baz – 265 SCRA 182 [1996] (de jure corporation) 13 Cawaling v. COMELEC – GR 146319, October 26, 2001 (supra) 14 *League of Cities v. COMELEC – GR 176951, 177499, 178056, February 15, 2011 and April 12, 2011 (Final Resolution) 15 Navarro v. Exec. Sec. Ermita – GR 180050, April 12, 2011 (Dinagat Island) 16 Cagas v. COMELEC, GR 209185, October 25, 2013 (conduct of plebiscite) 17 Umali v. COMELEC, GR 203974, April 22, 2014 Sec . 11. Metropolitan political subdivisions 18 *MMDA v. Garin – GR 130230, April 15, 2005(no authority to confiscate driver’s license) Sec.

12. Classification of Cities

Sec.

13. Common Efforts, services, and resources

Sec.

14. Regional development councils 19 Pimentel v. Ochoa – 676 SCRA 551 [2012]

Sec. 15. Purpose, and how many Autonomous Regions 20 Disomangcop v. Sec. of DPWH, GR 149848; Nov. 25, 2004 Sec.

16. Authority of the President over the Autonomous Region 21 *Datu Zaldy Uy Ampatuan v. Hon. Ronaldo Puno, GR 190259, 07 June 2011 (Proclamation 1946 and AOs 273 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) 22 Kulayan v. Tan -675 SCRA 482 [2012]

Sec.

17. Authority of the National Government over the Autonomous Region 23 Datu Michael 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 of 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 is not just a regional concern 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 to act in accordance with a national policy mandated by no less than the Constitution)

Sec. 18.-19.Organic Act for the Autonomous Regions 24 *Abbas v. COMELEC – 179 SCRA 287 [1989] (ARMM) 25 *Ordillos v. COMELEC – 192 SCRA 100 [1990] (CAR) 26 *Badua v. CBA – 194 SCRA 101 [1991] (tribal courts) 27 Atitiw v. Zamora – 471 SCRA 329 [2005] 28 Sema v. COMELEC – GR 177597, July 16, 2008 29 *Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel (supra. A7, Sec. 1)

13

30 *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 the creation of autonomous regions – i.e., those aspects specifically mentioned in the Constitution which Congress must provide for in the Organic Act – require ratification through a plebiscite) Sec.

20.

Legislative Power

Sec.

21. Peace and order, defense, national security

ARTICLE XI. Accountability of Public Officers Sec. 1. Public office is a Public trust 31 Hipolito v. Mergas – 195 SCRA 6 [1991] (moonlighting) 32 Bornasal, Jr. v. Montes – 280 SCRA 181 [1997] (unauthorized acts) 33 Almario v. Resus – AM No. P941076 [November 22, 1999] 34 Juan v. People, GR 132378, January 18, 2000 35 Re: AWOL of Antonio Makalintal, AM 99-11-06-SC, February 15, 2000 36 Estrella v. Sandiganbayan, GR 125160, June 20, 2000 37 Malbas v. Blanco, A.M. P-99-1350, December 12, 2001 38 Manaois v. Leomo, AM MTJ-03-1492, Aug. 26, 2003 39 Re: Mr. Gideon Alibang, AM 2003-11-SC June 15, 2004 40 ABAKADA v. Purisima – 562 SCRA 251 [2008] 41 Salumbides v. OMB, GR 180917, April 23, 2010 1 Office of the Court Admin v. Buencamino, AM P-05-2051, January 21, 2014 2 Belgica v. Ochoa, GR 208566, November 19, 2013 Sec. 2. Impeachment: Who can be impeached/Grounds for impeachment 3 Office of the Ombudsman v. CA – 452 SCRA 714 [2005] (exclusive list) 4 Gonzales v. Office of the President, GR 196231, Jan 28, 2013 ( Congress’ determine modes of removal)

power

to

Sec. 3. Procedure and Penalty 5 *In re Gonzales – 160 SCRA 771 [1988] (disbarment against an impeachable public officer; read with Marcoleta v. Brawner – 582 SCRA 474 [2009]) 6 Romulo v. Yñiguez – 141 SCRA 260 [1986] (Presidential impeachment) 7 *Estrada v. Desierto, GR 146740-15 and GR 146738, March 2, 2001 and MR-GR 14671015 and 146738, April 3, 2001 (judgment in impeachment) 8 *Francisco v. HR – GR 160261, November 10, 2003 (to initiate meaning) 9 *Gutierrez v. House of Representatives – GR 193459, February 15, 2011 (one-year bar)

