Article IX: Constitutional Commissions

A. Common Provisions

Section 1. Independent Commissions

A. COMMON PROVISIONS

Section 1. The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.

Macalintal v. COMELEC, GR 157013, July 10, 2003Ombudsman v. Civil Service Commission, GR No. 159940, February 16, 2005

Section 2. Prohibition on Members

Section 2. No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management or control of any business which, in any way, may be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

Section 3. Salary

Section 3. The salary of the Chairman and the Commissioners shall be fixed by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure.

Section 4. Power to Appoint

Section 4. The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint their officials and employees in accordance with law.

Section 5. Fiscal Autonomy

Section 5. The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Their approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released.

CSC v. DBM, 482 SCRA 233

Section 6. Promulgation of Rules

Section 6. Each Commission en banc may promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices. Such rules, however, shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.

Macalintal v. COMELEC, GR No. 157013, July 10, 2003Sabili v. COMELEC, GR 193261, April 24, 2012

Section 7. Decisions of the Commissions

Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members, any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.

Review of final orders, resolutions and decisions:1. Rendered in the exercise of quasi-judicial functions 2. Rendered in the exercise of administrative functions

Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v. Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25Saligumba v. CA, 117 SCRA 669

1

PTTC v. COA, 146 SCRA 190 (1986)Cua v. COMELEC, 156 SCRA 582 (1987)Estrella v. COMELEC, GR No. 160465, May 27, 2004Mison v. COA, 187 SCRA 445 (1990)Paredes v. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 653 (1984)Ambil v. COMELEC, 344 SCRA 358 [2000]Mateo v. CA, GR No. 113219, August 14, 1995Reyes v. Regional Trial Court, GR No. 108886, May 5, 1995ABS-CBN v. COMELEC, 323 SCRA 611Salva v. Makalintal, GR 132603, September 18, 2000Garces v. CA, GR. No. 114 795, July 17, 1996Dumayas v. COMELEC, GR Nos. 141952-53, April 29, 2001Aguilar v. COMELEC, GR No. 185140, June 30, 2009Cayetano v. COMELEC, GR 193846, April 12, 2011Dela Llana v. The Chairperson, COA, GR 180989, February 7, 2012Cagas v. COMELEC, 663 SCRA 644 (2012)

Section 8. Other Functions

Section 8. Each Commission shall perform such other functions as may be provided by law. 

B. Civil Service Commission

Section 1. Composition; Qualifications; Term

1. The civil service shall be administered by the Civil Service Commission composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, with proven capacity for public administration, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the elections immediately preceding their appointment.

2. The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, a Commissioner for five years, and another Commissioner for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

Gaminde v. COA –347 SCRA 655 (2000)Mathay Jr. v. CA, GR No. 124374, December 15, 1999

Section 2.Scope of the system

Section 2.

1. The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.

2. Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be determined, as far as practicable, and, except to positions which are policy-determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical, by competitive examination.

3. No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law.

4. No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or partisan political campaign.

5. The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees.6. Temporary employees of the Government shall be given such protection as may be provided by law.

Cuevas v. Bacal, GR 139382, December 6 2000

Under Civil Service LawPARAGRAPH 1MWSS v. Hernandez – 143 SCRA 602 [1986] NSC v. NLRC – 168 SCRA 122UP v. Regino – 221 SCRA 598 [1993] Mateo v. CA – 247 SCRA 284 [1995]

2

DOH v. NLRC – 251 SCRA 700 [1995] Juco v. NLRC – 277 SCRA 528 [1997] Feliciano v. Gison – 629 SCRA 103 [2010]

GOCCs Under the Corporation Code BLISS v. Calejo – 237 SCRA 271 [1994]Postigo v. Philippine Tuberculosis society – 479 SCRA 628LRTA v. Venus – 485 SCRA 301

PARAGRAPH 2Classifications and AppointmentsHIGC v. CSC – 220 SCRA 148 [1993] Mauna v. CSC – 232 SCRA 388 [1994] Rimonte v. CSC – 244 SCRA 498 [1995] Gloria v. De Guzman – 249 SCRA 126 [1995]Atty. Ellas Omar A Sana v. Career Executive Service Board, GR 192926, 15 November 2011

CompetitiveSamson v. CA – 145 SCRA 654[1986]

Non-Competitive Astraquillo v. Mangalupas – 190 SCRA 280 [1990] Office of the President v. Buenaobra – 501 SCRA 302

Policy-Determining

Primarily ConfidentialBorres v. CA – 153 SCRA 120 [1987] Grino v. CSC – 194 SCRA 458 [1991] Santos v. Macaraig – 208 SCRA 74 [1992] Hilario v. CSC – 243 SCRA 206 [1995] Rosete v. CA – 264 SCRA 147 [1996] CSC v. Salas – 274 SCRA 414 [1997] Acahacoso v. Macaraig – 195 SCRA 235 [1991] Felix v. Buenaseda – 240 SCRA 139 [1995] (par.2)Pamantasan ng Maynila v. CSC – 241 SCRA 503 [1995] Province of the Camarines Sur v. CA – 246 SCRA 231 [1995] PEZA v. Mercado – 614 SCRA 683 [2010] CSC v. CA – 635 SCRA 749 [2010]

Permanent Luego v. CSC – 143 SCRA 327 [1986] Pangilinan v. Maglaya – 225 SCRA 511 [1993] (par.2)

Reorganization Santiago v. CSC – 178 SCRA 733 [1989] Montecillo v. Civil Service Commission, GR NO. 131954. June 28, 2001 Gatmaitan v. Gonzales – 492 SCRA 591 Nieves v. Blanco – 673 SCRA 638 [2012]

Appointment vs. designation Binamira v. Garucho – 188 SCRA 154 [1990] (par.2) (designation by Dept. Sec.)

Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure Cause for Removal: PARAGRAPH 3

1. Loss confidence Hernandez v. Villegas – 14 SCRA 544 [1965]

2. Abolition of Office

3

Briones v. Osmena – 104 PHIL. 588 [1958] Eugene v. CSC – 243 SCRA 196 [1995]

3. Reorganization Romualdez-Yap v. CSC – 225 SCRA 285 [1993] Fernandez v. Sto Tomas – 242 SCRA 192 [1995] Chato v. Natividad – 244 SCRA 787 [1995] Divinagracia v. Sto. Tomas – 244 SCRA 595 [1995] (par.3) Vinzon-Chato v. Zenarosa, GR 120539, October 20, 2000De Guzman v. Comelec, GR 129118, July 19, 2000Cuevas v. Bacal, GR 139382, December 6, 2000

4. Qualification for EligibilityMayor v. Macaraig – 194 SCRA 672 [1991

5. Abandonment; Acceptance of Incompatible/Other EmploymentCanonizado v. Aguirre, 323 SCRA 312 [2001]Salvador v. CA, GR 127501, May 5, 2000

Due Process in Removal Enrique v. CA – 229 SCRA 180 [1994] CSC v. Magnaye – 619 SCRA 347 [2010]Rubenecia v. CSC – 244 SCRA 640 [1995] Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office Board Of Directors v. Marie Jean C. Lapid, GR 191940, 12 April 2011

Security of TenureChua v. CSC – 206 SCRA 65 [1992] NLTD v. CSC – 221 SCRA 145 Cabagnot v. CSC – 223 SCRA 59 (Marohombsar v. CA, GR 126481, February 18, 2000Ong v. OP – 664 SCRA 413 [2012]

Electioneering or Partisan Political ActivitySantos v. Yatco – 106 PHIL 21People v. De Venecia – 14 SCRA 864 [1965]

Right to Self-Organization and Right to StrikeSSS Employees v. CA – 175 SCRA 686 [1989] Balingasan v. CA – 276 SCRA 557 [1997] Jacinto v. CA – 281 SCRA 557 [1997] De la Cruz v. CA – 305 SCRA 303GSIS v. Kapisanan – 510 SCRA 622

Temporary Employees Gloria v. CA, GR 119903, August 15, 2000

Section 3. Purpose of a Civil Service System

Section 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the Government, shall establish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service. It shall strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all human resources development programs for all levels and ranks, and institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability. It shall submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on its personnel programs.

Lazo v. CSC, 236 SCRA 469

Section 4. Oath or Affirmation

Section 4. All public officers and employees shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution.

4

Section 5. Standardization of Compensation

Section 5. The Congress shall provide for the standardization of compensation of government officials and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, taking into account the nature of the responsibilities pertaining to, and the qualifications required for, their positions.

Section 6. Prohibition of Appointment of “Lame Ducks”

Section 6. No candidate who has lost in any election, shall within one year after such election, be appointed to any office in the Government or any Government-owned or controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.

People v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 164185, July 23, 2008

Section 7. Prohibitions; Appointments; Office; Employment

Section 7. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure.

Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including Government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

Flores v. Drilon – 223 SCRA 568 (1993)In re Eduardo Escala, 653 SCRA 141 La Carlota City v. Rojo , GR 181367, 24 April 2012

Sec. 8 Prohibitions; Compensation; Foreign Gift/Office/Title

Section 8. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, nor accept without the consent of the Congress, any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign government.

Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional, double, or indirect compensation.

Sedusasta v. Municipality of Surigao – 72 PHIL. 482 [1941] Peralta v. Mathay – 38 SCRA 296 (1971)Santos v. CA – GR No. 139792, Nov. 22, 2000Cabili v. CSC, GR No. 156503, June 22, 2006Benguet State University v. Colting, GR No. 169637, June 8, 2007Herrera, et al v. NPC, GR No. 166570, December 18, 2009NEA v. CSC – 611 SCRA 14 [2010] Yap v. COA – 619 SCRA 154 [2010] Sergio I. Carbonilla, et al v. Board of Airlines, GR 193247Office of the President v. Board of Airlines, GR 194276, 14 September 2011PEZA V. COA – 675 SCRA 513[2012]Dimagiba v. Espartero – 676 SCRA 420 [2012]

C. Commission on Elections

Section 1. Composition; Qualifications; Term

Section 1.

1. There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective positions in the immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

2. The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five years, and the last Members for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of

5

the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210 (1991)Brillantes v. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358 (1990)Matibag v. Benipayo, 380 SCRA 49

Section 2. Powers and Functions

Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:

1. Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.

2. Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.

Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable.

3. Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including determination of the number and location of polling places, appointment of election officials and inspectors, and registration of voters.

4. Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

5. Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must present their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens' arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall likewise be refused registration.

Financial contributions from foreign governments and their agencies to political parties, organizations, coalitions, or candidates related to elections, constitute interference in national affairs, and, when accepted, shall be an additional ground for the cancellation of their registration with the Commission, in addition to other penalties that may be prescribed by law.

6. File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.

7. Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election spending, including limitation of places where propaganda materials shall be posted, and to prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance candidacies.

8. Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it has deputized, or the imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience to, its directive, order, or decision.

9. Submit to the President and the Congress, a comprehensive report on the conduct of each election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.

Administrative PowerAlfiado v. Comelec, GR 141787, September 18, 2000 Columbres v. Comelec, GR 142038,September 18, 2000 Sahali v. Comelec, GR 134169, February 2, 2000Claudio v. Comelec, GR 140560, May 4, 2000 De Guzman v. Comelec, GR 129118, July 19, 2000 Social Weather Station, Inc v. COMELEC, GR NO. 147571, May 5, 2001Information Technology Foundation v. Comelec, GR 159139, Jan 13, 2004Buac v. Comelec, 421 SCRA 92Capalla v. COMELEC – 673 SCRA 1 [2012]

Election Contests Flores v. COMELEC – 184 SCRA 484 [1990]

6

Galido v. COMELEC – 193 SCRA 78 [1991] Mercado v. BES – 243 SCRA 422 [1995] Relampagos v. Cumba – 243 SCRA 690 [1995]People v. Delgado – 189 SCRA 715 [1990] Garces v. CA – 259 SCRA 99 [1996] Zarate v. Comelec and Lallave – GR 129096, November 19, 1999 Regalado v. CA, GR 115962, February 15, 2000 Faelnar v. People,GR 140850-51, May 4, 2000 Tan v. Comelec, GR 148575, Dec. 10, 2003Alauya v. Comelec, GR 158830, August 10, 2004

Powers Not Given

Deputizing Law Enforcement Agencies People v. Basilla – 179 SCRA 87[1989]

Registration of Parties and Organization LDP v. Comelec, GR 161265, February 24, 2004Atienza v. COMELEC – 612 SCRA 761 [2010]Lokin v. COMELEC – 674 SCRA 538[2012]

Prosecution of Election Offenses People v. Inting – 187 SCRA 788 [1990] Corpus v. Tanodbayan – 149 SCRA 281[1987] COMELEC v. Silva – 286 SCRA 177[1998] Comelec v. Hon. Espanol, GR 149164, Dec. 10, 2003Arroyo v. DOJ – 681 SCRA 181[2012]

Recommendatory Powers

Section 3. Decisions

Section 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre- proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.

