Talaan ng mga Kaso

Filter by Subject

Text Search

There are 47 results on the current subject filter

Title	Reference #s	Summary	Background	Subject Matter
Calleja vs. Executive Secretary (7th December 2021)	G.R. No. 252578	Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA), alleging violations of free speech, due process, and other rights. The Supreme Court partially granted the petitions, striking down specific provisions as unconstitutional, including parts of Section 4 (definition of terrorism) and Sections 25 (designation powers of the Anti-Terrorism Council), while upholding most of the law.	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.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Criminal Law II
RP vs. Spouses Nocom (15th November 2021)	914 Phil. 686, G.R. No. 233988	This case concerns the Manila International Airport Authority's (MIAA) occupation of private lands for airport expansion without proper expropriation proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that while MIAA's use was for public purpose, it must still pay just compensation to the landowners. The Court introduced a new method for calculating just compensation based on the present value concept to address the delay in payment.	The case revolves around MIAA's occupation of private lands for airport expansion without proper expropriation proceedings. Initially, MIAA included the subject lots in its expropriation case but later moved to exclude some portions. Despite the exclusion, MIAA continued to occupy these portions without paying just compensation. The landowners, led by the Spouses Nocom, filed a case for recovery of possession and payment of rentals. The lower courts ruled in favor of the landowners, prompting MIAA to appeal to the Supreme Court.	Constitutional Law I
Re: Letter of Mrs. Ma. Cristina Roco Corona Requesting the Grant of Retirement and Other Benefits to the Late Former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and Her Claim for Survivorship Pension as His Wife Under Republic Act No. 9946 (12th January 2021)	968 SCRA 12, 893 Phil. 231, A.M. No. 20-07-10-SC	This administrative matter concerns the request of Mrs. Ma. Cristina Roco Corona, the widow of the late former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, for the grant of his retirement benefits and her corresponding survivorship pension under Republic Act No. 9946. Chief Justice Corona was removed from office via impeachment by the Senate in 2012 and passed away in 2016 before separate cases filed against him post-impeachment were concluded. The Supreme Court granted Mrs. Corona's request, ruling that removal by impeachment does not automatically result in the forfeiture of retirement benefits, which requires a separate final judicial determination of liability that was precluded by the Chief Justice's death; consequently, he was deemed involuntarily retired and entitled to benefits.	Renato C. Corona served as an Associate Justice for eight years before being appointed Chief Justice in 2010. In 2011, impeachment proceedings were initiated against him by the House of Representatives on grounds including betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution. Following a trial, the Senate convicted him in 2012 primarily based on Article II concerning his failure to accurately declare his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN), leading to his removal from office. Subsequently, criminal, tax, and forfeiture cases were filed against him but were all dismissed following his death in 2016, prior to any final judgment.	Constitutional Law I
Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Central Bank of the Philippines (12th October 2020)	958 SCRA 224, 887 Phil. 849, G.R. No. 197593	This case involves a bank fraud scheme that resulted in the loss of ₱9 million from the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI). The Supreme Court ruled that the Central Bank of the Philippines (CBP) cannot be held liable for the fraudulent acts of its employees, as it was performing a governmental function in operating the clearing house facility, and the employees were not acting as special agents.	The case revolves around a sophisticated bank fraud scheme that exploited vulnerabilities in the check clearing process. Syndicate members opened accounts at BPI and Citibank, then deposited fraudulent checks. CBP employees Valentino and Estacio intercepted and altered clearing documents, preventing BPI from dishonoring the checks. Citibank, unaware of the fraud, allowed withdrawals after the clearing period. BPI discovered the ₱9 million loss and sought full reimbursement from CBP, which only partially complied. The legal battle that ensued focused on CBP's liability for its employees' actions and the nature of its clearing house operations.	Constitutional Law I
Taisei Shimizu Joint Venture vs. Commission on Audit (2nd June 2020)	936 SCRA 359, 873 Phil. 323, G.R. No. 238671	The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing and setting aside the Commission on Audit's (COA) decision that partially disapproved payment of a final and executory arbitral award. The Court ruled that the COA gravely abused its discretion by modifying the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission's (CIAC) final judgment, emphasizing that the COA's audit review power over money claims confirmed by final judgment is limited.	After completing the New Iloilo Airport project, TSJV found that some of its billings remained unpaid. They sought arbitration through CIAC, which granted a substantial award in their favor. When TSJV attempted to enforce this award, they encountered resistance from government agencies, leading them to seek enforcement through COA. However, COA only partially approved the payment, effectively modifying the CIAC's final and executory award. TSJV then brought the case to the Supreme Court, challenging COA's decision.	Constitutional Law I