14

Sec. 4. The Sandiganbayan 10 Nuñez v. Sandiganbayan – 111 SCRA 433 [1982] (creation of Sandiganbayan) 11 *Lecaros v. Sandiganbayan – 128 SCRA 324 [1984] (crimes in relation to public offfice) 12 Cunanan v. Arceo – 242 SCRA 88 [1995] (averment of the nature of the crime committed) 13 Binay v. Sandiganbayan – GR No. 120681-83 (October 1, 1999) 14 Mayor Layus v. Sandiganbayan – GR 134272, December 8, 1999 15 Abbot v. Mapayo, GR 134102, July 6, 2000 Sec. 5-6 The Ombudsman 16 Baluyot v. Hulganza, GR 136374, February 9, 2000 17 Garcia v. Ombudsman, GR 127710, February 16, 2000 18 Lapid v. CA, GR 142261, June 29, 2000 19 Tirol v. COA, GR 133954, August 3, 2000 20 Mamburao v. Ombudsman, GR 139141-42, November 15, 2000 21 Salvador v. Desierto, 420 SCRA 76 (Ombudsman’s discretion on w/n a criminal case should be filed.) 22 Biraogo v. PTC – (supra., A7) Sec. 7. Tanodbayan now the Special Prosecutor 23 *Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan – 160 SCRA 843 [1988] (powers) 24 Quimpo v. Tanodbayan – 146 SCRA 137 [1986] (jurisdiction) 25 Acop v. Ombudsman – 248 SCRA 566 [1995] (prosecutory powers: distinction in preliminary investigation and duty to investigate) 26 Camanag v. Hon Guerrero – 268 SCRA 473 [1997] (powers as ‘provided by law’) 27 Macalinao v. Sandiganbayan – 376 SCRA 452 28 Office of the Ombudsman v. Valera – 471 SCRA 715 [2005] 29 Perez v. Sandiganbayan – 503 SCRA 252 30 Calingin v. Desierto – 529 SCRA 720 [2007] 31 Lazatin v. Desierto – 588 SCRA 285 [2009] Sec. 8-11. Qualifications, appointment, and term of the Ombudsman 32 OMB v. CSC – 528 SCRA 535 [2007] Sec. 12. Duty to act on complaints vs. gov’t. officials 33 *Almonte v. Vasquez – 244 SCRA 286 [1995] (form and manner of complaint – unsigned letter) 34 Raro v. Sandiganbayan, GR 108431, July 14, 2000 35 Bautista v. Sandiganbayan, GR 136082, May 12, 2000 36 Roxas v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 114944, June 19, 2001 37 Kara-an v. Ombudsman, GR 119990, June 21, 2004 38 People v. Sandiganbayan – 451 SCRA 413 [2005] 39 Laxina v. Ombudsman – 471 SCRA 542 [2005] 40 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)