Pangilinan v. COMELEC – 228 SCRA 36[1993] Sarmiento v. Comelec – 212 SCRA 307[1992] Carnicosa v. COMELEC – 282 SCRA 512[1997] Ramas v. COMELEC – 286 SCRA 189[1998] Garvida v. Sales – 271 SCRA 767[1997] Velayo v. Comelec, GR 135613, March 9, 2000Sebastian v. Comelec, GR 139573, Mach 7, 2000Soller v. Comelec, GR 139853, September 5, 2000Barroso v. Ampig et al, GR138218, March 17, 2000Maruhon v. Comelec, GR 139357, May 5,2000Balindong v. Comelec, GR 153991, Oct. 16, 2003Jaramilla v. Comelec, GR 155717, Oct. 23, 2003Bautista v. Comelec, GR 154796-97, Oct. 23, 2003De Llana v. Comelec, GR 152080, Nov. 28, 2003Repol v. Comelec, GR 151418, Apr. 28, 2004Pedragoza v. COMELEC – 496 SCRA 513Cayetano v. COMELEC – 479 SCRA 514Munoz v. COMELEC – 495 SCRA 407Tan v. COMELEC – 507 SCRA 352Enriquel v. COMELEC – 613 SCRA 809Mendoza v. COMELEC – 616 SCRA 443Maria Laarni L Cayetano v. Comelec, GR 193846, 12 April 2011 (also in Sec. 7, Art IX-A)

Section 4. Supervision/Regulation of Public Utilities, Media Grants, Privileges

7

Section 4. The Commission may, during the election period, supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and other public utilities, media of communication or information, all grants, special privileges, or concessions granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation or its subsidiary. Such supervision or regulation shall aim to ensure equal opportunity, time, and space ,and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public information campaigns and forums among candidates in connection with the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

Unido v. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 17Sanidad v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 529 (1990)Osmena v. COMELEC – 199 SCRA 750 [1991] Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC, GR No. 119654, May 22, 1995Telecom v. COMELEC – 289 SCRA 337 [1998] ABS-CBN v. COMELEC, GR No. 133486, Jan. 28, 2000SWS v. COMELEC, GR No. 147571, May 5, 2001

Section 5. Favorable Recommendation for Pardon, Amnesty, Parole or Suspension of Sentence

Section 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for violation of election laws, rules, and regulations shall be granted by the President without the favorable recommendation of the Commission.

Section 6. Free and Open Party System

Section 6. A free and open party system shall be allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the people, subject to the provisions of this Article.

Liberal Party v. COMELEC, GR No. 191771, May 6, 2010

Section 7. No Block-Voting

Section 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party, organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those registered under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution.

Section 8. Prohibition on Political Parties

Section 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list system, shall not be represented in the voters' registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law.

Section 9. Election Period

Section 9. Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in special cases, the election period shall commence ninety days before the day of election and shall end thirty days thereafter.

Section 10. No Harassment and Discrimination

Section 10. Bona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any form of harassment and discrimination.

Section 11. Funds

Section 11. Funds certified by the Commission as necessary to defray the expenses for holding regular and special elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recalls, shall be provided in the regular or special appropriations and, once approved, shall be released automatically upon certification by the Chairman of the Commission

D. Commission of Audit

Section 1. Qualifications; Term

8

Section 11. Funds certified by the Commission as necessary to defray the expenses for holding regular and special elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recalls, shall be provided in the regular or special appropriations and, once approved, shall be released automatically upon certification by the Chairman of the Commission

Mison v. COA, 187 SCRA 445

Section 2. General Function; Powers

Section 2.

1. The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post- audit basis:

a. constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution;

b. autonomous state colleges and universities;c. other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; andd. such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through

the Government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts of the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto.

Sec. 2 Powers and Functions

2. The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties.

Examine and Audit: Government revenues and Government expenditures Blue Bar Coconut Phil. Tantuico – 163 SCRA 716 [1988] DBP v. COA – 231 SCRA 202 [1994] Eslao v. COA – 236 SCRA 161 [1994] J.F.F. Manacop v. CA – 266 SCRA 235 [1997] Polloso v. Gangan, GR 140563, July 14, 2000 Uy v. COA, GR 130685, March 21, 2000 Aguinaldo v. Sandiganbayan – 265 SCRA 121 [1996] DBP v. COA, 422 SCRA 459 [2004] Home Development Mutual Fund v. COA, GR 142297, June 15, 2004DBP v. COA – 498 SCRA 537 [2006]Nava v. Palattao – 499 SCRA 745 [2006]Gualberto De Llana v. COA, GR 180989, 7 Feb. 2012 Candelario L. Versoza Jr. v. Guillermo N Carague, GR 157838, 7 February 2012Philippine Coconut v. Republic – 663 SCRA 514 [2012]

Audit Jurisdiction Caltex v. COA – 208 SCRA 726 [1992] Mamaril v. Domingo – 227 SCRA 206[1993] Philippine Airlines v. COA – 245 SCRA 39 [1995] CIR v. COA – 218 SCRA 203 [1993] CSC v. Pobre, GR 160568, Sept. 15, 2004Luciano Velos, et al. v. Commission On Audit, GR 193677,6 Sept. 20011Boy Scout of the Philippines v. COA, GR 177131, 7 June 2011Dela Llana v. COA – 665 SCRA 176 [2012]

9

Settle Government AccountPhilippine Operations, Inc. v. Auditor General, 94 Phil 868 [1953-1954] ICNA v. Republic, 21 SCRA 40 [1967] Dingcong v. Guingona, 162 SCRA 782 [1988] NHC v. COA – 226 SCRA 55 [1993] Euro-Med v. Province of Batangas, 495 SCRA 30 [2006]

Define Scope and Techniques of Auditing Procedures Danville Maritime v. COA,175 SCRA 701 [1989]

Promulgate Accounting and Auditing Rules Leycano v. COA, 482 SCRA 215

Decide Administrative Cases Involving Expenditures of Public Funds NCMH v. COA, 265 SCRA 390 [1996] Ramos v. Aquino, 39 SCRA 256 [1971]Salva v. Carague, 511 SCRA 258 City of Basilan v. Hechanova, 58 SCRA 711 [1974]

Section 3. COA Jurisdiction

Section 3. No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the Government or its subsidiaries in any guise whatever, or any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit.