Philippine Textile Research Institute vs. Court of Appeals (9th October 2019)	922 SCRA 623, 864 Phil. 993, G.R. No. 223319, G.R. No. 247736	This case involves a construction dispute between the Philippine Textile Research Institute (PTRI) and E.A. Ramirez Construction, Inc. The Supreme Court ruled that while PTRI is not immune from suit, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) lacks jurisdiction over the case as it falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC).	E.A. Ramirez, a construction company, entered into a contract with PTRI for the rehabilitation of electrical facilities. Shortly after work began, E.A. Ramirez alleged that PTRI's consultant demanded a bribe, which E.A. Ramirez refused. Subsequently, E.A. Ramirez claimed to encounter various difficulties in completing the project, including frequent changes in instructions and rejection of their work. When E.A. Ramirez requested an extension, PTRI instead terminated the contract. E.A. Ramirez then filed a lawsuit against PTRI for breach of contract. PTRI sought to dismiss the case, citing state immunity and lack of jurisdiction. The case made its way through the court system, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.	Constitutional Law I
Re: Show Cause Order in the Decision Dated May 11, 2018 in G.R. No. 237428 (Republic of the Philippines v. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno) (17th July 2018)	836 Phil. 166, A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC	This administrative matter arose from a show cause order issued by the Supreme Court against then-Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, requiring her to explain why she should not be sanctioned for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the New Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC) through her public statements and actions during the pendency of the quo warranto case (G.R. No. 237428) against her. The Court found Sereno guilty of violating several canons related to respecting the courts, avoiding impropriety influencing the court, judicial independence, integrity, impartiality, and propriety, particularly transgressing the sub judice rule and casting aspersions on the Court and its members. Despite the severity, considering mitigating factors such as her prior removal via quo warranto and lack of previous administrative liability, the Court imposed the penalty of REPRIMAND with a STERN WARNING instead of suspension or disbarment.	The administrative case originated as an offshoot of the quo warranto proceedings (G.R. No. 237428) filed by the Solicitor General against then-Chief Justice Sereno, questioning her eligibility for the position. Prior to the quo warranto case, an impeachment complaint had also been filed against her in the House of Representatives. During the pendency of both the impeachment and quo warranto matters, the Court observed that Sereno engaged in numerous public appearances and statements regarding the cases.	Constitutional Law I
Trillanes IV vs. Castillo-Marigomen (14th March 2018)	859 SCRA 271, 828 Phil. 336, G.R. No. 223451	This case involves a Petition for Certiorari filed by Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV challenging the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) denial of his motion to dismiss a defamation complaint filed against him by businessman Antonio L. Tiu. Trillanes argued his statements calling Tiu a "dummy" for former Vice President Binay concerning the "Hacienda Binay" were covered by parliamentary immunity and failed to state a cause of action. The Supreme Court dismissed Trillanes' petition, holding that his statements to the media were not covered by parliamentary immunity as they were not made during Senate sessions or committee hearings nor in the performance of his official legislative duties, affirmed the RTC's finding that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action, and ruled that Trillanes violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts by filing directly with the Supreme Court without exceptionally compelling reasons.	Petitioner, Senator Trillanes, initiated a Senate investigation (P.S. Resolution No. 826) into alleged overpricing of Makati City infrastructure projects involving former VP Binay. During a hearing, former Makati Vice Mayor Mercado testified about the "Hacienda Binay," a large estate in Batangas allegedly owned by VP Binay. Private respondent Antonio Tiu subsequently claimed ownership of a portion of the estate through his company, Sunchamp Real Estate Corporation. Following Tiu's testimony and presentation of an agreement before the Senate Blue Ribbon Sub-Committee, Senator Trillanes made statements to the media describing Tiu as a "front," "nominee," or "dummy" for VP Binay regarding the estate.	Civil Procedure I Constitutional Law I Motion
Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City (7th March 2017)	819 SCRA 313, 806 Phil. 822, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC	This administrative matter addresses the complaint filed by Tony Q. Valenciano regarding the holding of daily Catholic masses at the basement of the Quezon City Hall of Justice, alleging violations of the constitutional principles of Separation of Church and State and the prohibition against the use of public property for religious purposes. The Supreme Court, applying the principle of benevolent neutrality and accommodation, denied Valenciano's request to prohibit the masses, finding no constitutional violation, but directed the Executive Judges to regulate and monitor such practices to ensure they do not disrupt public service or unduly inconvenience the public.	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.	Constitutional Law I
Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. (AMCOW) vs. GCC Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc. (6th December 2016)	812 SCRA 452, 802 Phil. 116, G.R. No. 207132, G.R. No. 207205	The Supreme Court reversed the Regional Trial Court's decision that nullified Department of Health orders prohibiting the referral decking system for overseas Filipino workers' medical examinations. The Court ruled that the DOH did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the cease and desist orders against the referral decking system, as this was a valid exercise of police power and did not violate principles of international law.	The case revolves around the practice of "referral decking" for medical examinations of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs). This system required OFWs to go through GAMCA for referral to specific clinics for health examinations. The DOH initially allowed this practice but later sought to prohibit it through administrative orders and eventually through legislation (RA 10022). When the DOH issued cease and desist orders against GAMCA to stop the referral decking system, GAMCA challenged this in court, leading to a legal battle over the validity of the prohibition and its implementation.	Constitutional Law I
