Talaan ng mga Kaso

Filter by Subject

Text Search

There are 97 results on the current subject filter

Title	IDs & Reference #s	Background	Primary Holding	Subject Matter
Calleja vs. Executive Secretary (7th December 2021)	AK549249 G.R. No. 252578	The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA) was enacted to replace the criticized Human Security Act of 2007, aiming to strengthen counter-terrorism measures and align with international standards (e.g., UN protocols, FATF guidelines). Civil society groups, journalists, and activists filed petitions arguing the law’s vague definitions (e.g., “terrorism,” “inciting”) and expanded executive powers threatened constitutional rights, enabling state abuse through arbitrary designations and surveillance. The government asserted the law was necessary to address evolving threats from groups like Abu Sayyaf and communist rebels while avoiding international sanctions for non-compliance with anti-terrorism financing rules. The case emerged amid heightened polarization over national security policies and concerns over “red-tagging” practices linking dissenters to terrorism.	The Court voided parts of Section 4 (the qualifiers "intent to intimidate" and "create risk to public safety") and Sections 12 (inciting to commit terrorism), 25(e) (automatic adoption of UN-designated terrorists), and 29 (detention without warrant for 24 days). Other provisions survived constitutional scrutiny.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Criminal Law II
JESUS NICARDO M. FALCIS, III vs. CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL (3rd September 2019)	AK852327 861 Phil. 388 , G.R. No. 217910	The case arose from petitioner Falcis's challenge to the Family Code's provisions (Articles 1 and 2) defining marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman, which effectively prohibits same-sex marriage in the Philippines. Falcis, identifying as a homosexual man, sought judicial intervention to invalidate these provisions and related articles on grounds of alleged violations of fundamental constitutional rights, despite not having personally applied for and been denied a marriage license.	The Court held that a petition challenging the constitutionality of laws must satisfy the stringent requirements for judicial review, including the existence of an actual case or controversy and legal standing, neither of which petitioner Falcis possessed, thus warranting the dismissal of the petition without ruling on the substantive issue of the constitutionality of the Family Code's definition of marriage.	Constitutional Law II Equal Protection
Zabal vs. Duterte (12th February 2019)	AK457180 846 Phil. 743 , G.R. No. 238467	Boracay Island, a prime tourist destination, suffered severe environmental degradation due to factors like inadequate sewage infrastructure, improper waste disposal, illegal structures, high tourist influx, and violations of environmental laws, leading the President to describe it as a "cesspool" and necessitating government intervention for rehabilitation.	Proclamation No. 475, ordering the temporary closure of Boracay Island for rehabilitation, is a valid exercise of the State's police power, reasonably necessary to address the environmental degradation and protect public health, safety, and the general welfare, and does not unconstitutionally impair the right to travel or the right to due process.	Constitutional Law II Liberty of Abode
Genuino vs. De Lima (17th April 2018)	AK023987 829 Phil. 691 , G.R. No. 197930 , G.R. No. 199034 , G.R. No. 199046	Prior to 2010, the DOJ issued Circular No. 17 (1998) governing HDOs and Circular No. 18 (2007) governing WLOs for persons with cases pending preliminary investigation or review. In May 2010, Acting DOJ Secretary Agra issued DOJ Circular No. 41, consolidating and revising the rules on HDOs, WLOs, and Allow Departure Orders (ADOs), expressly repealing the previous circulars. Subsequently, criminal complaints for plunder, malversation, graft, and electoral sabotage were filed against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA), her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo, and former PAGCOR officials led by Efraim Genuino, leading to the issuance of WLOs and an HDO against them under the authority of DOJ Circular No. 41 by then DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima.	Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 41, series of 2010, is unconstitutional because the DOJ has no authority under the Constitution or any existing law, including the Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. 292), to issue an administrative circular that restricts the fundamental constitutional right to travel by creating mechanisms like Watchlist Orders (WLOs) and Hold Departure Orders (HDOs) based solely on the pendency of a preliminary investigation.	Constitutional Law II Liberty of Abode
Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City (7th March 2017)	AK274299 819 SCRA 313 , 806 Phil. 822 , A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC	The controversy began with letters from Tony Q. Valenciano to then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, complaining that the basement of the Quezon City (QC) Hall of Justice was being used as a Roman Catholic Chapel for daily masses, complete with religious icons and an offertory table. Valenciano asserted this practice violated constitutional provisions and caused various practical inconveniences.	The temporary and voluntary holding of religious rituals, such as Catholic masses during lunch breaks, in a common area of a public building like a Hall of Justice, does not violate the Establishment Clause or the prohibition against the appropriation of public money or property for religious purposes, provided it does not involve coercion, expenditure of public funds, permanent appropriation of the space, or prejudice to other religions, and represents a permissible accommodation of the employees' right to free exercise of religion under the principle of benevolent neutrality.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Freedom of Religion