15

41 *Gonzales III v. OP -679 SCRA 614 [2012] 1 *Gonzales III v. OP, GR 196231, January 28, 2014 Sec. 13. Powers and Responsibilities of Ombudsman; deputies In General 2 *Cruz v. Sandiganbayan – 194 SCRA 474 [1991] (concurrent jurisdiction with PCGG) 3 Maceda v. Vasquez – 221 SCRA 464 [1993] (Judiciary, supra Art. 8) 4 Macalino v. Sandiganbayan – 376 SCRA 452 5 Honasan v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors, GR 159747, Apr. 13, 2004 6 Samson v OMB, GR 117741, Sept. 29, 2004 7 Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, GR 162214, Nov. 11, 2004 8 Khan v. OMB – 495 SCRA 452 9 OMB v. Estandarte – 521 SCRA 155 [2007] 10 *Salvador v. Mapa – 539 SCRA 34 [200] (no power to decide const’l. questions) 11 OMB v. Masing – 542 SCRA 253 [2008] 12 Medina v. COA – 543 SCRA 684 [2008] 13 Borja v. People – 553 SCRA 250 [2008] 14 Biraogo v. PTC – (supra.) 15 Ombudsman v. Chavez, GR 172206, July 3, 2013 (power to promulgate own rules) 16 Ampil v. Ombudsman, GR 192685, July 31, 2013 17 Hernandez v. Ombudsman, GR 197307, Feb 26, 2014 (power of the OMB to dismiss v. power to recommend the removal) 18 Alejandro v. OMB Fact-Finding Bureau – 695 SCRA 35 (jurisdiction over administration cases of elective officials) Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties 19 *Buenaseda v. Flavier – 226 SCRA 645 [1993] (when to suspend) 20 Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole – 251 SCRA 243 [1995] (nature) 21 Vasquez v. Hobilla-Alinio – 271 SCRA 67 [1997] (not in relation to duties) 22 OMB v. CA – 491 SCRA 92 23 OMB v. Madriaga – 503 SCRA 631 24 OMB v. CA – 507 SCRA 593 25 Estorja v. Ranada – 492 SCRA 652 26 OMB v. Lucero – 508 SCRA 593 27 Balbastro v. Juinio – 527 SCRA 680 [2007] 28 OMB v. CA – 527 SCRA 798 [2007] 29 COA – 529 SCRA 245 [2007] 30 OMB v. Santiago – 533 SCRA 305 [2007] 31 Gobenciong v. CA – 550 SCRA 502 [2008] 32 Marohomsalic v. Cole – 547 SCRA 98 33 OMB v. Lisondra – 548 SCRA 83 34 Miro v. Abugan – 549 SCRA 34 35 Cesa v. OMB – 553 SCRA 357 36 OMB v. De Sahagun – 562 SCRA 122 37 OMB v. Samaniego – 564 SCRA 502 38 Boncalon v. OMB – GR 171812, December 24, 2008

16

39 OMB v. Beltran – 588 SCRA 574 [2009] 40 OMB v. Apolonio, GR 165132, 07 March 2012 (power to directly impose administrative penalties, including removal from office) Jurisdiction over Criminal Cases 41 Natividad v. Felix – 229 SCRA 680 [1994] (amount) 1 *Lastimosa v. Vasquez – 243 SCRA 497 [1995] (prosecutor’s assistance) 2 *Presidential v. Desierto – 528 SCRA 20 [2007] (exception to the non-interference) 3 Busuego v. Office of Ombudsman, GR 196842, October 9, 2013 (concurrent jurisdiction to investigate offenses) Fact-finding distinguished from Preliminary Investigation 4 Raro v. Sandiganbayan, GR 108431, July 14, 2000 5 Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, GR 148468, Jan. 28, 2003 Sec.

14. Fiscal Autonomy of Ombudsman

Sec. 15. Exemption of Gov’t from prescription, laches, estoppel 6 Heirs of Gregorio Licaros v. SB, GR 157438, Oct. 18, 2004 7 *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)

Sec.

16. Financial Accommodation

Sec.

17. Disclosure of Assets

Sec. 18. Allegiance of public officers 8 *Caasi v. CA – 191 SCRA 229 [1990] (foreign citizen) 9 Sampayan v. Daza – 213 SCRA 807 [1992] (foreign citizen)

17

ARTICLE XII. National Economy and Patrimony Sec. 1. General Economic Policy Sec. 2. Natural Resources Alienation 10 Sta. Rosa Mining v. Leido – 156 SCRA 1 [1987] (mining claims) 11 San Miguel Corporation v. CA – 185 SCRA 722 [1990] (possession in the concept of an owner) 12 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 based on a positive act of the government)