In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration (12th July 2016)	PCA Case No. 2013-19	This landmark case concerns maritime entitlements and activities in the South China Sea, involving disputes between the Philippines and China. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruled largely in favor of the Philippines, rejecting China's claims to historic rights within its "nine-dash line" and finding that China had violated the Philippines' sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone.	The South China Sea, rich in natural resources and strategically important for international shipping, has been a subject of territorial disputes among several nations. The Philippines, concerned about China's increasing assertiveness in the region, initiated arbitration proceedings in 2013 to clarify the maritime entitlements of both nations under UNCLOS. Despite China's non-participation and rejection of the tribunal's jurisdiction, the arbitration proceeded. The case attracted global attention due to its potential impact on regional stability and the interpretation of international maritime law.	Constitutional Law I
Saguisag vs. Ochoa, Jr. (12th January 2016)	779 SCRA 241, 777 Phil. 280, G.R. No. 212426, G.R. No. 212444	The case concerns a petition questioning the constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the Philippines and the United States. The petitioners argue that EDCA violated the Constitution as it was entered into without the concurrence of the Senate, a requirement for international treaties or agreements involving foreign military forces. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Executive branch, upholding EDCA as a valid executive agreement that did not require Senate concurrence.	The case was brought to the Supreme Court as the petitioners contended that the executive acted beyond its powers by entering into EDCA without Senate concurrence. They argued that the agreement allowed the presence of foreign military troops and facilities, which under the Constitution could only be authorized by a treaty concurred in by the Senate.	Constitutional Law I
Arigo vs. Swift (16th September 2014)	735 SCRA 102, 743 Phil. 8, G.R. No. 206510	This case involves a petition for a Writ of Kalikasan filed against US and Philippine officials regarding the grounding of the USS Guardian on Tubbataha Reef. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars the exercise of jurisdiction over the US respondents, and that the issue has become moot with the completion of salvage operations.	The grounding of the USS Guardian on Tubbataha Reef, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and protected area under Philippine law, caused significant environmental damage. The incident sparked public outrage and raised questions about the US military presence in Philippine waters under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). Various environmental and activist groups filed a petition for a Writ of Kalikasan, seeking accountability and compensation for the reef damage.	Constitutional Law I
Imbong vs. Ochoa Jr. (8th April 2014)	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	This consolidated case involves multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) in the Philippines. Petitioners argue that the RH Law violates various constitutional rights including the right to life, health, religious freedom, and due process. The Supreme Court partially granted the petitions, declaring certain provisions of the RH Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) unconstitutional while upholding the law's general validity.	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.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Belgica vs. Ochoa (19th November 2013)	710 SCRA 1, 721 Phil. 416, G.R. No. 208566, G.R. No. 208493, G.R. No. 209251	The Supreme Court declared the "Pork Barrel System," encompassing both Congressional and Presidential Pork Barrel, unconstitutional for violating the principles of separation of powers, non-delegability of legislative power, and checks and balances.	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."	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Statutory Construction
University of the Philippines vs. Dizon (23rd August 2012)	679 SCRA 54, 693 Phil. 226, G.R. No. 171182	This case involves the University of the Philippines (UP) challenging a Court of Appeals decision that upheld the garnishment of UP's funds to satisfy a judgment in favor of a construction company. The Supreme Court ruled that UP's funds, being government funds, were not subject to garnishment and that the Commission on Audit had primary jurisdiction over the monetary claim.	The case originated from a construction contract dispute between UP and Stern Builders. When UP failed to pay, Stern Builders sued and won a judgment for damages. UP's attempts to appeal were denied for being late, leading to the garnishment of its funds. UP then challenged the garnishment through various legal actions, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.	Constitutional Law I
