Talaan ng mga Kaso

Filter by Subject

Text Search

There are 85 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
RP vs. Spouses Nocom (15th November 2021)	AK152147 914 Phil. 686 , G.R. No. 233988	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)	AK237996 968 SCRA 12 , 893 Phil. 231 , A.M. No. 20-07-10-SC	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.	Removal from office via impeachment only results in removal and disqualification from holding public office and does not, by itself, cause the forfeiture of accrued retirement benefits; forfeiture requires a separate judicial conviction for criminal, civil, or administrative liabilities, which did not occur in the case of the late Chief Justice Corona due to his death terminating such proceedings.	Constitutional Law I
Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Central Bank of the Philippines (12th October 2020)	AK149491 958 SCRA 224 , 887 Phil. 849 , G.R. No. 197593	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)	AK421432 936 SCRA 359 , 873 Phil. 323 , G.R. No. 238671	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)	AK832138 922 SCRA 623 , 864 Phil. 993 , G.R. No. 223319 , G.R. No. 247736	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)	AK333299 836 Phil. 166 , A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC	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.	Lawyers, including Justices, remain bound by the high standards of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the New Code of Judicial Conduct even when acting as litigants in their own cases; they cannot segregate their personality and must always maintain respect for the courts, refrain from actions that undermine judicial integrity or influence proceedings (including observing the sub judice rule), and such ethical violations are subject to administrative discipline separate from contempt proceedings and the "clear and present danger" test.	Constitutional Law I
Trillanes IV vs. Castillo-Marigomen (14th March 2018)	AK317975 859 SCRA 271 , 828 Phil. 336 , G.R. No. 223451	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.	Parliamentary immunity under the "speech or debate" clause (Article VI, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution) protects only speeches, debates, and utterances made by members of Congress in the performance of their official legislative functions within Congress or its committees, and does not extend to statements made outside of congressional sessions or hearings, such as interviews with the media.	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)	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
Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. (AMCOW) vs. GCC Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc. (6th December 2016)	AK148530 812 SCRA 452 , 802 Phil. 116 , G.R. No. 207132 , G.R. No. 207205	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)	AK804567 PCA Case No. 2013-19	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)	AK958005 779 SCRA 241 , 777 Phil. 280 , G.R. No. 212426 , G.R. No. 212444	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
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
Arigo vs. Swift (16th September 2014)	AK295910 735 SCRA 102 , 743 Phil. 8 , G.R. No. 206510	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)	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
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
University of the Philippines vs. Dizon (23rd August 2012)	AK560575 679 SCRA 54 , 693 Phil. 226 , G.R. No. 171182	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)	AK055973 678 SCRA 1 , 692 Phil. 147 , A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC	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.	The Judiciary's constitutional fiscal autonomy grants it full flexibility to allocate and utilize its resources, including the authority to determine the manner and conditions for the disposal of its property, such as setting the appraisal formula for items purchased by retiring Justices, free from external interference or substitution of policy by the Commission on Audit.	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)	AK617262 672 SCRA 27 , 687 Phil. 24 , A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC	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.	Access to the SALNs, PDS, and CVs of members of the Judiciary is generally allowed pursuant to the right to information, but this right is not absolute and must be regulated to protect judicial independence and the security of judicial officers; thus, requests are subject to specific guidelines including proper filing, statement of legitimate purpose, limitations on the scope of documents released, potential requirement for En Banc approval (for appellate court Justices), and verification of the requester's identity and record.	Constitutional Law I
Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency, Inc. vs. University of the Philippines (18th April 2012)	AK644609 670 SCRA 206 , 686 Phil. 191 , G.R. No. 185918	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)	AK339749 665 SCRA 189 , 681 Phil. 198 , G.R. No. 185572	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)	AK191813 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	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.	RA No. 10153 is constitutional; the synchronization of ARMM elections with national elections and the President’s power to appoint interim officials (OICs) are valid under the 1987 Constitution.	Constitutional Law I Statutory Construction
Magallona vs. Ermita (16th August 2011)	AK124720 655 SCRA 476 , 671 Phil. 243 , G.R. No. 187167	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
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
Alauya vs. Limbona (22nd March 2011)	AK081419 646 SCRA 1 , 661 Phil. 380 , A.M. No. SCC-98-4	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.	A sitting judge who files a certificate of candidacy for an elective office violates the constitutional prohibition against partisan political activity by civil servants, commits gross misconduct and dishonesty by continuing to perform judicial functions and receive salary thereafter, and is consequently deemed unfit to remain in the judiciary, warranting dismissal from service effective from the date of filing the CoC.	Constitutional Law I
Pormento vs. Estrada (31st August 2010)	AK528121 629 SCRA 530 , 643 Phil. 735 , G.R. No. 191988	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.	The Supreme Court dismissed the petition due to mootness, as there was no longer an actual case or controversy to resolve after Estrada lost the 2010 presidential election.	Constitutional Law I
Pobre vs. Defensor-Santiago (25th August 2009)	AK600796 597 SCRA 1 , A.C. No. 7399	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.	Statements made by a Senator during a Senate speech, even if offensive and violative of a lawyer's ethical duties towards the courts, are covered by parliamentary immunity under Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution and cannot be the basis for disciplinary action by the Court, although such immunity is intended for the benefit of the legislative institution and the people, not for personal attacks.	Constitutional Law I
Soriano vs. Laguardia (29th April 2009)	AK448960 587 SCRA 79 , 605 Phil. 43 , G.R. No. 164785	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)	AK268315 585 SCRA 150 , 603 Phil. 150 , G.R. No. 152318	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
Manubay, et al. vs. Sec. Garilao (16th April 2009)	AK319606 603 Phil. 135 , G.R. No. 140717	The case revolves around a 124-hectare parcel of land in Barrio Cadlan, Pili, Camarines Sur, owned by the petitioners. In 1994, this property was placed under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO). Subsequently, the petitioners applied for the conversion of this land from agricultural to residential/commercial use, which was denied by the DAR, leading to this legal dispute.	An application for land conversion can be validly denied if the subject property has already been placed under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) prior to the application, and a party aggrieved by a DAR Secretary's decision must first exhaust available administrative remedies, such as an appeal to the Office of the President as provided by DAR rules, before resorting to a petition for certiorari in court, unless grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown and no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists.	Constitutional Law I
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
National Electrification Administration vs. Morales (24th July 2007)	AK115653 528 SCRA 79 , 555 Phil. 74 , G.R. No. 154200	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
Rufino vs. Endriga (21st July 2006)	AK344369 528 Phil. 473 , G.R. No. 139554	Presidential Decree No. 15 created the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) as a non-municipal public corporation governed by a Board of Trustees. PD 15, as amended, provided that vacancies in the Board were to be filled by election by a majority of the remaining trustees. Only if the Board became entirely vacant could the President of the Philippines fill such vacancies. This case arose from a dispute between a group of trustees appointed by then-President Joseph E. Estrada (Rufino group) and the incumbent trustees (Endriga group) who claimed their terms had not yet expired and that vacancies should be filled according to PD 15.	Section 6(b) and (c) of Presidential Decree No. 15, as amended, are unconstitutional insofar as they authorize the remaining trustees of the Cultural Center of the Philippines Board to fill vacancies in the Board by election, as this mechanism infringes upon the President's constitutional power of appointment and power of control.	Constitutional Law I
Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Elma (30th June 2006)	AK754720 526 Phil. 550 , G.R. No. 138965	The case arose from the appointment of Magdangal B. Elma to two significant government positions: first as Chairman of the PCGG and subsequently, during his tenure there, as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel. This dual appointment raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and violations of constitutional provisions designed to prevent officials from holding multiple public offices, particularly given the distinct and potentially overlapping or conflicting responsibilities of the two roles.	The concurrent appointments of an individual as Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel (CPLC) are unconstitutional because the two offices are incompatible, violating the prohibition against holding multiple offices under Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution.	Constitutional Law I
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
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
Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita (20th April 2006)	AK395231 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 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.	The Supreme Court ruled that while executive privilege is valid, it cannot be invoked through a blanket requirement of prior presidential consent for all executive officials appearing before Congress. Such privilege must be explicitly claimed on a case-by-case basis with specific grounds stated.	Constitutional Law I Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee vs. Majaducon (29th July 2003)	AK802239 455 Phil. 61 , G.R. No. 136760 , G.R. NO. 138378	The case arose from two Senate Resolutions: No. 157, directing an inquiry into alleged coup d'etat plans related to probing AFP fund irregularities, and No. 160, directing an inquiry into alleged mismanagement of AFP-Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS) funds. These resolutions were referred to the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and the Committee on National Defense and Security for investigation.	A Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction to prohibit the Senate or its committees from conducting inquiries in aid of legislation, as this would violate the principle of separation of powers; furthermore, the use of terms like "gross ignorance of the law" in pleadings challenging a judge's order, without malice, does not automatically constitute indirect contempt, especially when such terms are descriptive of alleged errors in applying fundamental legal principles.	Constitutional Law I
Dadole vs. Commission on Audit (3rd December 2002)	AK714832 441 Phil. 537 , G.R. No. 125350	For several years, RTC and MTC judges in Mandaue City had been receiving monthly additional allowances from the city government through appropriation ordinances. In 1991, this amount was P1,500. In 1994, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued Local Budget Circular No. 55 (LBC 55), which limited such additional allowances from provinces and cities to P1,000.00 per month. This circular led to the Mandaue City Auditor issuing notices of disallowance for the amounts received by the petitioner judges in excess of P1,000 and requiring reimbursement.	Local Budget Circular No. 55, issued by the Department of Budget and Management, is null and void because it overstepped the President's power of general supervision over local government units by imposing a specific monetary limit on additional allowances not found in the enabling law (R.A. 7160), and because it was not published as required for administrative rules intended to enforce or implement existing law.	Constitutional Law I
Estrada vs. Desierto (2nd March 2001)	AK430917 353 SCRA 452 , 406 Phil. 1 , G.R. Nos. 146710-15 , G.R. No. 146738	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.	The Supreme Court held that Joseph Ejercito Estrada had effectively resigned as President of the Philippines on January 20, 2001, and that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had validly assumed the presidency.	Constitutional Law I
De Rama vs. Court of Appeals (28th February 2001)	AK337670 405 Phil. 531 , G.R. No. 131136	Upon assuming office as Mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, petitioner Conrado L. de Rama sought to recall the appointments of fourteen municipal employees. These appointments were made by the outgoing mayor, Ma. Evelyn S. Abeja, in the period leading up to the end of her term and after the election of de Rama. The core of the dispute revolved around the petitioner's belief that these were "midnight appointments" and were therefore invalid, leading him to request their recall from the Civil Service Commission.	The constitutional prohibition against "midnight appointments" found in Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution applies only to a President or Acting President and does not extend to appointments made by local elective officials. Furthermore, once an appointment is issued, accepted, and the appointee assumes office, they acquire a legal right to the position, protected by due process, and such appointment cannot be unilaterally revoked by the appointing authority or their successor without just cause and adherence to procedural requirements, with the Civil Service Commission having the authority to review and recall appointments only on specific grounds.	Constitutional Law I