Luciano Veloso v. Commisssion on Audit, GR 193677, 6 September 2011

Section 4. Annual Report to the President and to Congress

Section 4. The Commission shall submit to the President and the Congress, within the time fixed by law, an annual report covering the financial condition and operation of the Government, its subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and non-governmental entities subject to its audit, and recommend measures necessary to improve their effectiveness and efficiency. It shall submit such other reports as may be required by law.

10

Article X. Local Government

Section 1. Territorial and Political Subdivisions of the PhilippinesCordillera Broad Coalition v. COA, GR No. 79956, January 26, 1990

Section 2. Local AutonomyLimbona v. Conte Mangelin, et al, GR No. 80391, February 28, 1989San Juan v. CSC, 196 SCRA 69 (1991)Drilon v. Lim – 235 SCRA 135 [1994] Magtajas v. Pryce Properties, GR No. 111097, July 20, 1994

11

Judge Leynes v. COA, GR No. 143596, Dec. 11, 2003Batangas CATV v. CA and Batangas City, GR No. 138810, September 29, 2004 CREBA v. Secretary of DAR, GR 183409, June 18, 2010Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014

Section 3. Local Government CodeGarcia v. COMELEC, 227 SCRA 100 (1993)Malonzo v. COMELEC, 269 SCRA 380 (1997) Malonzo v. Zamora – 323 SCRA 875

Section 4. Supervision by the President Ganzon v. CA, 200 SCRA 271Joson v. Torres, 290 SCRA 279Drilon v. Lim, 235 SCRA 135 (1994)Bito-onon v. Fernandez – 350 SCRA 732National Liga v. Paredes – 439 130 [2004]SJS v. Atienza – 545 SCRA 92 [2009]Province of Negros v. COA, GR No. 182574, September 28, 2010

Section 5. Taxation Power of Local GovernmentLTO v. City of Butuan, 322 SCRA 805Lina v. Pano, 364 SCRA 76 (2001)Petron v. Mayor, GR No. 158881, April 16, 2008Yamane v. BA Lepanto Condominium, GR No. 154993, October 25, 2005Philippine Petroleum v. Municipality of Pililla, GR No. 90773, June 3, 1991Acebedo Optical v. CA, GR 100152, March 21, 2000PLDT v. City of Davao, GR 143867, March 25, 2003John Hay People’s Alternative Coalition v. Lim, GR No. 119775, October 24, 2003Manila Electric v. Province of Laguna, GR No. 131359, May 5, 1999Batangas Power v. Batangas City, GR No. 152675, April 28, 2004Smart Communications v. City of Davao, GR No. 155491, September 16, 2008

Section 6. Share in National TaxesPimentel v. Aguirre, 336 SCRA 201 (2000)Province of Batangas v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 152774, May 27, 2004Alternative Center v. Zamora, GR No. 144256, June 8, 2005League of Cities v. COMELEC August 24, 2010

Section 7. Equitable Share in the National Wealth

Section 8. Term of Local OfficialsBorja v. COMELEC, 295 SCRA 157Lozanida v. COMELEC, GR No. 135150, July 28, 1999Adormeo v. COMELEC, GR No. 147927, February 4, 2002Socrates v. COMELEC, 391 SCRA 457 (2002)Latasa v. COMELEC, GR No. 154829, Dec. 10, 2003David v. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 90 (1997)Rivera v. COMELEC – 523 SCRA 41Montebon v. COMELEC, 551 SCRA 50Ong v. Alegre, GR No. 163295, January 23, 2006Laceda v. Lumena – GR 182867, November 25, 2008Dizon v. COMELEC, GR No. 182088, January 30, 2009Alboin v. COMELEC, GR No. 184836, December 23, 2009Bolos v. COMELEC – 581 SCRA 786 [2009]Aldovino v. COMELEC – 609 SCRA 234 [2009]Datu Michel Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR 196271, February 2012 (reconsideration; holdover provision in RA 9054 Unconstitutional as Congress in passing RA 10153 has made clear)

Section 9. Sectoral RepresentativesSupangan Jr. v. Santos, GR No. 84662, August 24, 1990

12

Section 10. Creation, Abolition, Change of BoundariesTan v. COMELEC, 142 SCRA 727 (1986)Tobias v. Abalos – 239 SCRA 106 [1994] (metes and bounds)Mun. of Jimenez v. Judge Baz – 265 SCRA 182 [1996](de jure corporation)Cawaling v. COMELEC – GR146319, October 26, 2001 League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC, GR 176951, Nov. 29, 2008Sema v. COMELEC, 558 SCRA 700Camid v. Office of the President, GR No. 161414, January 17, 2005Navarro v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 180050, February 10, 2010

Section 11. Metropolitan Political SubdivisionsMMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association Assoc., GR No. 135962, March 27, 2000MMDA v. Garin, GR No. 130230, April 15, 2005Gancayco v. City Government of Quezon City, 658 SCRA 853

Section 12. Highly Urbanized Cities, Component CitiesAbella v. COMELEC, GR No. 100710, September 3, 1991

Section 13. Local Government Units Grouping Themselves

Section 14. Regional Development Councils and Other Similar BodiesPimentel v. Ochoa – 676 SCRA 551 [2012]

Sec. 15 Purpose, and how many Autonomous Regions

Section 15. Autonomous Regions Disomangcop v. Sec. of DPWH,GR 149848, Nov. 25, 2004Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR No. 196271, October 18, 2011

