CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1, ATTY. UNTALAN CASE DIGEST (EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT)

100%

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ONE, ATTY. UNTALAN CASE DIGEST (EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT)

One. Marcos versus Manglapuz, G.R. Number eight eight two one one, September fifteen, nineteen eighty-nine

After being ousted in nineteen eighty-six, former President Ferdinand Marcos and his family were in exile abroad and sought to return to the Philippines. President Corazon Aquino, through Executive Secretary Manglapus and other officials, refused to allow their return and the issuance of travel documents, saying their homecoming could threaten national security and public order. The Marcoses went to the Supreme Court via mandamus/prohibition, claiming constitutional rights (due process/right to travel/return).

Issue: whether the President has power to bar their return.

Ruling: the Court sustained the President-this was not something resolved by looking only at liberty of abode/right to travel, because the situation was extraordinary and implicated the President's duty to protect the general welfare; the President may rely on residual/unstated powers implicit in the executive function to safeguard national interest, and courts review only for grave abuse of discretion. Finding factual bases for the President's security assessment, the Court would not supplant executive judgment and thus denied the petition.

Doctrine: the President has implied/residual powers to act for national security/general welfare even if not expressly enumerated, and the Court will not interfere absent arbitrariness or grave abuse of discretion.

Two. Laurel versus Garcia, G.R. Number nine two zero one three, July twenty-five, nineteen ninety

FACTS (quick flow): The case involved the government's planned sale of a Philippine property in Roppongi, Japan (used for official/diplomatic purposes). Petitioners (including Senator Laurel) challenged the Executive's move to dispose of it, arguing it was property of public dominion and could not be sold just because the government allegedly no longer needed it. The dispute centered on whether the property had legally become alienable (i.e., converted into patrimonial property) and whether the Executive could sell it without Congress.

ISSUE: Can the Executive sell the Roppongi property without (one) a formal act withdrawing it from public use (public dominion) and (two) legislative authority authorizing its sale?

RULING: No. The Court held the property remained property of public dominion, so it was not for sale unless it is first formally withdrawn/abandoned from public use by a proper act (not mere non-use or intention), and there must be legislative authority allowing the sale. Without these, the proposed disposition is invalid.

DOCTRINE (recit-ready): Government property devoted to public service (including diplomatic/official use abroad) is property of public dominion and is outside commerce; it does not become patrimonial just because the Executive wants to sell it or claims it is unused. To validly sell it, there must be (a) a definite act withdrawing it from public use (abandonment/withdrawal) and (b) a law or legislative authority authorizing the sale.

Three. Brillantes versus COMELEC, G.R. Number one six three five five six, June eight, two thousand four

FACTS: In the two thousand four national elections, COMELEC issued a resolution creating an "electronic transmission and consolidation of advanced results," basically an unofficial quick count that would electronically transmit and tally partial "advance results" for public viewing. Brillantes, as voter and taxpayer, went to the Supreme Court and argued COMELEC had no constitutional or statutory authority to conduct this kind of unofficial canvass, and that using public money for it was also illegal.

ISSUE: Whether COMELEC could lawfully implement an "unofficial" electronic quick count and spend public funds for it.

Four. Pimentel versus Congress, G.R. Number one six three seven eight three, June twenty-two, two thousand four

? ISSUE

RULING

DOCTRINE (Key Principle)

Five. Makalintal versus COMELEC, G.R. Number one five seven zero one three, July ten, two thousand three

ISSUE

RULING (what the Court held)

DOCTRINE (what you must remember)

Six. Senate versus Ermita, G.R. No. one six nine seven seven seven, April twenty, two thousand six.

ISSUE

RULING

Eight DOCTRINE (Key principle)

FACTS (recit-ready)

ISSUE

RULING

DOCTRINE (what to memorize)

Eight. AKBAYAN versus Aquino, G.R. Number one seven zero five one six, July sixteen, two thousand eight. FACTS

ISSUE

Sub-issues:

during negotiations

Key Holdings:

DOCTRINE

Nine. Civil Liberties Union versus Executive Secretary, G.R. Number eight three eight nine six, February twenty-two, nineteen ninety-one.

ISSUE

any other office or employment in government, beyond what the Constitution itself permits.

DOCTRINE (what to recite)

Ten. Public Interest Center Inc. versus Elma, G.R. Number one three eight nine six five, June thirty, two thousand six.

