Talaan ng mga Kaso

Filter by Subject

Text Search

There are 129 results on the current subject filter

Title	IDs & Reference #s	Background	Primary Holding	Subject Matter
Bayan Muna Party-List Representatives Ocampo and Casiño vs. President Macapagal-Arroyo (10th January 2023)	AK943836 932 Phil. 753 , G.R. No. 182734	The case arose from the signing of the Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) on March 14, 2005, by the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC), China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), and Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation (PETROVIETNAM). The JMSU aimed to conduct joint research of petroleum resource potential in a 142,886 square kilometer area in the South China Sea, designated as a "pre-exploration activity," with the stated goal of transforming the South China Sea into an area of peace, stability, cooperation, and development. This agreement became controversial due to its implications on national sovereignty and the constitutional provisions governing the exploration and utilization of natural resources within Philippine territory and its exclusive economic zone (EEZ).	The Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) is unconstitutional and void because it allows wholly-owned foreign corporations to participate in the exploration of the Philippines' natural resources (petroleum) without complying with the safeguards provided in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, particularly the requirement that such agreements be entered into by the President and that the State maintain full control and supervision.	Constitutional Law I
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
Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait, et al. vs. Secretary Reyes, et al. (21st April 2015)	AK704946 758 Phil. 724 , G.R. No. 180771 , G.R. No. 181527	The Tañon Strait, a critical marine habitat located between Negros and Cebu, was declared a protected seascape in 1998. Despite this status, the Philippine government, through the Department of Energy (DOE), entered into agreements with Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd. (JAPEX) for oil exploration in the area, culminating in Service Contract No. 46 (SC-46). This led to concerns from environmental groups and local fisherfolk about the project's impact on the marine ecosystem and their livelihoods.	Service contracts for the exploration, development, and utilization of petroleum resources with foreign-owned corporations are permissible under paragraph 4, Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, provided they adhere to specific safeguards: (1) the contract must be crafted in accordance with a general law setting standard terms; (2) the President must be the signatory for the government; and (3) the President must report the executed agreement to Congress within thirty days. Furthermore, any activity within a protected area under the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act, such as exploration for energy resources, requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), and if exploitation is involved, a specific law passed by Congress.	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
Civil Service Commission vs. Pililla Water District (5th March 2013)	AK305171 705 Phil. 378 , G.R. No. 190147	The case arose from the appointment and reappointment of Paulino J. Rafanan as General Manager (GM) of Pililla Water District (PWD). Issues emerged regarding the nature of his appointment (coterminous status), his continuation in service beyond the compulsory retirement age of 65, and the interpretation of relevant Civil Service Commission (CSC) circulars and Republic Act No. 9286, which amended the law governing water districts.	The position of General Manager of a local water district is primarily confidential in nature, and the amendment introduced by Republic Act No. 9286, requiring removal only for cause and after due process, does not convert it into a career service position; thus, an appointee may hold such a position on a coterminous basis even beyond the compulsory retirement age.	Constitutional Law I
University of the Philippines vs. Dizon (23rd August 2012)	AK560575 679 SCRA 54 , 693 Phil. 226 , G.R. No. 171182	The University of the Philippines (UP) entered into a General Construction Agreement with Stern Builders Corporation (Stern Builders) for a project at UPLB. UP paid two of three progress billings but failed to pay the third billing, initially due to a COA disallowance which was later lifted. Stern Builders subsequently filed a suit for collection of the unpaid amount and damages against UP.	Government funds, including those of state universities like the University of the Philippines, are public in character and cannot be seized through writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy money judgments without the claim first being adjudicated by the Commission on Audit (COA) and a corresponding appropriation made by law; the power of courts in such cases ends with the judgment, as its satisfaction must follow the procedures outlined in P.D. No. 1445.	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
United Church of Christ in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Bradford United Church of Christ, Inc., et al. (20th June 2012)	AK736563 688 Phil. 408 , G.R. No. 171905	Petitioner UCCP is a national confederation of Evangelical churches. Respondent BUCCI, formerly Bradford Memorial Church, is a religious corporation that was a constituent local church of UCCP. A dispute arose in late 1989 when BUCCI began constructing a fence that encroached on a right-of-way allocated by UCCP. This, along with other disagreements, led to BUCCI's formal disaffiliation from UCCP, which UCCP contested, claiming the disaffiliation was invalid and that BUCCI could not amend its articles or continue using its name.	A local church, incorporated as a separate legal entity, has the right to disaffiliate from a national church confederation and amend its articles of incorporation to reflect such disaffiliation, especially where the confederation's polity recognizes local church autonomy, and such matters, involving corporate rights, are within the jurisdiction of civil courts and the SEC, not being purely ecclesiastical affairs.	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