Section 16. General Supervision of the PresidentAmpatuan v. Hon Ronaldo Puno, GR 190259. 17 June 2011 (Proclamation 1946 and AOs and 273 –A do not violate the principle of local autonomy under Section 16, Article X of the Constitution, and Section 1 Article V of the Expanded ARMM Organic Act)Kulayan v. Tan – 675 SCRA 482 [2012]

Section 17. Powers Not Vested to the ARMMDatu Michel Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR 196271, 18 October 2011. (The framers decided to reinstate the provision in order to make it clear, once and for all, that these are the limits of the powers to the autonomous government; those not enumerated are actually to be exercised by the national government; the autonomy granted to the ARMM cannot be invoked to defeat national policies and concerns Since the synchronization of elections not just a regional concerns but a national one, the ARMM is subject to it; the regional autonomy granted to the ARMM cannot be used to exempt the region from having act in accordance with national policy mandated by no less than the Constitution)

Sections 18 and19. Organic Act for Autonomous RegionsAbbas v. COMELEC, 179 SCRA 287 (1989)Ordillos v. COMELEC, 192 SCRA 100 (1990)Badua v. CBA, 194 SCRA 101 (1991)Atitiw v. Zamora, 471 SCRA 329Cordillera Broad Coalition v. COA, GR No. 82217, Jan. 29, 1990Pandi v. CA, GR No. 116850, April 11, 2002Sema v. COMELEC, GR No. 177597, July 16, 2008Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, February 2012 (means that only amendments to, or revisions of, the organic Act Constitutionally-essential to creation of autonomous regions – i.e. , those aspects specially mentioned in the Constitution which Congress must provide for the Organic Act – require ratification through a plebiscite)

13

Section 20. Legislative Powers of the Autonomous RegionsProvince of North Cotabato v. Government of the Philippines Peace Panel, 568 SCRA 492

Section 21. Preservation of Peace and Order

Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers

Section 1. Public OfficeHipolito v. Mergas – 195 SCRA 6 [1991] Bornasal, Jr. v. Montes – 280 SCRA 181 [1997] Almario v. Resus – AM NO. P941076, [November 22, 1999]Juan v. People, GR 132378, January 18, 2000Re; AWOL of Antonio Makalintal, AM 99-11-06-SC, February 15, 2000Estrella v. Sandiganbayan, GR 125160, June 20, 2000Malbas v. Blanco, A.M P99-1350, December 12, 2001Manaois v. Lemeo, AM MTJ-03-1492, Aug. 26, 2003Re; Gideon Alibang, AM 2003-11-SC June 15, 2004ABAKADA v. Purisima – 562 SCRA 251[2008]Salumbides v. OMB, GR 180917, April 23, 2010

Section 2. Officers Subject to Removal by ImpeachmentOmbudsman v. CA – 452 SCRA 714 [2005] (exclusive list)

Section 3. Procedure for ImpeachmentIn re Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771 (1988)Marcoleta v. Brawner – 582 SCRA 474 [2009])Romulo v. Yniguez, 141 SCRA 260 (1986)Francisco v. House of Representatives, 415 SCRA 44Estrada v. Desierto, 353 SCRA 452 (2001); MR, 356 SCRA 108 (2001)Gutierrez v. Committee on Justice, 643 SCRA 198

Section 4. SandiganbayanNunez v. Sandiganbayan – 111 SCRA 433 [1982] (creation of Sandiganbayan)Lecaros v. Sandiganbayan – 128 SCRA 324 [1984] (crimes in relation to public office)Cunanan v. Arceo – 242 SCRA 88 [1995] (averment of the nature of the crime committed)Balmadrid v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 58327, March 22, 1991Azarcon v. Sandiganbanyan, GR No. 116033, February 26, 1997Binay v. Sandiganbayan – GR NO. 120681-83 [October 1, 1999]Mayor Layus v. Sandiganbayan – GR 134272, December 8, 1999Abbot v. Mapayo, GR 134102, July 6, 2000Defensor-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, 356 SCRA 636 (2001)

Section 5. OmbudsmanBaluyot v. Holganza, GR 136374, February 2000Garcia v. Ombudsman, GR 127710, February 16, 2000Lapid v. CA, GR 142261, June 29, 2000Tirol v. COA, GR 133954, August 3, 2000Mamburao v. Desierto, 429 SCRA 76 Carandang v. Desierto, 639 SCRA 293Lacson v. ES, 649 SCRA 142People v. Morales, 649 SCRA 182Quarto v. Marcelo, 658 SCRA 580

Section 6. AppointmentsOmbudsman v. CSC, GR No. 162215, July 20, 2007

Section 7. Tanodbayan as Special ProsecutorQuimpo v. Tanodbayan – 146 SCRA 137 [1986] Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, 160 SCRA 843 (1988)Acop v. Ombudsman, GR No. 120422, September 27, 1995Deloso v. Domingo, 191 SCRA 545

14

Almonte v. Vasquez, GR No. 95367, May 22, 1995Azarcon v. Guerrero, GR No. 121017, Feb 17, 1997Azarcon v. Guerrero , GR No. 116033, Feb 26, 1997Camanag v. Hon Guerrero – 286 SCRA 473 [1997] Buenasada v. Flavier, 226 SCRA 645Macalino v. Sandiganbayan, 376 SCRA 452BIR v. Ombudsman, GR No. 115103, April 11, 2002Laurel v. Desierto, GR No. 145368, April 12, 2002Office of the Ombudsman v. Valera – 471 SCRA 715 [2005]Perez v. Sandiganbayan – 503 SCRA 252Calingin v. Desierto 529 SCRA 720 [2007]Lazatin v. Desierto – 588 SCRA 285 [2009]

Section 8. Qualifications

Section 9. Appointments

Section 10. Rank

Section 11. Term

Section 12. Prompt Action on ComplaintsLaurel v. Desierto, GR No. 145368, April 12, 2002Almonte v. Vasquez, 244 SCRA 286 (1995)Uy v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 105965, March 20, 2001Raro v. Sandiganbayan, GR 108431, July 14, 2000Bautista v. Sandiganbayan, GR 136082, May 12, 2000Roxas v. Vasquez, GR NO. 114944, June 19, 2001 Kara-an v. Ombudsman, GR 119990, June 21, 2004People v. Sandiganbayan – 451 SCRA 413 [2005]Laxina v. Ombudsman – 471 SCRA 542 [2005]Gemma P. Cabalit v. Commission On Audit-Region VII, Gr 180236, 17 January 2012 (power of the Ombudsman –to determine and impose administrative liability is mandatory)Gonzales III v. OP – 679 SCRA 614 [2012]