The Diocese of Bacolod vs. COMELEC, et al. (5th July 2016)	AK726602 789 Phil. 197 , G.R. No. 205728	The case arose in the context of the 2013 national elections in the Philippines and the then-recent, highly controversial passage of Republic Act No. 10354, the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law). The RH Law was a divisive piece of legislation, with strong opposition from various sectors, including the Catholic Church, to which the petitioners belong. The tarpaulins in question were a direct response to the RH Law, linking candidates' stances on it to a "conscience vote."	The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) does not have the authority to regulate the content or size of political expressions made by private citizens who are not candidates, especially when such expressions involve an advocacy on a social issue, even if they incidentally name candidates and are posted during an election period; any such regulation must withstand strict constitutional scrutiny and is generally an impermissible infringement on the fundamental right to freedom of expression.	Constitutional Law II Freedom of Expression
Obergefell vs. Hodges (26th June 2015)	AK784523 576 U.S. 644	The cases arose from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, states whose laws defined marriage solely as a union between one man and one woman, reflecting a long-standing historical definition but contrasting with evolving societal understandings and legal developments regarding the rights of gay and lesbian individuals and the nature of marriage itself. Petitioners sought marriage licenses within their home states or recognition of marriages performed legally in other states, facing denials based on these state laws. This legal challenge occurred against a backdrop of increasing public debate, legislative changes in some states, and numerous court decisions addressing same-sex marriage following landmark cases like _Lawrence v. Texas_ and _United States v. Windsor_.	The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed in another State.	Constitutional Law II Equal Protection
Villanueva vs. Judicial and Bar Council (7th April 2015)	AK748641 755 SCRA 182 , 757 Phil. 534 , G.R. No. 211833	Judge Ferdinand R. Villanueva was appointed as a first-level court judge in 2012. In 2013, he applied for promotion to several Regional Trial Court (RTC) positions but was disqualified by the JBC due to its policy requiring five years of service as a first-level court judge. Villanueva challenged this policy, arguing that it was unconstitutional and violated his rights to equal protection and due process.	The Supreme Court held that the JBC's policy requiring five years of service as a first-level court judge before qualifying for promotion to a second-level court is constitutional and does not violate the equal protection or due process clauses. The Court also ruled that the JBC must publish its policies to ensure transparency.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
People vs. Cogaed (30th July 2014)	AK442715 740 Phil. 212 , G.R. No. 200334	The case arose within the context of law enforcement efforts against illegal drug trafficking, specifically involving the transportation of marijuana in the province of La Union. Police acted based on a text message from an unidentified civilian informant regarding the transport of marijuana by a named individual, leading to the establishment of a checkpoint and the subsequent apprehension and search of the accused.	Evidence obtained through a warrantless search based merely on an unverified tip from an informant or a third party's suspicion, without independent observation of suspicious activity by the police officer establishing a genuine reason, does not constitute a valid "stop and frisk" search, and such illegally seized evidence is inadmissible under the exclusionary rule.	Constitutional Law II Searches and Seizures
Imbong vs. Ochoa Jr. (8th April 2014)	AK609982 721 SCRA 146 , 732 Phil. 1 , G.R. No. 204819 , G.R. No. 204934 , G.R. No. 204957 , G.R. No. 204988 , G.R. No. 205003 , G.R. No. 205043 , G.R. No. 205138 , G.R. No. 205478 , G.R. No. 205491 , G.R. No. 205720 , G.R. No. 206355 , G.R. No. 207111 , G.R. No. 207172 , G.R. No. 207563	The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) was enacted to address population growth and improve reproductive health in the Philippines. It mandates government provision of reproductive health services and supplies, including contraceptives, and requires sex education in schools. The law generated significant controversy and strong opposition, particularly from religious groups. Shortly after its enactment, various groups filed petitions challenging its constitutionality.	The Supreme Court declared certain provisions of the RH Law and its IRR unconstitutional, specifically those related to abortifacients as redefined by the IRR, restrictions on conscientious objectors, lack of parental or spousal consent in specific situations, and limitations on health facilities operated by religious groups. However, the majority of the RH Law was upheld as constitutional.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Disini vs. Secretary of Justice (11th February 2014)	AK238408 727 Phil. 28 , G.R. No. 203335 , G.R. No. 203299 , G.R. No. 203306 , G.R. No. 203359 , G.R. No. 203378 , G.R. No. 203391 , G.R. No. 203407 , G.R. No. 203440 , G.R. No. 203453 , G.R. No. 203454 , G.R. No. 203469 , G.R. No. 203501 , G.R. No. 203501 , G.R. No. 203515 , G.R. No. 203518	The proliferation of internet use and the rise of cyberspace activities brought about new avenues for communication, commerce, and information dissemination, but also new forms of criminal behavior collectively termed "cybercrimes." Recognizing the need to address these emerging threats, the Philippine government enacted Republic Act No. 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, to define and penalize various offenses committed through or with the use of computer systems, and to provide for their prevention, investigation, and prosecution.	The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. 10175) is constitutional in its general aim to regulate and punish cybercrimes, but specific provisions that unduly curtail fundamental rights, such as certain aspects of online libel, unsolicited commercial communications, real-time collection of traffic data without a warrant, and the power of the Department of Justice to restrict or block access to computer data, are unconstitutional.	Constitutional Law II Criminal Law II Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction Police Power; Freedom of Expression, Libel, and Cyberlibel