13 Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, GR 179987, September 3, 2013 (only agricultural lands can be alienated) Utilization 14 Miners v. Factoran – 240 SCRA 100 [1995] (jura regalia) 15 Tano v. Socrates – 278 SCRA 154 [1997] (subsistence fishermen) 16 Villaflor v. CA – 280 SCRA 297 [1997] (private ownership) 17 Republic v. CA and RREC – GR 103882 [November 25, 1998] 299 SCRA 199 18 Republic v. Rosemoor Mining and Dev’t Corp., GR 149927, Mar. 30, 2004, Art. XII 19 Alvarez v. PICOP – 606 SCRA 444 [2009] 20 IID v. PSALM -682 SCRA 602 [2012] Public Domain and Regalian Doctrine 21 Land Mgt. Bureau v. CA, GR 112567, February 7, 2000 22 Republic v. De Guzman, GR 105630, February 23, 2000 23 Pua v. CA, GR 134992, November 20, 2000 24 Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, GR 135385, December 6, 2000 25 Chavez v. PEA, GR 133250, July 9, 2002 26 *La Bugal-B’laan v. Ramos, GR 127872, Dec. 1, 2004 (Regalian Doctrine) 27 Dipidio v. Gozun – 485 SCRA 586 28 Chavez v. NHA – 530 SCRA 235 [2007] 29 Republic v. Vda. De Jason, GR 163767, March 10, 2014(State ownership) 30 Republic v. Remman Enterprises, GR 199310, February 19, 2014 (burden of proof) 31 Narra v. Redmont, GR 195580 , January 28, 2015 Sec. 3. Lands of the Public Domain 32 Dir. of Lands v. Aquino – 192 SCRA 296 [1990] (power to classify) 33 Republic v. CA – 160 SCRA 228 [1988] (conversion of land by perfection of a mining claim) 34 *Dir. of Lands v. IAC – 146 SCRA 509 [1986] (right of corporations to acquire land) 35 Chavez v. PEA, supra. 18

36 Republic v. Southside – 502 SCRA 587 37 Republic v. T.A.N – 555 SCRA 477 [2008] 38 Fortuna v. Republic, GR 173423, March 5, 2014 Sec.

4. Forest Lands and Parks

Sec. 5. Ancestral Lands and Domain 39 *Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, GR 135385, December 6, 2000 (IPRA Law) 40 Paje v. Casiño (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 16; Art. 6, Sec. 5(2); Art. 8, Sec. 5(5) and, Art. 10, Sec. 2 Sec. 6. Common Good 41 Telebap v. COMELEC – 289 SCRA 337 [1998] (supra, Art. 8, Sec. 1 and Sec. 5, and Art. 9-C, Sec. 4) (social function of the use of property) Sec. 7. Private lands 1 *Ramirez v. Vda. De Ramirez – 111 SCRA 704 [1982] (usufruct) 2 *Halili v. CA – 287 SCRA 465 [1998] (subsequent sale to Filipinos) 3 Lee v. Republic, G.R. No. 128195, October 3, 2001 (reiterates previous ruling) 4 Lentfer v. Wolff – 441 SCRA 584 [2004] 5 Muller v. Muller – 500 SCRA 65 6 Ting Ho v. Teng – 558 SCRA 421 [2008] 7 Hulst v. PR Builders – 566 SCRA 333 [2008] 8 *Osmena v. Osmena – 611 SCRA 164 [2010] (forgien ownership of lands) 9 Beurmer v. Amores - 686 SCRA 770 [2012] 10 Republic v. Huang Te Fu, GR 200983, March 18, 2015 Sec. 8. Exemption for Former Filipino Citizens 11 *Republic v. CA – 235 SCRA 567 [1994] (citizenship at time of acquisition) Sec.

9.

