Constitutional Law one: Case Digests

100%

Constitutional Law one: Case Digests

One. Macalintal versus COMELEC

The Doctrine: While Congress has the power to fix the date of elections, it cannot postpone them indefinitely or repeatedly without a compelling state interest. Postponement cannot be used to extend the terms of elective officials, as it bypasses the voters' right to choose their leaders at regular intervals.

The Facts: Congress enacted R.A. Number fifty-five, which moved the December twenty twenty-two Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections to October twenty twenty-three. The law also allowed sitting officials to remain in a "hold-over" capacity. Atty. Romulo Macalintal challenged the law, arguing that Congress had overstepped its authority by effectively extending the terms of office, a power that belongs to the people.

The Conflict: Congress passed a law to move the twenty twenty-two Barangay/SK elections to twenty twenty-three.

The Reason: They claimed the money (eight billion pesos) was needed for pandemic recovery.

The Argument: Atty. Macalintal sued, saying Congress can't just "extend" terms of sitting officials by moving the goalposts of an election.

The Issue: Does the legislative power to fix the date of elections include the power to postpone them and extend the terms of sitting officials?

The Ruling: The Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional. It held that the right to vote includes the right to vote on time. The Court ruled that

"budgetary reasons" (i.e., reallocating funds to address the pandemic) are insufficient to justify infringing a fundamental right. Although the law was struck down, the Court allowed the October twenty twenty-three elections to proceed for practicality, but mandated that the next BSKE must strictly follow the three-year interval.

Two. Francisco versus House of Representatives

The Doctrine: The "One-Year Bar Rule" prevents the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same official more than once within a period of one year. "Initiation" begins the moment a verified complaint is filed and referred to the proper committee.

The Facts: In two thousand three, a second impeachment complaint was filed against Chief Justice Hilario Davide Junior, just months after a first complaint had been filed and dismissed. The petitioners argued that this second complaint violated the Constitution's limit on the frequency of impeachment.

The Conflict: A second impeachment case was filed against Chief Justice Davide just months after the first one failed.

The Rule: The Constitution says you can only "initiate" impeachment once a year.

The Story: The Court had to decide if "initiation" means the filing of the complaint or the actual trial in the Senate.

The Issue: Is the filing of a second impeachment complaint within the same year a "political question" beyond judicial review, and does it violate the one-year bar?

The Ruling: The Court ruled that it was justiciable (not a political question) because the issue involved a clear violation of a constitutional limit. The Court held that the second complaint was unconstitutional because "initiation" does not mean the actual trial in the Senate; it starts at the House of Representatives. To allow multiple filings in a year would paralyze the government.

Three. Manila Prince Hotel versus GSIS

Four. Republic versus Sandiganbayan

Five. Tañada versus Angara

Six. Macariola versus Asuncion

Seven. Alih versus Castro (one hundred fifty-one S C R A two hundred seventy-nine)

Eight. Philippine Coconut Producers Federation (COCOFED) versus Republic (G.R. Nos. one hundred seventy-seven eight five seven to fifty-eight)

Nine. Francisco, Junior versus House of Representatives (G.R. No. one hundred sixty two six one)

Ten. Belgica versus Executive Secretary (G.R. No. two hundred eight two six six)

Eleven. Angara versus Electoral Commission (G.R. No. L-four five zero eight one)

Twelve. Sanidad versus COMELEC (G.R. Number L-four thousand six hundred forty)

The Issue: Can the President propose constitutional amendments when there is no sitting Legislature?

Thirteen. People versus Ferrer (G.R. Number L-three hundred twenty-six thousand thirteen to fourteen)

Fourteen. Abueva versus Wood (forty-five Phil.)

Fifteen. Lambino versus COMELEC (G.R. Number one hundred seventy-four thousand one hundred fifty-three)

Sixteen. Tolentino versus COMELEC (G.R. Number L-three hundred forty-one thousand five hundred)

Seventeen. Garcia versus COMELEC (G.R. Number one hundred eleven thousand two hundred thirty)

Eighteen. Mabanag versus Lopez Vito (seventy-eight Phil.)