Manila Memorial Park, Inc. vs. Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (3rd December 2013)	AK580749 711 SCRA 302 , 722 Phil. 538 , G.R. No. 175356	Manila Memorial Park, Inc. and La Funeraria Paz-Sucat, Inc. challenged the constitutionality of the tax deduction scheme implemented for senior citizen discounts, claiming it violates the constitutional provision against taking private property for public use without just compensation.	The Supreme Court held that the 20% senior citizen discount mandated by RA 7432, as amended by RA 9257, and the corresponding tax deduction scheme are a valid exercise of the State's police power and do not constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property requiring just compensation.	Constitutional Law II
Belgica vs. Ochoa (19th November 2013)	AK249819 710 SCRA 1 , 721 Phil. 416 , G.R. No. 208566 , G.R. No. 208493 , G.R. No. 209251	The case arose from public outrage and concern over the alleged misuse and corruption associated with the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and other lump-sum discretionary funds, particularly in light of the Commission on Audit (CoA) report and the "Napoles controversy."	The Court held that the post-enactment authority granted to legislators under the PDAF and similar schemes constitutes an impermissible intrusion into the Executive's budget execution domain, and that lump-sum discretionary funds without specific guidelines amount to an undue delegation of legislative power and undermines the President's item-veto power.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Statutory Construction
Garcia vs. Drilon (25th June 2013)	AK592766 699 SCRA 352 , 712 Phil. 44 , G.R. No. 179267	Republic Act No. 9262 was enacted by Congress in 2004 as a landmark law defining and criminalizing various forms of violence against women and their children (VAWC) perpetrated by intimate partners (husbands, former husbands, partners, etc.), providing protective measures like protection orders, and outlining duties of government officials in responding to VAWC complaints. The law was a response to the high prevalence of domestic violence against women in the Philippines, often committed by their intimate partners, and aimed to address the historically unequal power relations between men and women. This case arose when a husband, subjected to Temporary Protection Orders under RA 9262, challenged the law's fundamental validity before the courts.	Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, is constitutional and does not violate the equal protection clause, the due process clause, or constitute an undue delegation of judicial power to barangay officials.	Constitutional Law II Criminal Law II Equal Protection, VAWC
Fernando vs. St. Scholastica's College (12th March 2013)	AK827333 693 SCRA 141 , 706 Phil. 138 , G.R. No. 161107	The City of Marikina enacted Ordinance No. 192 aiming to regulate fence construction for public safety, security, beautification, and neighborliness. The ordinance set height limits and see-through requirements for fences and mandated a five-meter parking setback for certain establishments, including educational institutions. St. Scholastica's College, affected by this ordinance, challenged its validity.	Sections 3.1 and 5 of Ordinance No. 192 of Marikina City, which regulate fence height and setback requirements, are invalid exercises of police power because they are not reasonably necessary for the stated purposes, are unduly oppressive, and constitute a taking of private property without just compensation.	Constitutional Law II
Madriaga, Jr. vs. China Banking Corporation (25th July 2012)	AK464752 677 SCRA 560 , 691 Phil. 770 , G.R. No. 192377	The dispute originated from a sale of properties by Spouses Trajano to Madriaga, Sr., followed by complications involving a mortgage with Asia Trust Bank, an execution sale in favor of Madriaga, Sr., and a subsequent mortgage with China Bank that led to foreclosure.	The petition is denied because the case was rendered moot and academic by the full implementation of the writ of possession, and the issuance of the ex parte writ of possession did not violate the petitioner's right to due process.	Constitutional Law II
Marcos, Jr. vs. Republic (25th April 2012)	AK198765 671 SCRA280 , 686 Phil. 980 , G.R. No. 189434	This case involves the Republic's efforts to recover ill-gotten wealth allegedly acquired by the Marcoses during their time in power, specifically focusing on assets held by Arelma, S.A.	The assets of Arelma, S.A. are considered ill-gotten wealth and are rightly forfeited to the Republic; the Sandiganbayan did not err in granting the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.	Constitutional Law II
Luz vs. People (29th February 2012)	AK520853 683 Phil. 399 , G.R. No. 197788	The case arose from a routine traffic stop where a police officer flagged down the petitioner for driving a motorcycle without a helmet, a violation of a Naga City ordinance.	A stop for a minor traffic violation, particularly one punishable only by a fine like failing to wear a motorcycle helmet under a city ordinance, does not inherently constitute a lawful custodial arrest that justifies a subsequent warrantless search incidental to arrest; evidence obtained from such an illegal search is inadmissible.	Constitutional Law II Searches and Seizures