Section 13. Powers; Functions; Duties

In GeneralCruz v. Sandiganbayan – 194 SCRA 474 [1991] Maceda v. Vasquez – 221 SCRA 464 [1993] Macalino v. Sandiganbayan – 376 SCRA 452 Garcia v. Miro, GR No. 148944, Feb 5, 2003Honasan II v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors – GR No. 159747, April 13, 2004Samson v. OMB, GR 117741, Sept 29, 2004Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, GR 162214, Nov. 11, 2004Khan, Jr. v. Ombudsman, GR No. 125296, July 20, 2006Ombudsman v. Estandarte, GR No. 168670, April 13, 2007Ombudsman v. Lucero, November 24, 2006Ombudsman v. CA, GR No. 169079, July 17, 2007Sangguniang Barangay v. Punong Barangay, GR No. 170626, March 3, 2008Perez v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 166062, September 26, 2006Buencamino v. CA, GR No. 175895, April 4, 2007Medina v. COA, GR No. 176478, February 4, 2008Villas Nor v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 180700, March 4, 2008Ombudsman v. Rodriguez, GR No. 172700, July 23, 2010OMB v. Estendarte – 521 SCRA 155 [2007]Salvador v. Mapa – 539 SCRA 34 [2000] OMB v. Masing – 542 SCRA 253 [2008]Medina v. COA – 543 SCRA 684[2008]Borja v. People – 553 SCRA 250 [2008]

15

Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties Buennaseda v. Favier – 226 SCRA 645 [1993](when to suspension)Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole – 251 SCRA 243 [1995] (nature)Vasquez v. Hobilla-Alinio – 271 SCRA 67 [1997] (not in relation to duties)OMB v. CA – 491 SCRA 92OMB v. Madriaga – 503 SCRA 631OMB v. CA 507 SCRA 593Estorja v. Ranada – 492 SCRA 652OMB v. Lucero – 508 SCRA 593Balbastro v. Junio – 527 SCRA 680 [2007]OMB v. CA – 527 SCRA 798 [2007]COA v. CA – 529 SCRA 245 [2007OMB v. Santiago – 533 SCRA 305 [2007]Govenciong v. CA – 550 SCRA 502 [2008]Marohomsalic v. Cole – 547 SCRA 98OMB v. Lisondra – 548 SCRA 83Miro v. Abugan – 549 SCRA 34Cesa v. OMB – 553 SCRA 357 OMB v. De Sahagun – 562 SCRA 122OMB v. Samaniego – 564 SCRA 502Boncalon v. OMB – GR 171812, December 24, 2008OMB v. Beltran – 588 SCRA 574 [2009]OMB v. Apolonio, GR 165132, 07 March 2012 (power to directly impose administrative penalties, including removal from office)

Jurisdiction over Criminal CasesNatividad v. Felix – 229 SCRA 680 [1994] (amount)Lastimosa v. Vasquez – 243 SCRA 497 [1995] (prosecutor’s assistance)Presidential v. desierto – 528 SCRA 20 [2007]

Fact-finding distinguished from Preliminary Investigation Raro v. Sandiganbayan, GR 108431, July 14, 2000Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, GR 148468, Jan 28, 2003

Section 14. Fiscal Autonomy

Section 15. Right to Recover Properties Unlawfully AcquiredHeirs of Gregorio Licaros v. SB, GR 157438, October 18, 2004Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-finding Committee on Behest Loans v. OMB Desierto, GR 135715, 13 April 2011. (reiterating Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto, GR 130140; provision applies only to civil actions for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, and not to criminal cases)

Section 16. Loan, Guaranty or Other Form of Financial Accommodation

Section 17. Declaration of Assets and Liabilities

Section 18. Allegiance of Public OfficersCaasi v. CA, 191 SCRA 229 (1990)Sampayan v. Daza – 213 SCRA 807 (1992)

Article XII. National Economy and Patrimony

Section 1. Threefold Goal of the National Economy

Section 2. Regalian Doctrine

Public Domain and Regalian Doctrine Lee Hong Kok v. David, 48 SCRA 372Carino v. Insurer Government, 41 PHIL 935Laurel v. Garcia, 187 SCRA 797 (1990)

16

Almeda v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 85322, April 30, 1991Director of Lands v. Kalahi Investments, Inc, GR No. 48066, January 31, 1989Land Mgt. Bureau v. CA, GR 112567, February 7, 2000Republic v. De Guzman, GR 105630, February 23, 2000Pua v. CA, GR 134992, November 20, 2000Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, GR 135385, December 6, 2000Chavez v. PEA, GR 133250, July 9, 2002La Bugal-B’laan v. Ramos, GR 127872, Dec. 1, 2004Dipido v. Gozun – 485 SCRA 586Chavez v. NHA – 530 SCRA 235 [2007]Republic v. Enciso, GR No. 160145, November 11, 2005Philippine Geothermal v. Napocor, GR No. 144302, May 27, 2004JG Summit v. CA, GR No. 124293, January 31, 2005

Alienation Sta. Rosa Mining v. Lledo, 156 SCRA 1 [1987] (mining claims)San Miguel Corporation v. CA, 185 SCRA 722 [1990] (possession in the concept of an owner)Republic v. Bantigue Point development Corporation, GR 162322, 14 March 2012(burden on applicant to prove land sought to be registered is alienable or disposable on a positive act the government)

Utilization Miners v. Factoran – 240 SCRA 100[1995] (jura regalia)Tano v. Socrates – 278 SCRA 154 [1997] (Subsistence fisherman)Villaflor v. CA - 280 SCRA 297 [1997] (private ownership)Republic v. CA and PREC – GR 103882, [November 25, 1998] 299 SCRA 199Republic v. Rosemoor Mining and Dev’t Corp. , GR 149927, Mar 30, 2004Alvarez v. PICOP – 606 SCRA 444 [2009]IID v. PSALM – 682 SCRA 602 [2012]Narra Nickel Mining v. Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp, GR 195580, April 21, 2014