Re: COA Opinion on the Computation of the Appraised Value of the Properties Purchased by the Retired Chief/Associate Justice of the Supreme Court (31st July 2012)	678 SCRA 1, 692 Phil. 147, A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC	This administrative matter addresses the conflict between the Supreme Court's chosen formula (CFAG Joint Resolution No. 35) and the Commission on Audit's preferred formula (COA Memorandum No. 98-569-A) for computing the appraisal value of properties purchased by retired Supreme Court Justices. The Supreme Court En Banc, invoking the Judiciary's constitutional fiscal autonomy and independence, resolved that its in-house computation method is legal and valid, confirming its authority to determine the manner of disposing its properties, including setting the valuation for items sold as a retirement privilege to its Justices, without being dictated by the COA on the specific formula to use.	The issue arose from a Commission on Audit (COA) Opinion finding an underpayment by five retired Supreme Court Justices who purchased personal properties (mostly vehicles) assigned to them during their tenure. The COA contested the valuation formula used by the Supreme Court's Property Division, which was based on the Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG) Joint Resolution No. 35, insisting that a different COA formula should have been applied. This prompted the Supreme Court's Office of Administrative Services to seek clarification from the Court En Banc regarding the proper formula.	Constitutional Law I
Re: Request for Copy of 2008 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth [SALN] and Personal Data Sheet or Curriculum Vitae of the Justices of the Supreme Court and Officers and Employees of the Judiciary (13th June 2012)	672 SCRA 27, 687 Phil. 24, A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC	This consolidated administrative matter addresses numerous requests filed by various individuals and organizations, primarily media entities, seeking copies of the Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN), Personal Data Sheets (PDS), and Curriculum Vitae (CV) of Justices of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, lower court judges, and other judiciary personnel. The Supreme Court, acknowledging the constitutional right to information and the statutory duty of public officials to disclose their assets, balanced these rights against the need to protect judicial independence, ensure the safety of judiciary members, and prevent the misuse of sensitive personal information. The Court ultimately resolved to grant the requests but subjected the release of such documents to specific, detailed guidelines aimed at regulating access, verifying the legitimacy of the purpose, and requiring En Banc approval for requests pertaining to Justices of appellate courts.	The case arose from initial requests by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) in 2009 for the 2008 SALNs and PDS/CVs of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Justices to update their database on government officials. Following these initial requests, numerous similar petitions were filed by various media outlets, organizations, individuals, and even government offices (like the Ombudsman and Malacañang seeking comment on a bill) for SALNs and other personal documents of judiciary members covering different years, spurred by interests in transparency, governance reporting, academic research, impeachment proceedings, and general public information.	Constitutional Law I
Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency, Inc. vs. University of the Philippines (18th April 2012)	670 SCRA 206, 686 Phil. 191, G.R. No. 185918	This case involves a labor dispute between Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency, Inc. and the University of the Philippines (UP) regarding the payment of wages and benefits to security guards. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision that money claims against UP must first be filed with the Commission on Audit (COA) before execution can be made.	The case stems from a labor dispute between security guards and their employers, Lockheed and UP. After winning their case for unpaid wages and benefits, the security guards sought to execute the judgment. This led to the garnishment of UP's funds in a PNB account. UP contested this garnishment, arguing that the funds were public funds and thus exempt from execution without going through the proper channels.	Constitutional Law I
China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs. Santamaria (7th February 2012)	665 SCRA 189, 681 Phil. 198, G.R. No. 185572	The Supreme Court ruled that China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (CNMEG) is not entitled to immunity from suit and that the Contract Agreement for the North Luzon Railway System project is not an executive agreement. The case was remanded to the Regional Trial Court for further proceedings regarding the validity of the contracts.	The case revolves around the Northrail Project, a railway construction project in the Philippines. CNMEG, a Chinese corporation, was contracted to construct the railway. When the respondents filed a complaint to annul the contracts, CNMEG claimed immunity from suit as an agent of the Chinese government. The case progressed through various courts, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court to determine whether CNMEG was immune from suit and whether the Contract Agreement was an executive agreement.	Constitutional Law I
Datu Michael Abas Kida vs. Senate of the Philippines (18th October 2011)	659 SCRA 270, 675 Phil. 316, G.R. No. 196271, G.R. NO. 196305, G.R. NO. 197221, G.R. NO. 197282, G.R. NO. 197392, G.R. NO. 197454	The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) No. 10153, which synchronized the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) elections with national and local elections. Petitioners argued the law violated constitutional requirements for legislative procedure, regional autonomy, and the President’s power to appoint interim officials, but the Court ruled synchronization was a constitutional mandate and the law’s provisions were valid.	RA No. 10153 reset the August 2011 ARMM elections to May 2013 to align with national and local polls. Petitioners challenged the law, claiming it violated ARMM’s autonomy, legislative processes, and the constitutional requirement for elective regional positions.	Constitutional Law I Statutory Construction