League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) vs. Commission on Elections (12th April 2011)	AK614037 663 Phil. 496 , G.R. No. 176951 , G.R. No. 177499 , G.R. NO. 178056	Congress enacted 16 individual Republic Acts ("Cityhood Laws") converting specific municipalities into cities, incorporating exemption clauses that excused them from the P100 million income requirement established by R.A. No. 9009, which had amended the Local Government Code (LGC). These municipalities had cityhood bills pending before R.A. No. 9009's enactment. The League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP), representing existing cities, challenged these laws as unconstitutional for violating the LGC requirement that cityhood criteria be uniform and stated within the LGC itself, and for violating the equal protection clause. This led to a protracted legal battle involving multiple, conflicting Supreme Court rulings on the laws' validity, culminating in the February 15, 2011 Resolution upholding the laws, which petitioners sought to reconsider in the motion addressed by this present Resolution.	The Court's February 15, 2011 Resolution, upholding the constitutionality of the 16 Cityhood Laws, is affirmed, as the petitioners' procedural arguments regarding finality and jurisdiction, and substantive arguments regarding violations of the Constitution (Art. X, Secs. 6 & 10) and the Equal Protection Clause, are without merit; the prior judgment declaring the laws unconstitutional had not attained finality due to timely filed and entertained motions.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction Equal Protection
Yusay vs. Court of Appeals (6th April 2011)	AK797825 647 SCRA 269 , 662 Phil. 634 , G.R. No. 156684	Spouses Yusay owned land in Mandaluyong City, part of which they rented out. The City Council passed a resolution authorizing the City Mayor to initiate expropriation of the land for low-cost housing. The Yusays, fearing immediate action, filed certiorari and prohibition to annul the resolution.	Certiorari and prohibition do not lie to assail the issuance of a resolution by the Sanggunian Panglungsod authorizing expropriation because a resolution is a legislative act, not a judicial or quasi-judicial one. Furthermore, initiating expropriation requires an ordinance, not a resolution, under the Local Government Code.	Constitutional Law II
General vs. Urro (29th March 2011)	AK549891 646 SCRA 567 , 662 Phil. 132 , G.R. No. 191560	Then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointed several individuals to the NAPOLCOM, including General as an acting commissioner. Near the end of her term, she appointed Urro, de Guzman, and Escueta as permanent commissioners. General questioned these appointments, claiming they violated the ban on midnight appointments.	An acting appointee to a public office does not have the legal standing (cause of action) to file a quo warranto petition against a newly appointed individual to that same office. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of the new appointments.	Constitutional Law II
Espina vs. Zamora (21st September 2010)	AK922354 631 SCRA 17 , 645 Phil. 269 , G.R. No. 143855	Prior to R.A. 8762, Republic Act No. 1180 (Retail Trade Nationalization Act) enacted in 1954 absolutely prohibited foreign nationals and corporations from engaging in the retail trade business in the Philippines. R.A. 8762, signed into law in 2000, expressly repealed R.A. 1180 and liberalized the retail trade sector by allowing foreign investment under specific capitalization thresholds and categories, prompting constitutional challenges based on economic nationalism principles enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.	Republic Act No. 8762 (Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000) is constitutional; the constitutional provisions on developing a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos (Art. II, Sec. 19) and related state policies are not self-executing commands imposing a Filipino monopoly, but rather guiding principles, and Congress has the discretion under the Constitution (Art. XII, Sec. 10) to determine when and how to regulate or allow foreign investments in the national interest, including in the retail trade sector.	Constitutional Law II Due Process
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. COMELEC (8th April 2010)	AK675246 618 SCRA 32 , 632 Phil. 32 , G.R. No. 190582	The case arose from the COMELEC's refusal to accredit Ang Ladlad, an organization representing the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, as a party-list organization eligible to participate in the Philippine legislative elections under Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act).	The COMELEC cannot disqualify a party-list applicant based on religious or moral grounds lacking a clear secular justification, as doing so violates the non-establishment clause, the equal protection clause, and the rights to freedom of expression and association; moral disapproval alone is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify infringing upon these fundamental rights.	Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law Equal Protection
Office of the Solicitor General vs. Ayala Land (18th September 2009)	AK679178 600 SCRA 617 , 616 Phil. 587 , G.R. No. 177056	The case arose from a Senate investigation into the legality of shopping malls charging parking fees. The Senate Committees concluded that charging parking fees was contrary to the National Building Code and recommended the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to enjoin the practice. Subsequently, the OSG filed a petition seeking to prohibit mall operators from collecting parking fees, arguing that the National Building Code impliedly mandates free parking.	Shopping mall operators cannot be legally compelled to provide free parking spaces to their patrons and the general public under the National Building Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.	Constitutional Law II