Section 3. Lands of the Public DomainDirector of Lands v. Aquino, 192 SCRA 296 (1990)Republic v. CA, 160 SCRA 228 (1988)Apex Mining v. Southeast Mindanao Gold, Inc, GR No. 152613, June 23, 2006Dir. of Lands v. IAC, 146 SCRA 509 (1986)Ten Forty Realty v. Lorenzana, GR No. 151212, Sept. 10, 2003Chavez v. PEA, GR No. 133250, July 9, 2002Republic v. Southside, 502 SCRA 587Republic v. T.A.N., 555 SCRA 477

Section 4. Specific Limits of Forest Lands and National ParksLa Bugal-B’laan Tribal Assn. v. DENR, GR127872, Jan 27, 2004, MR GR 127882, Dec. 1,

2004

Section 5. Ancestral Lands and DomainCruz v. Sec. of DENR, 347 SCRA 128 (2000)

Section 6. Common GoodTelecom v. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337 (1998)

Section 7. Private LandsRepublic v. CA, 235 SCRA 567Zaragosa v. CA, GR No. 106401, September 29, 2000Ramirez v. Vda. De Ramirez, 111 SCRA 704 (1982)Halili v. CA, 287 SCRA 465 (1998)Lee v. Republic, 366 SCRA (2001)Frenzel v. Catito, GR No. 143958, July 11, 2003Lentfer v. Wolff – 441 SCRA 584 [2004]Muller v. Muller – 500 SCRA 65

17

Mulller v. Muller, GR No. 149615, August 29, 2006Matthews v. Taylor Spouses, GR No. 164584, June 22, 2009Hulst v. PR Builders, GR No. 156364, September 25, 2008Ting Ho v. Teng – 558 SCRA 421 [2008]Hulst v. PR Builders – 566 SCRA 333[2008]Osmena v. Osmena – 611 SCRA 164 [2010]Beurmer v. Amores – 686 SCRA 770 [2012]

Section 8. Exception for Former Filipino CitizensRepublic v. CA, 235 SCRA 567 (1994)

Section 9. Independent Economic and Planning Agency

Section 10. FilipinizationManila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408 (1997)Army and Navy Club v. CA, 271 SCRA 36 (1997)Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (1997)Republic v. CA – 299 SCRA 199J.G. Summit Holdings v. CA, GR 124293, November 20, 2000

Section 11. Public UtilitiesBagatsing v. Committee, 246 SCRA 344 (1995)Albano v. Reyes, 175 SCRA 36 (1997)Tatad v. Garcia, 243 SCRA 436 (1995)Telecom v. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337 (1998)JG Summit Holdings v. CA, 345 SCRA 143 (2000)Republic v. Express Telecom 373 SCRA 316Del Mar v. Pagcor [2001]PTC v. NTC, GR 138295, Aug. 28, 2003Associated Communications v. NTC, GR No. 144109, February 17, 2003Eastern Telecom v. Telecom Technologies, GR No. 135992, July 23, 2004Royal Cargo Corp. v. CAB – 421 SCRA 21Metropolitan v. Adala – 526 SCRA 465 [2007]PAGCOR v. BIR, 645 SCRA 338Francisco v. TRB – 633 SCRA 470 [2010]Wilson P. Gamboa v. Finance Secretary Malgarito B Tebes, GR 176579, 28 June 2011.Definition of capital refers only to share of stock entitled to vote in the election of directors, and thus in the present case only to common share, and not the total outstanding capital stock comprising Express Investment v. Bayantel – 687 SCRA 50 [2012]

Section 12. Filipino First PolicyTanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (1997)

Section 13. Trade PolicyEspina v. Zamora, 631 SCRA 17

Section 14. Development and Practice of Professions

Section 15. Agency to Promote Cooperatives

Section 16. CorporationsNDC v. PVB, 192 SCRA 257 (1990)Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. COA, GR 177131, 07 June 2011.Section 16, Article XII should not be construed so as to prohibit Congress from creating public corporation. In fact, Congress has enacted numerous laws creating public corporations or government agencies or instrumentalities vested with corporate powers. Moreover, Section 16, Article XII, which relates to National Economy and Patrimony, could not have tied the hands of Congress in creating public corporation to serve any of the constitutional policies or objective.

18

Section 17. Temporary Take-OverAgan v. PIATCO, 420 SCRA 575 David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, GR No. 171396, May 2006

Section 18. NationalizationRepublic v. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620 (1968)PLDT v. NTC, 190 SCRA 717 (1990)PLDT v. Eastern Telecom, 213 SCRA 16 (1992)

Section 19. Monopolies and CombinationsEnergy Regulatory Board v. CA, GR No. 113079, April 20, 2001Garcia v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 132451, December 17, 1999Tatad v. Secretary of Energy, 281 SCRA 330Eastern Assurance v. LTFRB, GR No. 149717, Oct. 7, 2003Avon v. Luna, GR No. 153674, December 20, 2006

Section 21. Foreign Loans

Section 22. Acts Inimical to the National Interest

Article XVI. General Provisions

Section 1. Flag of the Philippines

Section 2. Name, National Anthem or a National Seal

Section 3. Immunity From SuitLiang v. People GR 125865, January 28, 2000Calub v. CA, GR 115634, April 27, 2000Lansang v. CA, GR 102667 February 23, 2000Mancenido v. CA, GR 118605, April 12, 2000Shell v. Jalos – 630 SCRA 399(2010)China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) v. Hon. Cesar D. Santamaria, Gr 185572, 07 February 2012, 665 SCRA 189 (2012) (Revisits and reiterates several Cases : GTZ v. CA, Holy See v. Rosario, DFA v. NLRC)

Foundation of the Rule: A Suit Against the State Santos v. Santos, 92 PHIL. 281 (1952-1953)Republic v. Feliciano,148 SCRA 424) 1887 Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzons (2005)

Unincorporated Agencies Mentran v. Paredes, 79 PHIL. 819 (1947-1948 )NAC v. Teodoro, 91 PHIL. 203 (1952) Mobil Philippines v. Customs Arrestre, 18 SCRA 1120 (1966) Del Mar v. PVA – 51 SCRA 340 (1973)CAA v. CA – 167 SCRA 28 (1988) Farolan v. CTA – 217 SCRA 340 (1993)PNR v. IAC – 217 SCRA 401 (1993)Republic v. Nolasco – 457 SCRA 460 (2005) Republic v. Unimex – 518 SCRA 20 (2007)Professional Video v. TESDA – 591 SCRA 83 (2009)