Economic and Planning Agency

Sec. 10. Filipinization 12 *Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS – 267 SCRA 408 [1997] (national patrimony) 13 *Army and Navy v. CA – 271 SCRA 36 [1997] (historical landmark) 14 Tañada v. Angara – 272 SCRA 18 [1997] (supra, Art. 2, preliminary issue, Sec. 2, and Sec. 19, and Art. 7, Sec. 21) (preference for Filipinos) 15 Republic v. CA, 299 SCRA 199 J.G. Summit Holdings v. CA, GR 124293, November 20, 2000 Sec. 11. Public Utilities 16 Bagatsing v. Committee – 246 SCRA 344 [1995] (definition of public utility) 17 Albano v. Reyes – 175 SCRA 264 [1989] (power to grant franchise) 18 Tatad v. Garcia – 243 SCRA 436 [1995] (franchise to operate) 19 Telebap v. COMELEC – 289 SCRA 337 [1998] (supra, Art. 8, Sec. 1 and Sec. 5, and Art. 9-C, Sec. 4 and Art. 12, Sec. 6) (amendment to franchise)

19

20 Republic v. Express Telecom, 373 SCRA 316 21 Del Mar v. Pagcor, [2001] 22 PTC v. NTC, GR 138295, Aug. 28, 2003 23 Royal Cargo Corp v. CAB - 421 SCRA 21- participation of executive and managing officers in governing body of public utility enterprise 24 Metropolitan v. Adala – 526 SCRA 465 [2007] 25 *Francisco v. TRB – 633 SCRA 470 [2010] (power to grant license) 26 Wilson P. Gamboa v. Finance Secretary Margarito B. Teves, GR 176579, 28 June 2011. 27 Express Investment v. Bayantel – 687 SCRA 50 [2012] 28 Hontiveros-Baraquel v. TRB (supra; Art. 7, S. 20)

Sec. 12. Filipino First Policy 29 Tañada v. Angara – 272 SCRA 18 [1997] (supra, Art. 2, preliminary issue, Sec. 2 and Sec. 19, and Art. 7, Sec. 21 and Art. 12, Sec. 10) (Filipino first policy) Sec. 13. Economic Exchange 30 Espina v. Zamora – 631 SCRA 17 Sec.

14. Filipino Professionals and skilled workers

Sec.

15. Development of Cooperatives

Sec. 16. Private Corporations 31 NDC v. PVB – 192 SCRA 257 [1990] (creation of GOCC) 32 Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. COA, GR 177131, 07 June 2011. 33 Mendoza v. COA, GR 195395, September 10, 2013 (GOCC special charter)

Sec. 17. Temporary Take-Over 34 Agan Jr. v. PIATCO- 420 S 575 [2004] 35 *David v. Arroyo – (supra. A7, Sec. 18) Sec.

18. Nationalization

Telephone Interconnections 36 *Republic v. PLDT – 26 SCRA 620 [1968] (national welfare and power of eminent domain) 37 PLDT v. NTC – 190 SCRA 717 [1990] (economic efficiency) 38 PLDT v. Eastern Telecom – 213 SCRA 16 [1992] (no franchise to operate telephone system) Sec. 19. Monopolies and combinations 39 Tatad v. DOE – 281 SCRA 330 [1997] and MR – 282 SCRA 337 [1997] (supra, Art. 6, Sec. 1 and Art. 8, Sec.1 ) 40 EASCO v. LTFRB, GR 149717, Oct. 7, 2003 20

41 Agan Jr. v. PIATCO- supra 1 *Avon v. Luna – 511 SCRA 376 (exclusivity clause) 2 Pharmaceutical v. Duque – (supra.) Sec.

20. Central Monetary Authority

Sec.

21. Foreign Loans

Sec.

22. Penal Sanctions Supplement: See the Proceedings of the Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reform, 1999, (CD).

21

ARTICLE XVI . General Provisions Sec.

1. The Flag 3 Kalaw v. Fernandez, GR 166357, January 14, 2015

Sec.

2. National name, anthem and seal 4 Kalaw v. Fernandez (supra Sec. 1)

Sec.