White Light Corporation vs City of Manila (20th January 2009)	AK433804 576 SCRA 416 , 596 Phil. 444 , G.R. No. 122846	The City of Manila enacted an ordinance seeking to regulate public morals by prohibiting short-time rates in establishments often associated with illicit activities. Several businesses challenged the ordinance, arguing it infringed upon their rights and the rights of their customers. The case highlights the tension between government's power to regulate for public welfare and individual rights to liberty and privacy.	Manila City Ordinance No. 7774, which prohibits short-time admission and wash-up rates in hotels and motels, is unconstitutional as it violates the due process clause of the Constitution.	Constitutional Law II Police Power
Garcillano vs. House of Representatives Committees on Public Information, Public Order and Safety, National Defense and Security, Information and Communications Technology, and Suffrage and Electoral Reforms (23rd December 2008)	AK565763 575 SCRA 170 , 595 Phil. 775 , G.R. No. 170338	The controversy arose from the release of wiretapped recordings allegedly involving then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and a Commission on Elections official discussing electoral manipulation. These tapes became a subject of public and legislative scrutiny, with both Houses of Congress initiating separate inquiries.	The Supreme Court dismissed the first petition (G.R. No. 170338) for being moot and academic but granted the second petition (G.R. No. 179275), prohibiting the Senate from conducting its legislative inquiry due to a lack of duly published procedural rules as required by the Constitution.	Constitutional Law II
Province of North Cotabato vs. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP) (14th October 2008)	AK025291 568 SCRA 402 , 589 Phil. 387 , G.R. No. 183591 , G.R. No. 183752 , G.R. No. 183893 , G.R. No. 183951 , G.R. No. 183962	The MOA-AD was a proposed agreement aimed at resolving the armed conflict in Mindanao by expanding the autonomous region and granting significant powers to the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). However, concerns arose regarding the lack of transparency and potential constitutional violations.	The Supreme Court declared the MOA-AD unconstitutional due to violations of the right to information, lack of public consultation, and provisions that exceeded the government's authority and contradicted the Constitution and existing laws.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Gobenciong vs. Court of Appeals (31st March 2008)	AK728096 550 SCRA 502 , 573 Phil. 613 , G.R. No. 159883	Dr. Pedro Gobenciong, an administrative officer at a regional hospital, was administratively charged for falsification of public documents and misconduct related to the allegedly anomalous purchase of a hemoanalyzer, leading to preventive suspension and subsequent disciplinary action by the Ombudsman.	The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman's preventive suspension orders are immediately executory, the Ombudsman's disciplinary authority is not merely recommendatory but includes ensuring compliance, and RA 6770 does not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of authority or violate the equal protection clause.	Constitutional Law II Due Process
Chavez vs. Gonzales, et al. (15th February 2008)	AK123614 569 Phil. 155 , G.R. No. 168338	The case arose from the political controversy surrounding the "Hello Garci" tapes, which allegedly contained a wiretapped phone conversation between then-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and a high-ranking COMELEC official, purportedly discussing the rigging of the 2004 national election results. Following the public emergence of these tapes, the Secretary of Justice and the NTC issued warnings to the media against their dissemination, citing potential violations of the Anti-Wiretapping Act and program standards for broadcast media.	Governmental warnings or press statements made by officials in their official capacity that threaten sanctions for the publication or broadcast of specific content, without satisfying the clear and present danger test, constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech and of the press.	Constitutional Law II Freedom of Expression
Carlos Superdrug Corp. vs. DSWD (29th June 2007)	AK712617 526 SCRA 130 , 553 Phil. 120 , G.R. No. 166494	Petitioners, drugstore owners, questioned the constitutionality of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 9257, which provides senior citizens with a 20% discount on medicines, arguing that the provided tax deduction mechanism does not fully reimburse them and results in financial losses, amounting to confiscation of property without just compensation. They contended that it violates their rights to due process and equal protection and the constitutional mandate to make essential goods available at affordable cost.	Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 9257, the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003, is constitutional as it is a valid exercise of police power and does not violate the constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, or constitute unjust taking of private property.	Constitutional Law II Police Power
Lambino vs. Commission on Elections (25th October 2006)	AK596385 505 SCRA 160 , 536 Phil. 1 , G.R. No. 174153 , G.R. No. 174299	The petitioners, led by Raul Lambino and Erico Aumentado, sought to amend the 1987 Constitution via a people’s initiative by collecting signatures from registered voters. They filed a petition with the COMELEC requesting a plebiscite to ratify their proposed amendments. COMELEC dismissed their petition, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC, which declared R.A. 6735 inadequate to allow an initiative for constitutional amendments. The petitioners then sought recourse with the Supreme Court.	The Supreme Court ruled that the initiative petition filed by the Lambino Group was fatally defective because it failed to comply with constitutional requirements. It also reaffirmed the Santiago v. COMELEC ruling that R.A. 6735 is inadequate to implement the people’s initiative to amend the Constitution.	Constitutional Law II