Government Officers Ministero v. CFI – 40 SCRA 464 (1971 Syquia v. Almeda-Lopez – 84SCRA 312 [1978] Festejo v. Fernando – 94 SCRA 54 [1979] Aberca v. Ver – 160 SCRA 590 [1988] Shauf v. CA – 191 SCRA 713 [1990] Vidad v. RTC – 271 [1993] Regional Director v. CA – 229 SCRA 557 [1994]

19

Africa v. PCGG/Villanueva v. Sandiganbayan – [January 1992]

DOH v. Phil. Pharmawealth – 518 SCRA 240 [2007]

Foreign Government Baer v. Tizon – 57 SCRA 1 [1974] US v. Ruiz – 136 SCRA 487 [1985]Sanders v. Veridiano – 162 SCRA 88 [1988]U.S v. Reyes – 219 SCRA 192 [1993] The Holy See v. Rosario – 238 SCRA 524 [1994]JUSMAG v. NLRC – 239 SCRA 224 [1994]Larkins v. NLRC – 241 SCRA 598 [1995]Minucher v. CA – GR 142396, Feb, 11, 2003

Consent by LawCarabao v. Agricultural product Com. – 35 SCRA 224 [1970]Arcega v. CA – 66 SCRA 230 [1975]Rayo v. CFI – 110 SCRA 456 [1981]Municipality of San Fernando v. Firme – 195 SCRA 692 [1991]Republic v. NLRC – 263 SCRA 290 [1996]

Exceptional Circumstance to avoid injustice DOH v. Canchela – 475 SCRA 218 [2005]

Agency – Propriety United States v. Guinto – 182 SCRA 644 [ 1990]Fontanilla v. Maliaman – 194 SCRA 486 [1991]PRC v. CA – 256 SCRA 667 [1996]

WaiverRepublic v. Purisima – 78 SCRA 470 [1977]Santiago v. Republic – 87 SCRA 294 [1978]Traders Royal Bank v. IAC – 192 SCRA 305 [1990]Republic v. Sandoval – 220 SCRA 124 [1993]Delos Santos v. IAC – 223 SCRA 11 [1993]DA v. NLRC – 227 SCRA 693 [1993]EPG v. Sec. of DPWH – 354 SCRA 566 [2001]

Resulting Liability Philrock v. Board of Liquidators – 180 SCRA 171 [1989] Liang v. People – GR 125865 [January 28, 2000] ADB immunity)Republic v. Hidalgo – 477 SCRA 12 [2005] (writ execution) Philippine Agila v. Lichauco – 489 SCRA 22 [2006]Curato v. PPA – 590 SCRA 215 [2009]U.P. v. Dizon – 679 SCRA 54 [2012]

Section 4. AFP

Section 5. AFP Requirement and Goals

Section 6. Police ForceQuilonia v. The General Court Martial – GR No. 9660, March 4, 1992Carpio v. Executive Secretary – 206 SCRA 290 (1992)Department of Budget v. Manila’s Finest, GR No. 169466, May 9, 2007Mendoza v. PNP, GR No. 139658, June 21, 2005

Section 7. War Veterans

Section 8. Pensions and Benefits for Retirees

Section 9. Protection of Consumers from Trade Malpractices

20

Section 10. Development of Filipino Capability and Communication Structures

Section 11. Ownership and Management: Mass Media and Advertising

Section 12. Consultative Body for Indigenous Cultural Communities

Article XVII. Amendments or Revisions

Section 1. Amendment or RevisionImbong v. COMELEC, 35 SCRA 28 (1970)Lambino v. COMELEC, 505 SCRA 160

Section 2. InitiativeDefensor-Santiago v. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 (1997); MR (1997)Lambino v. COMELEC, 505 SCRA 160 (2006)

Section 3. Constitutional Convention

Section 4. RatificationGonzales v. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774 (1967)Tolentino v. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702 (1971)

Article XVIII Transitory Provisions

Sec. 1 First Election Under the New Constitution Sec. 2 Term of First House Members and Local Officials Sec. 3 Status of Laws and other Legislation Passes Prior to the Constitution Sec. 4 Status of Treaties and International AgreementsSec. 5 Presidential Term and Synchronization Sec. 6 President Legislative Sec. 7 Sectorial Representation Sec. 8 Metropolitan Authority MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association, GR 135962, March 27, 2000

Sec. 9 Sub-Provinces Sec. 10-11 Security of Tenure Judges Sec. 12-14 Cases Filed Prior to Effectivity of New Constitution Sec. 15 Term of Carry-over Commission

Sec. 16 Career Civil Service Officers Dario v. Mison – 176 SCRA 84 [1989] (reorganization) Mendoza v. Quisumbing – 186 SCRA 108 [1990]Ontiveros v. CA. G.R. No. 145401 May 7, 2001

Sec. 17-18 Readjustment of salary Sec. 19-21 Reversion of lands and real rights illegally acquired Sec. 22 Idle/Abandoned lands Sec. 23 Advertising Entities Sec. 24 Private Armies

Sec. 25 Foreign Military Bases, Troops or Facilities Bayan v. Zamora, GR 138570, October 10, 2000

Sec. 26 Sequestration Orders Joya v. PCGG – 225 SCRA 568 [1993]Republic v. Sandiganbayan – 221 SCRA 189 [1993] (powers of PCGG) Cojuangco v. Roxas – 195 SCRA 797 [1991] (vote of sequestered shares ) Araneta v. Sandiganbayan – 242 SCRA 482 [1995] (investigate/prosecutory powers)

21

Rumualdez v. Sandiganbayan – 244 SCRA 152 [1995] (authority over ill-gotten wealth) Republic v. Sandiganbayan – 240 SCRA 376 [1995] judicial action)

Section 27. EffectivityDe Leon v. Esguerra, 152 SCRA 602 (1987)Section 26. Ill-Gotten Wealth; Sequestration/Freeze OrdersCojuangco v. Roxas, 195 SCRA 797 (1991)

Section 27. EffectivityDe Leon v. Esquerra, 152 SCRA 602 (1987)

22