Magallona vs. Ermita (16th August 2011)	655 SCRA 476, 671 Phil. 243, G.R. No. 187167	This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9522, which amended the Philippines' archipelagic baselines law to comply with UNCLOS III. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that RA 9522 is constitutional as it merely delineates the country's maritime zones and continental shelf without diminishing Philippine territory.	The case arose from the need to update the Philippines' maritime baselines to comply with UNCLOS III. RA 9522 was enacted for this purpose, but it was challenged by the petitioners on constitutional grounds. The case reached the Supreme Court, which had to determine whether the new baselines law was consistent with the Philippine Constitution's definition of national territory.	Constitutional Law I
Alauya vs. Limbona (22nd March 2011)	646 SCRA 1, 661 Phil. 380, A.M. No. SCC-98-4	This administrative matter concerns Judge Casan Ali L. Limbona, who was accused of absenteeism and filing a certificate of candidacy (CoC) for the 1998 party-list elections while serving as a Shari'a Circuit Court Judge. Despite the Judge's denial and claim of forgery, an NBI investigation confirmed he signed the CoC. The Supreme Court found him guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty for engaging in partisan political activity and continuing his judicial functions after filing the CoC, leading to his dismissal from service with forfeiture of benefits and an order to refund salaries received after filing the CoC.	The case arose from complaints lodged with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Judge Casan Ali Limbona of the 10th Shari'a Circuit Court, Tamparan, Lanao del Sur. The complaints alleged chronic absenteeism and, more significantly, that the judge had filed a certificate of candidacy as a party-list nominee for the Development Foundation of the Philippines (DFP) in the May 11, 1998 elections while remaining an active member of the judiciary and continuing to receive his judicial salary.	Constitutional Law I
Pormento vs. Estrada (31st August 2010)	629 SCRA 530, 643 Phil. 735, G.R. No. 191988	A petition for disqualification against former President Joseph Estrada seeking reelection was dismissed by the Supreme Court due to lack of an actual controversy, as the issue had become moot when he lost the 2010 presidential election, leaving no specific relief that could benefit any of the parties.	The case centered on the interpretation of the constitutional provision prohibiting presidential reelection, specifically as it applied to former President Joseph Estrada's attempt to run for president again in 2010, having previously served as president from 1998.	Constitutional Law I
Pobre vs. Defensor-Santiago (25th August 2009)	597 SCRA 1, A.C. No. 7399	Antero J. Pobre filed a disbarment complaint against Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago for allegedly disrespectful and contemptuous remarks made against the then Chief Justice and the Supreme Court during a Senate speech regarding her non-inclusion in the list of nominees for Chief Justice by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). While the Supreme Court acknowledged the offensive nature of the Senator's language and her violation of the lawyer's oath and duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility, it ultimately dismissed the complaint, citing the constitutional protection of parliamentary immunity for speeches delivered in the Senate.	The case arose following Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago's privilege speech on the Senate floor where she expressed extreme frustration and used insulting language directed at the Supreme Court and its members, particularly then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, after the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) effectively excluded non-incumbent justices, like herself, from nomination for the position of Chief Justice.	Constitutional Law I
Soriano vs. Laguardia (29th April 2009)	587 SCRA 79, 605 Phil. 43, G.R. No. 164785	The Supreme Court upheld the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board's (MTRCB) decision to suspend Eliseo Soriano from his television program "Ang Dating Daan" for three months due to his use of offensive and obscene language on air. The Court ruled that this suspension did not constitute prior restraint on freedom of expression, but rather a valid exercise of the MTRCB's regulatory powers over television broadcast.	Eliseo Soriano, host of "Ang Dating Daan," made offensive remarks about Michael Sandoval and the Iglesia ni Cristo on his television program. This led to complaints filed with the MTRCB, which subsequently issued a preventive suspension and later a three-month suspension on Soriano. Soriano challenged these actions in the Supreme Court, arguing that they violated his right to freedom of expression.	Constitutional Law I
Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Technische Zusammenarbeit vs. Court of Appeals (16th April 2009)	585 SCRA 150, 603 Phil. 150, G.R. No. 152318	This case involves the German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) claiming immunity from suit in a labor case filed by its former employees. The Supreme Court ruled that GTZ failed to establish its entitlement to immunity, emphasizing the importance of securing proper certification from the Department of Foreign Affairs to support such claims.	The case revolves around the employment dispute between GTZ and its former employees who worked on the SHINE project. After their dismissal, the employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. GTZ claimed immunity from suit as an implementing agency of the German government. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the employees, and GTZ sought to challenge this decision through various legal channels, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.	Constitutional Law I
Province of North Cotabato vs. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP) (14th October 2008)	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	This case involves consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), focusing on issues of public consultation, right to information, and the extent of executive power in peace negotiations, ultimately finding the MOA-AD unconstitutional.	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.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