Estrada vs. Escritor (22nd June 2006)	AK431336 492 SCRA 1 , 525 Phil. 110 , A.M. No. P-02-1651	The case arose from a sworn letter-complaint filed by Alejandro Estrada against Soledad Escritor, a court interpreter, alleging that her living arrangement with Luciano Quilapio, Jr.—a man married to another woman—constituted disgraceful and immoral conduct tarnishing the image of the judiciary. Escritor, a widow whose own husband was previously estranged, admitted the cohabitation but claimed it conformed to the religious doctrines and practices of the Jehovah's Witnesses, formalized through a "Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness" approved by her congregation, as Quilapio faced legal impediments to remarriage. This created a conflict between state laws penalizing such relationships and Escritor's constitutional right to religious freedom.	The State failed to demonstrate a compelling interest that would justify infringing upon the respondent's fundamental right to the free exercise of her religion, and failed to show that the means adopted was the least restrictive; therefore, the respondent's conjugal arrangement, sanctioned by her religious beliefs and practices as a Jehovah's Witness, cannot be penalized as disgraceful and immoral conduct, and she is entitled to an exemption based on her right to religious freedom.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law Freedom of Religion
Mirasol, et al. vs. Department of Public Works and Highways and Toll Regulatory Board (8th June 2006)	AK762874 523 Phil. 713 , G.R. NO. 158793	The case arose from the implementation of various administrative orders and regulations issued over several decades by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and its predecessors, aiming to regulate traffic on limited access highways, commonly known as tollways or expressways. Specifically, these issuances involved restrictions and prohibitions on the use of motorcycles on these facilities, prompting challenges from motorcycle riders regarding the issuing body's authority and the constitutionality of the restrictions.	The authority to regulate, restrict, or prohibit access to limited access facilities (tollways) under Republic Act No. 2000, originally vested in the Department of Public Works and Communications, was transferred to the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) by Executive Order 546 in 1979; consequently, subsequent issuances by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) regulating such access are void for lack of authority, while regulations issued by the predecessor department prior to the transfer remain valid if consistent with the Constitution.	Constitutional Law II Liberty of Abode
David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo (3rd May 2006)	AK973659 489 SCRA 160 , 522 Phil. 705 , G.R. No. 171396 , G.R. No. 171409 , G.R. No. 171485 , G.R. No. 171483 , G.R. No. 171400 , G.R. No. 171489 , G.R. No. 171424	In February 2006, amidst alleged conspiracies to destabilize the government, President Arroyo issued PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, directing the AFP and Philippine National Police (PNP) to maintain law and order, prevent acts of terrorism and lawless violence. These actions led to arrests, dispersal of rallies, and a raid on a newspaper office, prompting several petitions questioning the constitutionality of the President's actions.	PP 1017 is constitutional insofar as it constitutes a call by the President for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion; however, the authority to promulgate decrees and the provision allowing the takeover of privately-owned public utilities or businesses without congressional authority are unconstitutional. The "acts of terrorism" portion of G.O. No. 5 is also unconstitutional.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Guingguing vs. Court of Appeals (30th September 2005)	AK025163 508 Phil. 193 , G.R. No. 128959	The case arose from a criminal complaint for libel filed by Cirse "Choy" Torralba, a broadcast journalist with programs on radio stations DYLA and DYFX in Cebu City, which aired over a large portion of the Visayas and Mindanao. The complaint was against Segundo Lim, who paid for an advertisement, and Ciriaco "Boy" Guingguing, the editor-publisher of the Sunday Post, a weekly newspaper circulated in Bohol, Visayas, and Mindanao, where the advertisement was published.	A publication containing truthful information about criminal cases filed against a public figure, even if it tends to cause dishonor or discredit, is not libelous if it was not published with actual malice—that is, with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not—as such publication falls within the bounds of constitutionally protected freedom of speech and expression concerning matters of public interest.	Constitutional Law II Freedom of Expression
City of Manila vs. Laguio, Jr. (12th April 2005)	AK416215 455 SCRA 308 , 495 Phil. 289 , G.R. No. 118127	Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTDC) questioned the validity of Ordinance No. 7783, which included motels and inns among the prohibited establishments in the Ermita-Malate area, arguing it was unconstitutional and beyond the City Council's powers.	Ordinance No. 7783 is an invalid exercise of police power because it violates the constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and exceeds the regulatory powers granted to the City of Manila under the Local Government Code.	Constitutional Law II Statutory Construction Police Power