Hacienda Luisita, Inc. vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, et al. (24th April 2012)	AK280291 686 Phil. 377 , G.R. No. 171101	The case revolves around the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) in Hacienda Luisita, a large sugar plantation. Instead of direct land distribution, HLI implemented a Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) in 1989, approved by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC). Years later, PARC revoked the SDP, leading to legal challenges by HLI. The Supreme Court initially affirmed PARC's revocation but allowed FWBs the option to remain HLI stockholders. Subsequent motions led to the revocation of this option and clarifications on just compensation and the distribution of proceeds from land sales, which are further addressed in this resolution.	The date of "taking" of Hacienda Luisita's agricultural lands for agrarian reform purposes is November 21, 1989, the date PARC approved HLI's Stock Distribution Plan (SDP); the option previously granted to FWBs to remain HLI stockholders is revoked, and control over agricultural lands must be in the hands of the farmers; the FWBs are entitled to the proceeds from the sale of converted lands (less specified deductions); and HLI is entitled to just compensation from the government for the homelots distributed to the FWBs.	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	Petitioner Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency, Inc. (Lockheed) had a contract for security services with respondent University of the Philippines (UP). This contractual relationship led to labor disputes when security guards assigned to UP filed complaints for various unpaid monetary benefits.	Government instrumentalities with separate juridical personalities, like the University of the Philippines, are suable and their funds are not exempt from execution or garnishment; however, any money judgment against them must first be filed as a claim with the Commission on Audit (COA) before execution can proceed.	Constitutional Law I
Dela Llana vs. The Chairperson, Commission on Audit, et al (7th February 2012)	AK783122 681 Phil. 186 , G.R. No. 180989	The COA's approach to pre-audit has evolved over time. In 1982, COA Circular No. 82-195 lifted the pre-audit system with exceptions, emphasizing agency head responsibility. Following the 1986 EDSA Revolution and the discovery of financial anomalies, COA Circular No. 86-257 reinstated selective pre-audit. With political and governmental stabilization, COA Circular No. 89-299 was issued, again lifting the pre-audit for national government agencies (NGAs) and government-owned or -controlled corporations (GOCCs) to reaffirm managerial fiscal responsibility and accelerate public service delivery. Subsequent circulars (94-006 and 95-006) expanded the lifting of pre-audit to local government units (LGUs). COA Circular No. 89-299A allowed for the reinstitution of pre-audit under certain circumstances. Later, COA Circular No. 2009-002 reinstated selective pre-audit due to rising irregularities, which was then lifted again by COA Circular No. 2011-002.	The Commission on Audit (COA) is not constitutionally mandated to conduct a pre-audit of all government transactions; the COA has the exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination, and the conduct of pre-audit is discretionary, to be implemented when, for example, an agency's internal control system is inadequate.	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 arose from the North Luzon Railways Project (Northrail Project), a large-scale infrastructure project involving the construction of a railway line from Caloocan to Malolos. This project involved agreements between Philippine government entities, Chinese government entities, and petitioner CNMEG, a Chinese state-owned corporation designated as the prime contractor. The project was financed through a Preferential Buyer's Credit extended by the Export Import Bank of China (EXIM Bank) to the Philippine government.	A state-owned corporation engaging in proprietary or commercial activities (acts jure gestionis) is not entitled to sovereign immunity from suit, and a contract entered into by such an entity for a commercial venture, governed by domestic law, does not constitute an executive agreement immune from judicial review.	Constitutional Law I
Balao, et al. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, et al (13th December 2011)	AK153249 678 Phil. 532 , G.R. No. 186050 , G.R. No. 186059	James M. Balao, a co-founder of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA), an organization advocating for indigenous peoples' rights, was abducted on September 17, 2008. Prior to his abduction, James had reported surveillance activities against him to his family and CPA colleagues, allegedly by state agents. The CPA had been linked by military sources to the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People's Army (CPP-NPA), and petitioners cited a pattern of harassment and violence against CPA members and other activists, suggesting James's abduction was politically motivated and part of a counter-insurgency campaign.	The privilege of the writ of amparo shall be denied if the allegations of an enforced disappearance are not proven by substantial evidence establishing state participation or acquiescence; however, government officials remain accountable for failing to conduct an investigation with extraordinary diligence, and the case may be remanded for continued investigation and monitoring by the trial court. Presidential immunity from suit is applicable in amparo proceedings for an incumbent president, and the doctrine of command responsibility, while not a basis for criminal liability in amparo, can be used to determine accountability for failure to investigate or prevent violations.	Constitutional Law I