National Electrification Administration vs. Morales (24th July 2007)	528 SCRA 79, 555 Phil. 74, G.R. No. 154200	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, which had ordered the implementation of a writ of execution against the National Electrification Administration's (NEA) funds. The Court held that the original judgment was not for a specific sum of money and thus not subject to execution by garnishment, and that claims against government agencies must first be filed with the Commission on Audit (COA).	The case revolves around NEA employees seeking payment of various allowances they believed they were entitled to under R.A. No. 6758. After winning in the RTC, they sought to execute the judgment through garnishment of NEA's funds. NEA resisted, citing laws protecting government funds from execution. The case then went through various stages of appeal and review, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.	Constitutional Law I
Estrada vs. Escritor (22nd June 2006)	492 SCRA 1, 525 Phil. 110, A.M. No. P-02-1651	This resolution addresses an administrative complaint against Soledad Escritor, a court interpreter, for alleged disgraceful and immoral conduct due to her cohabitation with a man not her husband, which contravenes Philippine law but aligns with the practices of her religion, the Jehovah's Witnesses. Reaffirming its prior ruling establishing benevolent neutrality and the compelling state interest test as the applicable framework, the Supreme Court, after remand for evidentiary hearing, found that the State (represented by the Solicitor General) failed to prove a compelling interest sufficient to override Escritor's constitutionally protected right to religious freedom and failed to demonstrate the use of the least restrictive means. Consequently, the Court dismissed the administrative complaint against Escritor.	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.	Constitutional Law I Philosophy of Law
David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo (3rd May 2006)	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	This case involves consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation (PP) 1017 and General Order (G.O.) No. 5, issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2006, which declared a state of national emergency. The Supreme Court addressed the scope of presidential powers during emergencies, the validity of the declaration, and the actions taken pursuant to it, ultimately finding portions of the issuances unconstitutional while upholding the President's calling-out power.	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.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita (20th April 2006)	488 SCRA 1, 522 Phil. 1, G.R. No. 169777, G.R. No. 169659, G.R. No. 169660, G.R. No. 169667, G.R. No. 169834, G.R. No. 171246	The Supreme Court partially granted petitions challenging Executive Order No. 464, declaring Sections 2(b) and 3 void while upholding Sections 1 and 2(a). The case examined the constitutionality of E.O. 464 which required executive officials to secure presidential consent before appearing in congressional inquiries, balancing executive privilege against Congress' power of inquiry and the public's right to information.	The case arose from several Senate investigations where executive officials failed to appear, citing E.O. 464 which President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued requiring executive department officials to secure presidential consent before appearing in congressional inquiries. This led to multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of E.O. 464.	Constitutional Law I Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Estrada vs. Desierto (2nd March 2001)	353 SCRA 452, 406 Phil. 1, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, G.R. No. 146738	This case revolves around the contested presidency of Joseph Ejercito Estrada following the events of EDSA II. Estrada argued that he was merely on temporary leave and had not resigned as President, while Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who assumed the presidency, maintained that Estrada's resignation was clear. The Supreme Court held that Estrada had effectively resigned based on his actions and public statements, affirming Arroyo's presidency.	Joseph Estrada’s presidency began in 1998 with broad public support but was marred by corruption allegations, including his involvement in illegal gambling operations (jueteng). A series of political and public upheavals culminated in his impeachment trial, which was aborted after senators voted to suppress key evidence. Massive public protests followed, leading to the withdrawal of military and police support for Estrada and the ascension of Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.	Constitutional Law I
Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS (3rd February 1997)	267 SCRA 408, G.R. No. 122156	This landmark case interprets the "Filipino First" policy in the 1987 Constitution, specifically regarding the sale of shares in the Manila Hotel Corporation. The Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional provision giving preference to qualified Filipinos in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony is self-executing and applies to the privatization of the Manila Hotel.	The case revolves around the privatization of the Manila Hotel, a historic landmark and cultural icon in the Philippines. GSIS, as the owner, initiated a bidding process to sell 51% of the shares in MHC. The bidding attracted both local and foreign investors, with a Malaysian firm emerging as the highest bidder. The petitioner, a Filipino corporation, sought to invoke the "Filipino First" policy enshrined in the Constitution to match the winning bid and acquire the shares.	Constitutional Law I Statutory Construction
Republic vs. National Labor Relations Commission (17th October 1996)	263 SCRA 290, 331 Phil. 608, G.R. No. 120385	This case deals with the execution of labor judgments against the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) and Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI). The Supreme Court ruled that while APT can be sued, its liability is limited to the assets it holds from PNEI, and government funds cannot be garnished to satisfy judgments against it.	Following the retrenchment of PNEI employees, multiple labor cases were filed against PNEI and APT. Labor arbiters ruled in favor of the employees, ordering PNEI and APT to pay various claims. When these decisions became final and executory, writs of execution and notices of garnishment were issued. The Republic, through APT, then filed this special civil action to prohibit the execution of these judgments against APT's funds.	Constitutional Law I