Lawrence vs. Texas (26th June 2003)	AK906927 539 U.S. 558	The case arose within the legal and social context of state laws criminalizing sodomy, often referred to as "crimes against nature" or "deviate sexual intercourse." Seventeen years prior, in _Bowers v. Hardwick_, the Supreme Court had upheld a Georgia sodomy law applied to homosexual conduct, finding no fundamental right to engage in such activity. Since _Bowers_, legal and social perspectives continued to evolve, with many states repealing their sodomy laws or ceasing enforcement against private, consensual adult conduct, and subsequent Court decisions like _Romer v. Evans_ casting doubt on laws motivated by animus towards homosexuals.	A Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as the liberty protected by the Constitution includes the right for adults to engage in private, consensual homosexual activity without government intervention; consequently, _Bowers v. Hardwick_, 478 U.S. 186, is overruled.	Constitutional Law II Equal Protection
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (19th November 2001)	AK529893 369 SCRA 394 , 421 Phil. 290 , G.R. No. 148560	Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the highest-ranking official to be prosecuted under RA 7080 (Plunder Law), faced charges before the Sandiganbayan for allegedly amassing ill-gotten wealth during his presidency. This case arose from his efforts to quash the Information against him by challenging the constitutionality of the Plunder Law itself, which defines and penalizes the crime of plunder.	Republic Act No. 7080, the Plunder Law, as amended by RA 7659, is constitutional and does not suffer from the vice of vagueness, nor does it violate the accused's rights to due process and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The law provides ascertainable standards and well-defined parameters for the crime of plunder.	Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction Freedom of Expression
Mirasol vs. Court of Appeals (1st February 2001)	AK360928 351 SCRA 44 , 403 Phil. 760 , G.R. No. 128448	The Mirasols, as sugarland owners, had their sugar production financed by PNB. P.D. No. 579 authorized PHILEX to purchase export sugar, with PNB financing the purchases. Disputes arose regarding the accounting of sugar sale proceeds, leading to litigation.	The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, finding that the trial court improperly ruled on the constitutionality of P.D. No. 579 without proper notice to the Solicitor General, that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil does not apply, and that the dacion en pago and foreclosure were valid.	Constitutional Law II
Integrated Bar of the Philippines vs. Zamora (15th August 2000)	AK990550 338 SCRA 81 , G.R. No. 141284 , 392 Phil. 618	Due to rising crime rates in Metro Manila, President Estrada verbally ordered the PNP and Marines to conduct joint patrols. This directive was formalized in a Memorandum and Letter of Instruction (LOI). The IBP then filed a petition questioning the deployment's constitutionality.	The President's decision to deploy the Marines to assist the PNP in visibility patrols was constitutional; it fell within his powers as Commander-in-Chief and did not violate the principle of civilian supremacy over the military.	Constitutional Law II
International School Alliance of Educators vs. Quisumbing (1st June 2000)	AK585504 333 SCRA 13 , 388 Phil. 661 , G.R. No. 128845	International School, Inc., established under P.D. 732 primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel, hires both foreign and local teachers. It uses four tests (domicile, home economy, economic allegiance, hiring location/responsibility) to classify faculty as either "foreign-hires" or "local-hires." Foreign-hires received additional benefits (housing, transport, etc.) and a 25% higher salary, which the School justified based on alleged "dislocation" and "limited tenure" disadvantages faced by foreign-hires.	The point-of-hire classification cannot justify a disparity in salary rates between foreign-hired and locally-hired employees performing the same work under similar conditions, as this violates the fundamental principle of "equal pay for equal work" and constitutes discrimination contrary to public policy.	Constitutional Law II Equal Protection
Philippine Press Institute, Inc. vs. Commission on Elections (22nd May 1995)	AK691461 314 Phil. 131 , 244 SCRA 272 , G.R. No. 119694	COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2772 to procure free print space in newspapers for candidates to publicize their qualifications and platforms during the 1995 elections. This was intended to be similar to the voluntary practice by some publishers in the 1992 elections. PPI, representing newspaper publishers, challenged this resolution as an unconstitutional taking of private property.	Section 2 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2772, which compels newspapers to provide free print space for political candidates, is unconstitutional as it constitutes taking of private property for public use without just compensation and is therefore null and void. Section 8's constitutionality was not ruled upon as it lacked a justiciable controversy.	Constitutional Law II Eminent Domain
Kilosbayan, Incorporated vs. Guingona, Jr (5th May 1994)	AK025475 232 SCRA 110 , G.R. No. 113375	PCSO decided to establish an on-line lottery system to increase revenue, leading to a Request for Proposal (RFP). PGMC was formed by the Berjaya Group Berhad to bid on the project. The resulting contract was challenged by Kilosbayan, Inc. and others.	The Supreme Court granted the petition and declared the Contract of Lease between PCSO and PGMC invalid, holding that it contravenes Section 1 of R.A. No. 1169, as amended by B.P. Blg. 42.	Constitutional Law II
Republic vs. Court of Appeals (8th November 1993)	AK848377 277 SCRA 509 , 298 Phil. 291 , G.R. No. 79732	This case involved the expropriation of land for a highway project where the government wanted to use a method of compensation that had been declared unconstitutional in a previous case.	The Court held that the judicial declaration of the unconstitutionality of a law should apply retroactively to cases that were still pending at the time of the declaration.	Constitutional Law II Eminent Domain