3. Immunity from Suit 5 Liang v. People, GR 125865, January 28, 2000 6 Calub v. CA, GR 115634, April 27, 2000 7 Lansang v. CA, GR 102667, February 23, 2000 8 Mancenido v. CA, GR 118605, April 12, 2000 9 Shell v. Jalos – 630 SCRA 399 [2010] 10 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 11 Santos v. Santos – 92 PHIL. 281 [1952-1953] 12 Republic v. Feliciano – 148 SCRA 424 ]1987] 13 *Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzons (2005) – Unincorporated Agencies 14 Metran v. Paredes – 79 PHIL. 819 [1947-1948] 15 NAC v. Teodoro – 91 PHIL. 203 [1952] 16 *Mobil Philippines v. Customs Arrastre – 18 SCRA 1120 [1966] 17 *Del Mar v. PVA – 51 SCRA 340[1973] 18 CAA v. CA – 167 SCRA 28 [1988] 19 Farolan v. CTA – 217 SCRA 217 [1993] 20 PNR v. IAC – 217 SCRA 401 [1993] 21 Republic v. Nolasco – 457 SCRA 460 [2005] 22 Republic v. Unimex – 518 SCRA 20 [2007] 23 Professional Video v. TESDA – 591 SCRA 83 [2009] 24 DOH v. Phil Phramaceuticals – 691 SCRA 421 [ ] Government Officers 25 *Ministerio v. CFI – 40 SCRA 464 [1971] 26 *Syquia v. Almeda-Lopez – 84 SCRA 312[1978] 27 Festejo v. Fernando – 94 SCRA 504 [1979] 28 Aberca v. Ver – 160 SCRA 590 [1988] 22

29 *Shauf v. CA – 191 SCRA 713 [1990] 30 Vidad v. RTC – 227 SCRA 271 [1993] 31 Regional Director v. CA – 229 SCRA 557 [1994] 32 Africa v. PCGG/Villanueva v. Sandiganbayan – [January 1992] 33 DOH v. Phil. Pharmawealth – 518 SCRA 240 [2007] Foreign Government 34 *Baer v. Tizon – 57 SCRa 1 [1974] 35 *US v. Ruiz – 136 SCRA 487 [1985] 36 Sanders v. Veridiano – 162 SCRA 88 [1988] 37 U.S. v. Reyes – 219 SCRA 192 [1993] 38 The Holy See v. Rosario – 238 SCRA 524 [1994] 39 JUSMAG v. NLRC – 239 SCRA 224 [1994] 40 Larkins v. NLRC – 241 SCRA 598 [1995] 41 Minucher v. CA – GR 142396, Feb. 11, 2003 1 Arigo v. Swift, GR 206510, September 16, 2014 (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 2) Consent by Law 2 *Carabao v. Agricultural Product Com. – 35 SCRA 224 [1970] 3 Arcega v. CA – 66 SCRA 230 [1975] 4 Rayo v. CFI – 110 SCRA 456 [1981] 5 Municipality of San Fernando v. Firme – 195 SCRA 692 [1991] 6 Republic v. NLRC – 263 SCRA 290 [1996] Exceptional Circumstance to avoid injustice 7 DOH v. Canchela – 475 SCRA 218 [2005] Agency – Propriety 8 *United States v. Guinto – 182 SCRA 644 [1990] 9 Fontanilla v. Maliaman – 194 SCRA 486 [1991] 10 PRC v. CA – 256 SCRA 667 [1996] Waiver 11*Republic v. Purisma – 78 SCRA 470 [1977] 12 Santiago v. Republic – 87 SCRA 294[1978] 13 Traders Royal Bank v. IAC – 192 SCRA 305 [1990] 14 Republic v. Sandoval – 220 SCRA 124 [1993] 15 Delos Santos v. IAC – 223 SCRA 11 [1993] 16 DA v. NLRC – 227 SCRA 693 [1993] 17 EPG v. Sec. of DPWH – 354 SCRA 566 [2001] Resulting Liability 18 Philrock v. Board of Liquidators – 180 SCRA 171 [1989] 19 Liang v. People – GR 125865 [January 28, 2000] (ADB immunity) 20 Republic v. Hidalgo – 477 SCRA 12 [2005] (writ of execution) 21 *Philippine Agila v. Lichauco – 489 SCRA 22 [2006]

23

22 Curato v. PPA – 590 SCRA 215 [2009] 23 U.P. v. Dizon -679 SCRA 54 [2012] Sec.

4. Armed Forces

Sec.

5. Quality of Service (AFP)

Sec.

6. Police Force 24 Carpio v. Executive Secretary – 206 SCRA 290 [1992] 25 IBP v. Zamora, GR 141284, August 15, 2000

Sec.