JUSMAG Philippines vs. NLRC (15th December 1994)	239 SCRA 224, 309 Phil. 213, G.R. No. 108813	This case revolves around the immunity from suit of the Joint United States Military Assistance Group to the Republic of the Philippines (JUSMAG-Philippines). The Supreme Court ruled that JUSMAG is immune from suit as it was performing a governmental function on behalf of the United States pursuant to the Military Assistance Agreement.	Sacramento filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against JUSMAG. JUSMAG filed a Motion to Dismiss, invoking its immunity from suit as an agency of the United States. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, the NLRC reversed this decision, holding that JUSMAG had lost its right not to be sued. JUSMAG then filed this petition with the Supreme Court.	Constitutional Law I
Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr. (30th July 1993)	224 SCRA 792, 296 Phil. 694, G.R. No. 101083	This case presents a seminal issue in environmental law—whether present and future generations possess a legally enforceable right to a balanced and healthful ecology. A group of minors, through their legal representatives, sought judicial intervention against the continued issuance and renewal of timber license agreements (TLAs), arguing that rampant deforestation infringed upon their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor, articulating a robust doctrine of intergenerational responsibility and affirming that environmental rights are legally cognizable and enforceable.	The case originated from Civil Case No. 90-777 filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati by a group of minors, represented by their parents, along with the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. They sued then Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Fulgencio Factoran, Jr., for failing to cancel TLAs, which they claimed led to massive deforestation, causing environmental destruction. The RTC dismissed the case, ruling that it involved a political question and that the plaintiffs had no cause of action. The petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.	Constitutional Law I Philosophy of Law
Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (20th March 1987)	148 SCRA 659, 232 Phil. 615, G.R. No. 74457	This landmark case challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 626-A which prohibited the interprovincial transportation of carabaos and carabeef, with the penalty of outright confiscation. The Supreme Court declared the executive order unconstitutional for violating due process, improperly delegating legislative power, and constituting an invalid exercise of police power.	The case arose during the Marcos regime when the government sought to protect carabaos (water buffalos) as essential farm animals by prohibiting their transportation across provincial boundaries, with the aim of preventing their indiscriminate slaughter.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Police Power
Macias vs. Araula (20th July 1982)	115 SCRA 135, 200 Phil. 524, A.M. No. 1895-CFI	Lamberto Macias filed an administrative complaint against Judge Gibson Araula for alleged serious infractions of law, oppression, grave misconduct, illegal and unethical participation in partisan politics, and electioneering related to the 1978 elections and subsequent incidents in Dauin, Negros Oriental. The Supreme Court, adopting the findings of the Investigating Justice, found the evidence insufficient to prove the charges of electioneering and oppression beyond the required standard for administrative cases but determined that the Judge's actions created an appearance of impropriety. Consequently, the Court reprimanded Judge Araula with a stern admonition.	The case arose in the context of intense local political rivalry in Dauin, Negros Oriental, following the April 7, 1978 elections. Respondent Judge Araula's wife was the incumbent Mayor and KBL Chairman in Dauin, while the complainant and his witnesses were associated with the opposing Pusyon Bisaya party. The charges stemmed from incidents occurring shortly before and after these elections, reflecting the bitter political division and personal animosity between the factions, particularly involving the Judge's family and Atty. Rudy Enriquez, a relative and political opponent.	Constitutional Law I
Aquino, Jr. vs. Enrile (17th September 1974)	59 SCRA 183, 158-A Phil. 1, No. L-35546, No. L-35538, No. L-35539, No. L-35540, No. L-35547, No. L-35556, No. L-35567, No. L-35571, No. L-35573	The case involved multiple petitions for habeas corpus filed by prominent political figures, including Benigno S. Aquino Jr. The petitions challenged the legality of their arrest and detention under the martial law declared by President Ferdinand Marcos through Proclamation No. 1081. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the proclamation of martial law and the arrests made were valid and within the President's powers as provided by the 1935 Constitution.	The case primarily revolved around the legality of arresting individuals without a court order, based solely on martial law powers. The petitioners argued that the martial law proclamation was unconstitutional, and that the arrests violated due process. The respondents maintained that the arrests were necessary for national security given the ongoing rebellion.	Constitutional Law I
Cabanas vs. Pilapil (25th July 1974)	58 SCRA 94, 157 Phil. 97, No. L-25843	This case resolves a dispute between a mother and an uncle over who should act as trustee for insurance proceeds meant for a minor beneficiary. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of the mother, citing relevant Civil Code provisions and emphasizing the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.	The case arose from a dispute over the custody of insurance proceeds intended for a minor beneficiary. The deceased, Florentino Pilapil, had named his brother Francisco as the trustee for his daughter Millian's insurance benefits. However, Millian's mother, Melchora Cabanas, sought to obtain the proceeds, arguing that as the child's mother and guardian, she was entitled to administer the funds.	Constitutional Law I