Bureau of Customs Employees Association (BOCEA) vs. Hon Teves, et al. (6th December 2011)	AK564613 677 Phil. 636 , G.R. No. 181704	Republic Act No. 9335, the Attrition Act of 2005, was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC). It aimed to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets by establishing a system of rewards and sanctions, including a Rewards and Incentives Fund and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board. The law covered all officials and employees of the BIR and BOC with at least six months of service.	Republic Act No. 9335 (Attrition Act of 2005) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations are constitutional, do not constitute an undue delegation of legislative power, do not violate the rights to equal protection, security of tenure, or due process of covered employees, and do not constitute a bill of attainder.	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 Philippines, an archipelagic state, enacted Republic Act No. 3046 in 1961 to define its maritime baselines. Following its ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) in 1984, there arose a need to align domestic law with the Convention's specific requirements for archipelagic baselines, such as water-land ratio, maximum length of baselines, and conformity to the general configuration of the archipelago. UNCLOS III also established a deadline for coastal states to submit claims for an extended continental shelf. Consequently, Congress enacted RA 9522 in March 2009, amending RA 3046 to comply with UNCLOS III by optimizing basepoints, adjusting baseline lengths, and classifying the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Scarborough Shoal as "regimes of islands" under the Republic, whose islands would generate their own maritime zones distinct from the main archipelago's baselines.	Republic Act No. 9522, which adjusts the Philippines' archipelagic baselines and classifies the Kalayaan Island Group and Scarborough Shoal as "regimes of islands" in accordance with UNCLOS III, is constitutional; it serves as a statutory mechanism for demarcating the country's maritime zones and does not result in the diminution of Philippine territory or sovereignty.	Constitutional Law I
Gamboa vs. Finance Secretary Teves, et al. (28th June 2011)	AK128498 668 Phil. 1 , G.R. No. 176579	The Philippine government, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), decided to privatize its shares in Philippine Telecommunications Investment Corporation (PTIC). PTIC was a significant shareholder in Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT), a public utility. First Pacific Company Limited, a foreign entity, through its subsidiary Metro Pacific Assets Holdings, Inc. (MPAH), sought to acquire these government shares in PTIC. This impending acquisition raised concerns about potentially breaching the constitutional 60-40 Filipino-foreign ownership requirement in PLDT, as First Pacific already had substantial interests in PTIC, and consequently, in PLDT.	The term "capital" in Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, pertaining to the 60% Filipino ownership requirement for public utilities, refers only to shares of stock that are entitled to vote in the election of directors, not the total outstanding capital stock which includes non-voting preferred shares.	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
Bayan Muna vs. Romulo, et al. (1st February 2011)	AK939314 641 SCRA 244 , 656 Phil. 246 , G.R. No. 159618	The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. The Philippines signed the Rome Statute on December 28, 2000, but had not ratified it at the time of the petition. The United States, not a signatory to the Rome Statute, proposed a Non-Surrender Agreement to the Philippines to protect its nationals from prosecution by international tribunals, which was accepted by the Philippines through an exchange of notes. This agreement became the subject of the legal challenge.	An executive agreement, such as the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement, entered into by the President pursuant to their foreign affairs powers, is valid and binding without Senate concurrence, and does not unconstitutionally derogate from the Philippines' obligations under international law, including those potentially arising from a signed but unratified treaty like the Rome Statute.	Constitutional Law I Philosophy of Law
Liban, et al. vs. Gordon (18th January 2011)	AK626554 654 Phil. 680 , G.R. No. 175352	The original case involved a petition to declare Senator Richard J. Gordon as having forfeited his Senate seat for concurrently holding the office of Chairman of the PNRC Board of Governors, allegedly in violation of Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. In its Decision dated July 15, 2009, the Supreme Court held that Gordon did not forfeit his seat because the office of PNRC Chairman is not a government office or an office in a government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC). However, the same Decision declared void certain sections of the PNRC Charter (R.A. No. 95, as amended) for creating the PNRC as a private corporation through a special law and ruled that PNRC should incorporate under the Corporation Code if it wishes to be a private corporation.	The Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) is a sui generis entity, not strictly a private corporation within the contemplation of the constitutional prohibition against the creation of private corporations by special law (Article XII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution). Therefore, Republic Act No. 95, as amended (the PNRC Charter), is valid and constitutional in its entirety. The Court should not rule on constitutional questions unless they are the very lis mota of the case and were raised by the parties.	Constitutional Law I