Veterans Federation Party vs. Commission on Elections (6th October 2000)	AK393743 396 Phil. 419 , G.R. No. 136781 , G.R. No. 136786 , G.R. No. 136795	The 1987 Constitution introduced the party-list system of representation in the House of Representatives to enable marginalized and underrepresented sectors to participate in lawmaking. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution mandates that party-list representatives shall constitute twenty percent of the total number of representatives. Congress enacted R.A. No. 7941 (The Party-List System Act) to implement this constitutional provision, outlining the procedure for the election and allocation of seats for party-list representatives. The May 11, 1998 elections were the first time party-list representatives were elected under this system.	The allocation of seats for party-list representatives under R.A. No. 7941 must adhere to four inviolable parameters: (1) the twenty percent allocation of the total House membership for party-list representatives is a ceiling, not a mandatory number to be filled at all times; (2) the two percent threshold of total valid votes cast for the party-list system is a valid requirement for a party to qualify for a seat; (3) each qualified party is entitled to a maximum of three seats; and (4) additional seats for qualified parties must be computed based on proportional representation.	Constitutional Law I
Defensor-Santiago vs. Guingona, Jr. (18th November 1998)	AK966337 359 Phil. 276 , G.R. No. 134577	The case arose from the organization of the Eleventh Congress of the Philippines in July 1998. Following the election of Senator Marcelo B. Fernan as Senate President, a dispute emerged regarding who should be recognized as the Senate Minority Leader. Senator Tatad, who lost the bid for Senate President, claimed the position, supported by Senator Santiago. Simultaneously, a group of seven senators belonging to the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP party, also a minority bloc, elected Senator Teofisto T. Guingona Jr. as their choice for Minority Leader. Senate President Fernan eventually recognized Senator Guingona.	The selection of the Senate Minority Leader is an internal matter of the Senate, and courts will not interfere with such internal workings unless a clear violation of the Constitution, laws, or the Senate's own rules, or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, is demonstrated.	Constitutional Law I
Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS (3rd February 1997)	AK613501 267 SCRA 408 , G.R. No. 122156	The case arose from the Philippine Government's privatization program under Proclamation No. 50. Respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) decided to sell 30% to 51% of its shares in respondent Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC), which owns the historic Manila Hotel. The sale was intended to attract a "strategic partner" to provide management expertise, an international marketing/reservation system, and financial support to enhance the Manila Hotel's profitability.	Section 10, second paragraph, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that "In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos," is a self-executing provision and requires that a qualified Filipino bidder be allowed to match the highest bid of a foreign bidder in transactions involving national patrimony, and upon matching, the award should go to the Filipino bidder.	Constitutional Law I Statutory Construction
Republic vs. National Labor Relations Commission (17th October 1996)	AK521819 263 SCRA 290 , 331 Phil. 608 , G.R. No. 120385	Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI) faced financial difficulties, leading to its ownership transfer to the National Investment Development Corporation (NIDC), a PNB subsidiary, after foreclosure. PNEI was later sequestered by the PCGG and its management transferred to the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) for eventual sale. Due to its deteriorating financial condition, PNEI petitioned for suspension of payments and implemented a retrenchment program, which resulted in numerous labor complaints for unpaid benefits and separation pay filed by its employees against PNEI and APT.	While the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) can be sued, its liability for the obligations of a privatized corporation (PNEI) is limited to the assets of that corporation it holds in its capacity as a conservator. APT's own funds, being public funds, are not subject to garnishment or execution to satisfy such obligations, even if a judgment holds APT jointly and solidarily liable with the privatized entity, as such liability only extends to the assets taken over from the privatized firm.	Constitutional Law I
Mariano, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections (7th March 1995)	AK024914 312 Phil. 259 , G.R. No. 118577 , G.R. No. 118627	Republic Act No. 7854 was enacted to convert the Municipality of Makati into a highly urbanized city. This conversion and specific provisions within the Act, such as the definition of its territory, the status of incumbent officials, and the creation of new legislative districts, prompted legal challenges from taxpayers and a senator who questioned their compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements.	Republic Act No. 7854, particularly its sections 2 (territorial delineation), 51 (continuity of officials and new corporate existence), and 52 (creation of legislative districts), is constitutional. The delineation of territory by reference to existing boundaries is permissible, especially with pending boundary disputes. Challenges to term limits based on future contingencies are premature. Reapportionment of legislative districts can be done through a special law creating a new city, and the population requirement for an additional district was met.	Constitutional Law I