Republic vs. Villasor (28th November 1973)	54 SCRA 83, 153 Phil. 356, No. L-30671	This case affirms the doctrine of state immunity from suit and establishes that public funds cannot be subject to garnishment proceedings, even if the state has given consent to be sued and liability has been adjudged. The Supreme Court nullified an order declaring a decision final and executory, as well as an alias writ of execution against the funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.	The case arose from an arbitration award against the Republic of the Philippines. When the respondents sought to execute the judgment, they obtained an order from Judge Villasor declaring the decision final and executory. This led to the issuance of an alias writ of execution and notices of garnishment against funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The Republic then filed this petition to challenge the validity of the order and execution.	Constitutional Law I
Javellana vs. The Executive Secretary (31st March 1973)	50 SCRA 30, 151-A Phil. 35, 69 OG 7975, No. L-36142	This case involves multiple petitions questioning the validity of the 1973 Constitution's ratification via Citizens Assemblies and its implementation, arguing that it violated the 1935 Constitution. The Supreme Court addresses the justiciability of such issues, the validity of Proclamation No. 1102, and the authority to implement the new Constitution.	Following the declaration of Martial Law and the drafting of a new Constitution by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, President Marcos submitted the proposed constitution for ratification via Citizens Assemblies, bypassing a traditional plebiscite. This prompted several legal challenges questioning the process and the President's authority.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II
Bermoy, et al. vs. Philippine Normal College (18th May 1956)	99 Phil. 1031, G.R. No. L-8670	The Supreme Court ruled that the Philippine Normal College, as a juridical entity with the power to sue and be sued, could not be dismissed from a lawsuit for salary differentials and overtime pay filed by its employees. The Court held that the state had given consent for the College to be sued by investing it with express power to be sued in courts.	The case revolves around employees of the Philippine Normal College seeking compensation for salary differentials and overtime pay. Their lawsuit was initially dismissed on the grounds that the college lacked the juridical capacity to be sued. This dismissal led to an appeal to the Supreme Court, where the central question became whether the Philippine Normal College could indeed be sued as a juridical entity.	Constitutional Law I
Laurel vs. Misa (30th January 1947)	77 Phil. 856, No. L-409	This case addresses the issue of whether Filipino citizens who adhered to the enemy during the Japanese occupation can be prosecuted for treason. The Supreme Court denied the petition for habeas corpus, ruling that allegiance to the legitimate government was not suspended during enemy occupation.	Anastacio Laurel, facing treason charges for his actions during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, sought relief through a habeas corpus petition. He challenged the validity of his prosecution, arguing that the concept of treason did not apply during the period of enemy occupation.	Constitutional Law I Criminal Law II Statutory Construction
Ruffy vs. Chief of Staff (20th August 1946)	75 Phil. 875, No. L-533	This case addresses the jurisdiction of military courts-martial over former Philippine Army and Constabulary members who joined guerrilla forces during the Japanese occupation. The Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the court-martial, rejecting arguments that military law was suspended during enemy occupation and affirming that guerrilla forces were part of the Philippine Army subject to military law.	The case revolves around the military trial of former Philippine Constabulary and Army members who joined guerrilla forces during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines in World War II. After allegedly killing a superior officer, the petitioners were brought to trial before a General Court Martial. They challenged the jurisdiction of the military court, arguing that they were not subject to military law at the time of the alleged offense due to the enemy occupation. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which had to determine whether the petitioners were still subject to military jurisdiction despite the circumstances of war and occupation.	Constitutional Law I
Riel vs. Wright (5th August 1926)	49 Phil. 194, G. R. No. 25679	This case involves a petition for mandamus filed by Magdaleno Riel, a temporary clerk in the Philippine Senate, seeking to compel the Insular Auditor, Ben F. Wright, to approve a warrant for his salary corresponding to services rendered from February 1 to 14, 1926. The Auditor refused payment, arguing that Riel's services, performed 82 days after the legislative session ended on November 9, 1925, were not covered by the appropriation for "supplementary force" which was limited to "several days after a session" under Act No. 2935. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that "several days" could not be interpreted to mean 82 days, thus Riel had no clear legal right to the payment, and mandamus was inappropriate.	The petitioner was employed as a "temporary clerk" in the Philippine Senate. Following the adjournment of the legislative session, his services continued for an extended period. A dispute arose when the Insular Auditor refused to approve the payment warrant for services rendered significantly later than the session's close, citing limitations in the relevant appropriation act regarding temporary legislative employees. This case arose as a "test case" potentially affecting numerous similarly situated employees.	Constitutional Law I