Espina vs. Zamora (21st September 2010)	AK922354 631 SCRA 17 , 645 Phil. 269 , G.R. No. 143855	Prior to the enactment of R.A. 8762, Republic Act No. 1180 (Retail Trade Nationalization Act) absolutely prohibited foreign nationals from engaging in the retail trade business in the Philippines. R.A. 8762 was passed on March 7, 2000, expressly repealing R.A. 1180 and allowing foreign nationals to engage in the retail trade business under specified categories and conditions, thereby liberalizing this sector of the economy.	The Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000 (R.A. 8762) is constitutional; the general principles in Article II of the Constitution regarding national economy are not self-executing, and Article XII grants Congress the discretion to determine which areas of investment may be opened to foreign participation, making R.A. 8762 a valid exercise of legislative power to regulate trade in the interest of public welfare.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Due Process
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
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) vs. Pulgar (5th July 2010)	AK143711 637 Phil. 244 , G.R. No. 169227	Virgilio Pulgar was the manager of PRRM's Tayabas Bay Field Office (TBFO). Following his reassignment to PRRM's central office, an investigation was conducted into alleged financial anomalies at the TBFO. The investigation report indicated missing or improperly accounted funds and the submission of fictitious receipts. Pulgar was asked to explain these findings.	Before an employer bears the burden of proving that a dismissal was for a valid or authorized cause, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal from service; bare allegations of constructive dismissal, uncorroborated by evidence, cannot be given credence.	Constitutional Law I
Vinuya, et al. vs. The Hon. Executive Secretary Romulo, et al (28th April 2010)	AK304437 633 Phil. 538 , G.R. No. 162230	During World War II, the Japanese Imperial Army established a system of "comfort women," forcibly recruiting and enslaving women from occupied territories, including the Philippines, for sexual servitude in military brothels. Petitioners are survivors of this system who have endured immense physical, psychological, and emotional suffering. Since 1998, they have sought assistance from the Philippine government to pursue their claims against Japan, but the Executive Department declined, citing the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty and the 1956 Reparations Agreement between the Philippines and Japan as having settled all war-related claims.	The Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative under domestic law to determine whether to espouse its nationals' claims against a foreign government, this being a political question involving foreign relations not subject to judicial review via certiorari, absent grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, under contemporary international law, there is no binding obligation on the Philippines to espouse the petitioners' claims for reparations against Japan, as diplomatic protection is a sovereign right of the State, not a duty owed to its nationals.	Constitutional Law I
Sen. Aquino III, et al. vs. COMELEC, et al. (7th April 2010)	AK469049 631 Phil. 595 , G.R. No. 189793	The 250,000 minimum population requirement for the creation of a legislative district, as stated in Article VI, Section 5(3) of the 1987 Constitution ("Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative."), applies specifically to cities to be entitled to an initial representative, and does not apply as an indispensable minimum population for the creation or reapportionment of legislative districts within a province.	The 250,000 minimum population requirement for the creation of a legislative district, as stated in Article VI, Section 5(3) of the 1987 Constitution ("Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative."), applies specifically to cities to be entitled to an initial representative, and does not apply as an indispensable minimum population for the creation or reapportionment of legislative districts within a province.	Constitutional Law I
Aldaba, et al. vs. COMELEC (15th March 2010)	AK307550 629 Phil. 537 , G.R. No. 188078	Republic Act No. 9591 was enacted, creating a legislative district for the City of Malolos. This law was challenged, leading to a Supreme Court Decision on January 25, 2010, which presumably found the law unconstitutional. The respondent, COMELEC, filed a motion for reconsideration of this decision, arguing primarily that Congress's reliance on certain population data was a non-justiciable political question.	The Court held that the determination of compliance with constitutional requirements for creating legislative districts, including the authoritativeness and reliability of population indicators, is a justiciable question subject to judicial review, and that population certifications for such purposes must adhere to standards ensuring reliability, such as those outlined in Executive Order No. 135.	Constitutional Law I
Quinto, et al. vs. Commission on Elections (22nd February 2010)	AK860874 627 Phil. 193 , G.R. No. 189698	The case arose from legal provisions requiring appointive public officials to be considered automatically resigned from their posts upon filing a certificate of candidacy for an elective office. These "resign-to-run" provisions were challenged by petitioners, leading to an initial Supreme Court decision declaring them unconstitutional. This prompted motions for reconsideration from the COMELEC and various intervenors, arguing for the validity of these provisions based on distinctions between elective and appointive officials and the need to maintain a non-partisan civil service.	The second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369, Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, and Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678, which provide that an appointive official is deemed ipso facto resigned from office upon the filing of a certificate of candidacy, are not unconstitutional and do not violate the equal protection clause or suffer from overbreadth.	Constitutional Law I