Ebralinag vs. Division of Superintendent of Schools of Cebu (1st March 1993)	AK778863 292 Phil. 267 , 321 Phil. 967	The case arose from the long-standing conflict between state-mandated flag ceremonies in educational institutions, intended to foster patriotism, and the religious beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, who consider such acts as forms of worship prohibited by their faith. This issue had previously been decided by the Supreme Court in _Gerona vs. Secretary of Education_ (1959), which upheld the legality of expelling students for non-participation, a ruling that gained legislative endorsement through the Administrative Code of 1987. The present cases challenged the continued application of this policy.	The expulsion of students who are members of Jehovah's Witnesses for their refusal, based on religious convictions, to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge during school flag ceremonies is unconstitutional, as it infringes upon their right to freedom of religion and their right to free basic education, provided their non-participation is done respectfully and does not disrupt the ceremony or offend others.	Constitutional Law II Freedom of Religion
People vs. Malmstedt (19th June 1991)	AK473261 198 SCRA 401 , 275 Phil. 447 , G.R. No. 91107	The case arose amidst persistent reports received by the First Regional Command (NARCOM) of the Philippine Constabulary that vehicles originating from Sagada were being used to transport marijuana and other prohibited drugs through the Cordillera Region.	A warrantless search of a moving vehicle and its passengers is valid when based on probable cause, which can arise from specific intelligence reports combined with the suspicious conduct of the person being searched, even without a warrant obtained beforehand due to the exigencies of the situation.	Constitutional Law II Searches and Seizures
Brocka vs. Enrile (10th December 1990)	AK940091 192 SCRA 183 , 270 Phil. 271 , G.R. Nos. 69863-65	The case arose during a period of political unrest in the Philippines, marked by demonstrations and strikes against the government. Petitioners, including prominent filmmakers and activists, were arrested during a jeepney strike and subsequently charged with Illegal Assembly and Inciting to Sedition. The case highlights the tension between the government's authority to maintain order and the protection of individual rights and freedoms.	The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, granting the petition and permanently enjoining the trial court from proceeding with the cases. The Court held that criminal prosecution may be enjoined in cases of manifest bad faith, as demonstrated by the state officials' actions in this case.	Constitutional Law II
Department of Education, Culture and Sports vs. San Diego (21st December 1989)	AK022039 180 SCRA 533 , 259 Phil. 1016 , G.R. No. 89572	The case arose from the implementation of MECS Order No. 12, Series of 1972, specifically rule h) which states: "A student shall be allowed only three (3) chances to take the NMAT. After three (3) successive failures, a student shall not be allowed to take the NMAT for the fourth time." This rule was part of the government's effort to upgrade the quality of medical education and ensure that only competent individuals are admitted to medical schools, thereby safeguarding public health. The NMAT itself was established as a qualifying examination for admission to medical schools.	The State, in the exercise of its police power, can validly regulate admission to medical schools, including imposing a limit on the number of times an individual can take the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT), to ensure that only qualified individuals enter the medical profession and to protect public health and safety.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II
Pita vs. Court of Appeals (5th October 1989)	AK292021 258-A Phil. 134 , G.R. No. 80806	The case arose from an "Anti-Smut Campaign" initiated by then-Mayor of Manila, Ramon D. Bagatsing. As part of this campaign, various publications, including the petitioner's "Pinoy Playboy" magazines, were seized from vendors and publicly burned based on the authorities' belief that they were obscene, pornographic, and indecent.	The seizure of allegedly obscene materials, even under the guise of an anti-smut campaign and police power, requires a prior judicial determination of obscenity and the issuance of a valid search warrant; law enforcement authorities cannot unilaterally determine obscenity and confiscate materials without violating constitutional guarantees of due process and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.	Constitutional Law II Freedom of Expression
Marcos vs. Manglapus (15th September 1989)	AK357065 177 SCRA 668 , 258 Phil. 479 , G.R. No. 88211	Following the "People Power" Revolution in February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed as President and forced into exile in Hawaii. Corazon C. Aquino assumed the presidency amidst significant political instability, including coup attempts by Marcos loyalists and military factions, communist insurgency, secessionist movements, and severe economic difficulties attributed to the previous regime. As Marcos lay dying in Hawaii, he expressed his wish to return to the Philippines, a prospect President Aquino firmly opposed due to perceived threats to national stability and recovery efforts.	The President of the Philippines possesses unenumerated residual powers, implicit in the grant of executive power, which include the authority to bar the return of a citizen to the country if deemed necessary for the paramount interests of national security and public welfare, subject only to judicial review for grave abuse of discretion.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Liberty of Abode