JUSMAG Philippines vs. NLRC (15th December 1994)	AK645294 239 SCRA 224 , 309 Phil. 213 , G.R. No. 108813	JUSMAG-Philippines was created pursuant to the Military Assistance Agreement of March 21, 1947, between the Philippines and the United States, with the primary task of advising and assisting the Philippines on military matters. Initially, the costs of locally employed personnel were borne by the Republic of the Philippines, but this changed in 1991 when the US Government offered to provide funds for the salaries of security assistance support personnel (SASP) and other operational costs.	The Joint United States Military Assistance Group to the Republic of the Philippines (JUSMAG-Philippines), when performing governmental functions pursuant to the Military Assistance Agreement between the Philippines and the United States, is immune from suit, and such immunity is not waived by entering into employment contracts related to these sovereign functions.	Constitutional Law I
Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance (25th August 1994)	AK459748 305 Phil 686 , G.R. No. 115455 , G.R. No. 115525 , G.R. No. 115543 , G.R. No. 115544 , G.R. No. 115754 , G.R. No. 115781 , G.R. No. 115852 , G.R. No. 115873 , G.R. No. 115931	The Philippine government sought to widen the tax base of the existing Value-Added Tax (VAT) system and enhance its administration to address a growing budget deficit and improve revenue collection. This led to the legislative effort to amend the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) through what would become Republic Act No. 7716. The law aimed to remove certain VAT exemptions, expand the coverage of VAT to previously exempt goods and services, and restructure its application, sparking widespread opposition from various sectors who feared its economic impact and questioned its legality.	Republic Act No. 7716, the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law, is constitutional, having been enacted in compliance with the procedural requirements of the Constitution, and its provisions do not, on their face, violate the Bill of Rights or other constitutional mandates concerning taxation, freedom of speech and religion, or impairment of contracts; claims regarding its regressive nature or oppressiveness are considered prematurely raised without a sufficient factual record.	Constitutional Law I
Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez (19th August 1994)	AK037325 305 Phil. 546 , G.R. No. 113105 , G.R. No. 113174 , G.R. No. 113766 , G.R. No. 113888	The case arose from the enactment of Republic Act No. 7663, the General Appropriations Act (GAA) for 1994. After its passage by both houses of Congress, the President signed it into law but vetoed several provisions and imposed conditions on others through a Presidential Veto Message. Various groups, including the Philippine Constitution Association and several Senators, questioned the constitutionality of certain provisions of the GAA itself (like the Countrywide Development Fund and realignment of operational expenses) and the legality of the President's exercise of the veto power over specific items and special provisions, leading to these consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court.	The President has the power to veto "inappropriate provisions" in a general appropriations bill, treating them as items for veto purposes, even if they are not specific appropriations of money, particularly if such provisions attempt to amend substantive law or encroach on executive functions; however, the President cannot veto a provision that is directly related to an item of appropriation without vetoing the item itself.	Constitutional Law I
Garcia vs. Commission on Audit (14th September 1993)	AK053844 297 Phil. 394 , G.R. No. 75025	Petitioner Vicente Garcia was a Supervising Lineman summarily dismissed from the Bureau of Telecommunications on April 1, 1975, for alleged dishonesty related to the loss of telegraph poles. A criminal case for qualified theft based on the same facts was filed against him. He was acquitted in the criminal case, with the trial court noting his innocence and commending his dedication. Despite the acquittal, his request for reinstatement was initially denied, leading him to seek executive clemency, which was eventually granted.	A public employee reinstated pursuant to an executive clemency grounded on the employee's innocence is entitled to full back wages from the date of illegal dismissal to the date of reinstatement, as the clemency obliterates the adverse effects of the administrative decision and nullifies the dismissal.	Constitutional Law I