Nineteen. Gonzalez v. COMELEC

Twenty. Almario v. Alba

Twenty-one. Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC

The Issue: Is there a valid law that allows the people to initiate constitutional amendments?

Twenty-two. Lawyers League versus Aquino (G.R. No. seven hundred thirty-seven thousand four hundred forty-eight)

The Issue: Can the Court rule on whether the Cory Aquino government is "legal"?

Twenty-three. Javellana versus Executive Secretary, G.R. No. L-three-six-one-forty-two.

The Issue: Is the nineteen seventy-three Constitution validly in force?

Twenty-four. Sanders versus Veridiano (G.R. No. L-four hundred sixty-nine thousand thirty)

The Issue: Can the US officials be sued in Philippine courts, or are they protected by state immunity?

Twenty-five. Arigo versus Swift (G.R. No. two hundred six thousand five hundred ten)

The Issue: Does the principle of State Immunity bar a suit against US naval officers for environmental damage?

Twenty-six. Philippine Textile Research Institute (PTRI) versus CA (G.R. No. two hundred twenty-three thousand three hundred nineteen)

The Issue: Is PTRI, being an unincorporated government agency, immune from suit?

Twenty-seven. The Holy See versus RTC (G.R. one hundred one thousand nine hundred forty-nine)

The Issue: Is the sale of land by the Holy See a commercial act (jure gestionis) that waives immunity?

Twenty-eight. City of Angeles versus Court of Appeals (G.R. No. nine hundred seventy-eight thousand eight hundred two)

The Issue: Can the City be sued for breach of contract?

Twenty-nine. Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. versus CA (G.R. No. nine hundred thirteen thousand five hundred fifty-nine)

The Issue: Is the suit against the PC-Chief a suit against the State?

Thirty. U.S.A. versus Reyes (G.R. Number seven nine two five three)

The Issue: Is the supervisor immune because she worked for the U.S. Navy?

Thirty-one. DFA versus NLRC (G.R. Number one one three one nine one)

The Issue: Does the NLRC have jurisdiction over the ADB?

Thirty-two. Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan versus Fernandez (G.R. Number six one seven four four)

The Issue: Can government funds be garnished to satisfy a judgment?

Thirty-three. Republic versus Feliciano (G.R. Number seven zero eight five three)

The Issue: Does a Presidential Proclamation constitute a waiver of state immunity?

Thirty-four. Aglipay versus Ruiz (sixty-four Phil.)

Thirty-five. North Cotabato versus Republic (G.R. Number one eight three five nine one)

The Issue: Is the MOA-AD constitutional?

Thirty-six. Saguisag versus Ochoa, Junior (seven hundred seventy-nine S.C.R.A. two hundred forty-one)

The Issue: Is EDCA a treaty or an executive agreement?

Thirty-seven. Republic of the Philippines versus Republic of China (The Hague Arbitral Ruling, twenty sixteen)

The Issue: Does China have "historic rights" to the South China Sea within the Nine-Dash Line?

Overview

A detailed examination of pivotal constitutional law cases in the Philippines, this document highlights key doctrines and Supreme Court rulings, addressing issues such as election postponements, impeachment rules, and rights related to property and economic policies.

Key Points

1Congress cannot postpone elections without compelling state interest
2The "One-Year Bar Rule" limits impeachment filings against officials
3The Filipino First Policy is enforced despite competition from foreign entities
4Warrantless searches are unconstitutional regardless of the suspect's reputation
5The Coconut Levy Funds are deemed public assets, not private property

Details

Category: Law and Legal Studies

PDF
THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW
This document outlines the historical context and fundamental principles of the Negotiable Instruments Law, detailing its origins, application, and significance in regulating commercial transactions involving negotiable instruments.
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.