7-8. Remuneration and Benefits 26 Re: Application for Survivorship pension benefits under RA 9946, AM 14155-Ret, November 19, 2013 (state’s duty to upgrade pensions and other benefits)

Sec.

9. Consumer Protection

Sec.

10. Communication Policy

Sec.

11. Media

Sec.

12. Consultative Body for Indigenous Communities 27 Paje v. Casiño (supra., Art. 2, Sec. 16; Art. 6, Sec. 5(2), Art. 8, Sec. 5(5); Art. 10, Sec

2)

24

ARTICLE XVII. Amendments or Revisions Sec.

1. Revision/Amendment 28 *Imbong v. COMELEC – 35 SCRA 28 [1970] (constituent assembly)

Sec.

2. Direct Proposal 29 *Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC – 270 SCRA 106 [1997] and MR – [1997] (initiative and referendum) 30 *Lambino v. COMELEC – 505 SCRA 160 (unstated purpose)

Sec.

3. Congressional Prerogative

Sec.

4. Ratification and date of effectivity 31 *Gonzales v. COMELEC – 21 SCRA 774 [1967] (nature of power to amend the Constitution) 32 *Tolentino v. COMELEC – 41 SCRA 702 [1971] (single election)

25

ARTICLE XVIII Transitory Provisions Sec.

1. First Elections Under the New Constitution

Sec.

2. Team of first House Members and first 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. Presidential Legislative Powers

Sec.

7. Sectoral Representation

Sec. 8. Metropolitan Authority 33 MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association, GR 135962, March 27, 2000 Sec.

9. Sub-Provinces

Sec.

10-11. Security of Tenure of Judges

Sec.

12-14. Cases filed prior to effectivity of New Constitution

Sec.

15. Term of Carry-over Commissioners

Sec. 16. Career Civil Service Officers 34 Dario v. Mison – 176 SCRA 84 [1989] (reorganization) 35 Mendoza v. Quisumbing – 186 SCRA 108 [1990] 36 Ontiveros v. C.A., G.R. No. 145401, May 7, 2001 Sec.

17-18. Readjustment of salaries

Sec.

19-21. Reversion of lands and real rights illegally acquired

Sec.

22. Idle/Abandoned lands

26

Sec.

23. Advertising Entities

Sec.

24. Private Armies

Sec. 25. Foreign Military Bases, Troops or Facilities 37 *Bayan v. Zamora, GR 138570, October 10, 2000 (VFA) Supplement: Questions Frequently Asked on the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement, 3 Phil. Journal on Diplomacy and Dev’t 58, # 1 (March 2000) Sec. 26. Sequestration Orders 38 Joya v. PCGG – 225 SCRA 568 [1993] 39 *Republic v. Sandiganbayan – 221 SCRA 189 [1993] (powers of PCGG) 40 Cojuangco v. Roxas – 195 SCRA 797 [1991] (vote of sequestered shares) 41 Araneta v. Sandiganbayan – 242 SCRA 482 [1995] (investigate/prosecutory powers) 1 Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan – 244 SCRA 152 [1995] (authority over ill-gotten wealth) 2 Republic v. Sandiganbayan – 240 SCRA 376 [1995] (judicial action) 3 Republic v. Sandiganbayan – 255 SCRA 438 [1996] (proper parties) 4 Republic v. Sandiganbayan – 258 SCRA 685 [1996] (powers of commissioners) 5 Republic v. Sandiganbayan – 269 SCRA 316 [1997] (rules) 6 PCGG v. Sandiganbayan – GR 125788 [June 5, 1998] (proper parties) 7 Republic v. Saludares, 327 SCRA 449 8 Jalandoni v. Sec. of Justice, GR 115239-40, March 2, 2000 9 Antiporda v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 116941, May 31, 2001 10 PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 119609-10, September 21, 2001 11 Palm Avenue v. Sandiganbayan, GR 173082, August 6, 2014 Sec. 27. Date of Effectivity 12 De Leon v. Esquerra – 152 SCRA 602 [1987] (ratification)

J J END J J

27