ISSUE

RULING

DOCTRINE (what to recite)

Two. Waiver of salary does not cure unconstitutionality.

Three. The Court may still decide despite supervening events when the issue is capable of repetition (context).

ISSUE

RULING

DOCTRINE (what to recite)

FACTS

ISSUE

RULING

DOCTRINE

Thirteen. Dela Cruz versus Commission on Audit, G.R. Number one three eight four eight nine, November twenty-nine, two thousand one

ISSUE

RULING

DOCTRINE (Constitution-Law Focus)

Fourteen. Velicarcia-Garafil versus Office of the President, G.R. Number two zero three three seven two, June sixteen, two thousand fifteen FACTS

ISSUE

RULING

DOCTRINE (quick recit points)

FACTS

ISSUE

RULING

DOCTRINE (quick recit points)

Sixteen. De Castro versus JBC, G.R.nineteen ten zero two, March seventeen, two thousand ten, and April twenty, two thousand ten

Issue

Ruling

Doctrine

Seventeen. Sarmiento versus Mison, G.R. No. L-seven nine nine seven four, December seventeen, nineteen eighty-seven Facts

Issue

Ruling

Doctrine

Eighteen. Quintos-Deles versus Commission on Appointments, G.R.No.eight three two one six, September four, nineteen eighty-nine

Ruling

Doctrine

Facts

Issue

Ruling

Doctrine

Twenty. Calderon versus Carale, G.R.No. nine six three six, April twenty-three, nineteen ninety-two

Doctrine

Twenty-one. Flores versus Drilon, G.R.No. one zero four seven three two, June twenty-two, nineteen ninety-three FACTS

DOCTRINE (Recit-ready)

Twenty-two. Pobre versus Mendieta, G.R.No. one zero six six seven seven, July twenty-three, nineteen ninety-three

ISSUE

RULING

DOCTRINE (Recit-ready)

Twenty-three. Matibag versus Benipayo, G.R.No. one four nine zero three six, April two, two thousand two FACTS

RULING

DOCTRINE (Recit-ready)

Twenty-four. Soriano versus Lista, G.R.No. one five three eight eight one, March twenty-four, two thousand three

Issue

Ruling

Twenty-five. Pimentel versus Ermita, G.R. Number one six four nine seven eight, October thirteen, two thousand five

ISSUE

RULING

DOCTRINE (Recit-ready)

Twenty-six. Domingo versus Rayala, G.R. Number one five five eight three one, February eighteen, two thousand eight FACTS

ISSUE (Constitutional Law one angle)

DOCTRINE (Recit-ready)

Twenty-seven. Banda versus Ermita, G.R. Number one six six six two zero, April twenty, two thousand ten

Twenty-eight. Pichay versus Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary, G.R. Number one nine six four two five, July twenty-four, two thousand twelve

Twenty-nine. Biraoga versus Philippine Truth Commission, G.R. Number one hundred ninety-two thousand nine hundred thirty-five, December seven, two thousand ten

DOCTRINE

Thirty. Department of Health versus Camposano, G.R. Number one hundred fifty-seven thousand six hundred eighty-four, April twenty-seven, two thousand five Facts

Doctrine

Thirty-one. Manalang-Demigillo versus TIDCORP, G.R. Number one hundred sixty-eight thousand six hundred thirteen, March five, two thousand thirteen

DOCTRINE

Thirty-two. National Power Corporation Board of Directors versus Commission on Audit, G.R. Number two hundred forty-two thousand three hundred forty-two, March ten, two thousand twenty

Thirty-three. Drilon versus Lim, G.R. Number one one two four nine seven, August four, nineteen ninety-four

Doctrine

Thirty-four. Gascon versus Arroyo, G.R. Number seven eight three eight nine, October sixteen, nineteen eighty-nine

Doctrine

Thirty-five. KBMBPM versus Dominguez, G.R. Number eight five four three nine, January thirteen, nineteen ninety-two

Issue

Doctrine

Thirty-six. Hontiveros-Baraquel versus Toll Regulatory Board, G.R. Number one eight one two nine three, February twenty-three, twenty fifteen

Doctrine

Thirty-seven. IBP versus Zamora, G.R. Number one four one two eight four, August fifteen, two thousand Facts

Doctrine

Thirty-eight. SANLAKAS versus Executive Secretary, G.R.No. one five nine zero eight five, February