Funa vs. Exec. Sec. Ermita, et al. (11th February 2010)	AK819913 626 Phil. 218 , G.R. No. 184740	The case arose from the President's designation of respondent Maria Elena H. Bautista, then DOTC Undersecretary for Maritime Transport, as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) on September 1, 2008, following the resignation of the MARINA Administrator. This designation was made in a concurrent capacity with her existing role as DOTC Undersecretary.	The designation of a Department Undersecretary (a deputy of a Cabinet Member) to concurrently serve as Officer-in-Charge of an attached agency, such as MARINA, is unconstitutional for violating Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, which imposes a stricter prohibition against holding multiple offices on the President, Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants, allowing exceptions only when expressly provided in the Constitution itself.	Constitutional Law I
Pundaodaya vs. Commission on Elections, et al. (17th September 2009)	AK663988 616 Phil. 167 , G.R. No. 179313	The case arose from the May 14, 2007 Synchronized National and Local Elections. Arsenio Densing Noble filed a Certificate of Candidacy for municipal mayor of Kinoguitan, Misamis Oriental, claiming 15 years of residency. Makil U. Pundaodaya, whose wife Judith Pundaodaya was also a mayoral candidate, filed a petition to disqualify Noble, alleging he lacked the residency qualification as he was actually a resident of Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City.	To successfully effect a change of domicile for election purposes, a candidate must demonstrate by clear and positive proof: (1) an actual removal or an actual change of domicile; (2) a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one; and (3) definite acts which correspond with that purpose. Mere registration as a voter or voting in a few elections in a locality is not conclusive proof of domicile.	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	Petitioner Eliseo F. Soriano, as host of the television program "Ang Dating Daan" aired on UNTV 37, made remarks on August 10, 2004, which included profane and offensive language directed at Michael M. Sandoval, a minister of Iglesia ni Cristo and host of a rival TV program. These utterances prompted complaints filed with the MTRCB by members of the Iglesia ni Cristo, leading to the challenged regulatory actions by the MTRCB.	The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) has the authority, derived from PD 1986, to regulate television program content, including the power to impose preventive suspension and subsequent administrative sanctions like program suspension, when such content is deemed obscene or indecent, especially considering the pervasive nature of television and its accessibility to children; such regulation, when balanced against the State's compelling interest in protecting the youth, does not unconstitutionally abridge freedom of speech.	Constitutional Law I
Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) vs. COMELEC (21st April 2009)	AK772249 604 Phil. 131 , G.R. No. 179271	The case arose from the May 14, 2007 national elections, specifically concerning the allocation of seats for party-list representatives in the House of Representatives. The COMELEC, acting as the National Board of Canvassers (NBC), applied the formula established in _Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC_ (the "Panganiban formula" or "Veterans formula") to determine the winners and allocate seats. This application led to dissatisfaction among several party-list groups who believed the formula was unconstitutional and did not allow for the full 20% allocation of seats for party-list representatives as mandated by the Constitution.	The two percent threshold prescribed in Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional for the purpose of distributing additional party-list seats, as it makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum number of available party-list seats and frustrates the constitutional mandate for proportional representation. A new four-step procedure for allocating party-list seats was established: (1) Rank parties from highest to lowest votes; (2) Parties receiving at least 2% of total votes get one guaranteed seat; (3) Additional seats are distributed proportionally based on total votes until all available seats are filled, disregarding fractional seats; (4) Each party is limited to a maximum of three seats.	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
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 arose from a technical cooperation agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of the Philippines, initiated in 1971 and extended by subsequent arrangements. One such arrangement in 1999 concerned a project called Social Health Insurance--Networking and Empowerment (SHINE), designed to improve health care for Philippine families. The German government designated GTZ as its implementing agency for its contributions to the SHINE project, while the Philippines designated the Department of Health (DOH) and Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (Philhealth).	An entity claiming state immunity from suit, especially one described as a private company organized under foreign law even if state-owned, bears the burden of proving its entitlement to such immunity; failure to adduce evidence of its legal status under its parent country's law consenting to or restricting suit, or to secure an endorsement from the Department of Foreign Affairs, can lead to the denial of the claim for immunity.	Constitutional Law I State Immunity