Doctrine

Thirty-nine. David versus Arroyo, G.R. No. one seven one three nine six, May three, two thousand six Facts

Issue

Doctrine

Forty. Fortun versus Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R.No. one nine zero two nine three, March twenty, two thousand twelve FACTS

DOCTRINE

Forty-one. Lagman versus Executive Secretary, G.R. No. two three one six five eight, July four, two thousand seventeen FACTS

DOCTRINE

Forty-two. Torres versus Gonzales, G.R. Number seven hundred sixty-eight seventy-two, July twenty-three, nineteen eighty-seven Facts

Doctrine

Forty-three. Monsanto versus Factoran Junior, G.R. Number seven hundred eighty-two thirty-nine, February nine, nineteen eighty-nine

Doctrine

Forty-four. Sabello versus Department of Education, G.R. Number eight hundred seventy-six eighty-seven, December twenty-six, nineteen eighty-nine

ISSUE

RULING

DOCTRINE

Forty-five. Llamas versus Executive Secretary, G.R. Number nine hundred ninety point one, October fifteen, nineteen ninety-one

ISSUE

RULING

Forty-six. Trillanes versus Medialdea, G.R. Number two hundred forty-one thousand four hundred ninety-four, April third, twenty twenty-four. Facts

Issue

Doctrine

Forty-seven. Tañada versus Angara, G.R. Number one hundred eighteen thousand two hundred ninety-five, May second, nineteen ninety-seven. Facts

Issue

Ruling

Doctrine

Forty-eight. Pimentel Junior versus Executive Secretary, G.R. Number one hundred fifty-eight thousand eighty-eight, July sixth, two thousand five

Doctrine

Forty-nine. Bayan Muna versus Romulo, G.R. Number one hundred fifty-nine thousand six hundred eighteen, February first, twenty eleven. Facts

Issue

Ruling

Doctrine

Fifty. Saguisag versus Executive Secretary, G.R. Number two hundred twelve thousand four hundred twenty-six, January twelfth, twenty sixteen. Facts

ISSUE

RULING

DOCTRINE

Fifty-one. Pangilinan versus Cayetano, G.R. Number two three eight eight seven five, March sixteen, twenty twenty-one FACTS

RULING

DOCTRINE

Overview

The document provides comprehensive summaries of several significant Supreme Court cases regarding constitutional issues in the Philippines, particularly pertaining to the Executive Department's powers and the limits of these powers in relation to legislative oversight and public rights.

Key Points

1The President possesses implied powers to act in national interest even when not explicitly enumerated
2Government properties devoted to public service are considered outside commerce and require legislative authority for sale
3COMELEC's activities must adhere strictly to constitutional or statutory mandates
4Overseas absentee voting is constitutional under specific provisions
5Executive privilege may be invoked but is not absolute and requires demonstration of compelling need.

Details

Category: Law and Legal Studies

PDF
Joevanie Arellano Tabasa vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, and Wilson Soluren
This document is a decision regarding the petition of Joevanie Arellano Tabasa, challenging his summary deportation by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation after losing his U.S. citizenship and claiming his right to repatriation to the Philippines.
PDF
PCC Guidelines on Merger Remedies
These guidelines outline the Philippine Competition Commission's approach to assessing remedies for mergers and acquisitions that may substantially prevent, restrict, or lessen competition, explaining key principles, types of remedies, considerations for design, and the remedies process.
PDF
In the Matter of the Proposed Acquisition by Universal Robina Corporation of Assets of Central Azucarera Don Pedro, Inc. and Roxas Holdings, Inc.
This document is a decision issued by the Philippine Competition Commission regarding the proposed acquisition by Universal Robina Corporation of the assets of Central Azucarera Don Pedro, Inc. and Roxas Holdings, Inc., assessing the transaction's potential impact on competition in the relevant market.
PDF
In the Matter of the Proposed Acquisition by International Container Terminal Services, Inc. of Shares in the Manila North Harbour Port, Inc.
This document presents the Philippine Competition Commission's decision regarding the acquisition of shares in Manila North Harbour Port, Inc. by International Container Terminal Services, Inc., analyzing the competitive effects and market implications of the proposed transaction.
PDF
Manfredi and Others Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) 13 July 2006
This document presents the judgment of the Court regarding preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of Article 81 EC in relation to insurance companies involved in unlawful agreements affecting civil liability auto insurance premiums.