Judiciary Doctrines pp.3-4 Constitutional Law 1

8/10/2019 Judiciary Doctrines pp.3-4 Constitutional Law 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/judiciary-doctrines-pp3-4-constitutional-law-1 1/14

CASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - Jurisdiction- 3rd Requisite:Pleading at the Earliest Opportunity

People vs. Leachon

Matibag vs. Benipayo Ad interim appointment of Benipayo et al. andremoval + reassignment of Benipayo from EID to

Law Dept. in COMELEC. Benipayo'sreassignment and appointment is legallyunassailable. Petition dismissed for lack of merit.

The earliest opportunity to raise a constitutionalissue is to raise it in the pleadings before a

competent court that can resolve the same, suchthat, "if it is not raised in the pleadings, it cannot beconsidered at the trial, and, if not considered at thetrial, it cannot be considered on appeal.

La Bugal-B'laan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramos [EO 279] DENR Secretary accepting proposals offoreign corporations for service contracts.[Phil. Mining Act] Governs exploitation,development, utilization and processing of allmineral resources.[WMCP-FTAA]-amoutn of discretion to be afforded to the Pres. inrespect to FTAAs.

[As of December 2004]-Sale to a Filipino corporation renders the casemoot but SC can still decide on a moot case.-Service contracts are NOT banned, may involveother forms of assistance-State's control is undermined.Petition denied with finality, reversed Jan. 2004decision.

It is not necessary that the question ofconstitutionality be raised IMMEDIATELY after theexecution of the action complained of; you cannotraise a new issue in a MR.

Estarija vs. Ranada Petitioner was the Harbor Master of the PPA andattacked the constitutionality of RA 6770, whichprovides for the structural organization of theOmbudsman (endowed Ombudsman w/ power toprosecute offenses). Petition denied.

Petitioner raised the constitutionality of RA No 6770in MR for reconsideration of Ombudsman'sdecision. Since Ombudsman has NO jurisdiction toentertain questions on the constitutionality of a law,when Estarija raised the issue of constitutionalitybefore the SC (which is the competent court in thiscase), it was considered that the constitutionalquestion was raised at the earliest possible time.SC also noted that it may determine, in the



exercise of sound judgment, the time when aconstitutional issue may be passed upon.

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. vs. Phil. Multi-MediaSystem Inc.

The constitutionality of Memo Circular No. 04-08-88 and the rebroadcasting of Channels 2 and 23,which were being contended by ABS-CBN. Petition

denied.

The question of constitutionality must be raised atthe earliest opportunity. If it is NOT raised in thepleadings, it may NOT be raised in the trial. If it's

not raised in the trial court, it will NOT beconsidered on appeal.

PNB vs. Palma Salary Standardization Law (RA 6785) challengedby respondents in an earlier case.

Constitutionality of a law CANNOT be attacked in acollateral way. A law is deemed valid unlessdeclared null and void by a competent court, moreso when the issue has not been pleaded in the trialcourt. The question of constitutionality must beraised at the earliest opportunity. Respondentsfailed to challenge the constitutionality of RA 6785and did not raise the issue seasonably.

Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. Labor case regarding payment of petitioner'smoney claims; Last clause in 5th paragraph of RA

8042 declared as unconstitutional. Petition granted.

The issue is deemed seasonably raised because itis not the NLRC but the CA which has the

competence to resolve the constitutionalissue. The NLRC is a labor tribunal that merelyperforms a quasi- judicial function – its function inthe present case is limited to determining questionsof fact to which the legislative policy of R.A. No.8042 is to be applied and to resolving suchquestions in accordance with the standards laiddown by the law itself. The CA, on the other hand,is vested with the power of judicial review or thepower to declare unconstitutional a law or aprovision thereof, such as the subject clause.Petitioner's interposition of the constitutional issue

before the CA was undoubtedly seasonable. Moldex Realty, Inc. vs. HLURB Petitioners seeking nullification of Reso No. R-562

which provides developers to maintain street lightsof subdivisions. Petitioner raised constitutionalityquestion to CA in time. Failed to observe principleof the hierarchy of courts. Petition dismissed.

SC does NOT have EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction overpetitions assailing the constitutionality of a law or anadministrative regulation. Drilon vs. Lim states thatthe lower courts also have jurisdiction to resolve thequestion of constitutionality at first instance. The



general rule is that SC shall exercise only APPELLATE jurisdiction over cases involving theconstitutionality of a statute, treaty or regulation,except in circumtances where the SC believes thatresolving the issue of constitutionality of alaw/regulation at the first instance is ofPARAMOUNT importance.

CASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - Jurisdiction- 4th Requisite: LisMota

Mirasol vs. CA Constitutionality of PD 579, which authorizesPHILEX to purchase sugar for export andauthorized PNB to finance purchases of PHILEXand directed PHILEX's profits to be remitted togov't. Mirasol asked for the accounting of theproceeds and was ignored by PNB. Petitiondenied, CA decision affirmed.

Courts will not resolve the constitutionality of a law ifit can be settled on other grounds. The policy of thecourts is to avoid ruling on constitutional questionsand to presume that the acts of politicaldepartments are valid, absent a clear andunmistakable showing to the contrary. (w/ respectto the separation of powers.)

Francisco vs. HOR Impeachment of CJ Davide; judicial review

extending to impeachment proceedings

The Consti defines the powers of the gov't. The

power of judicial review is limited further to theconstitutional question raised/the lis motapresented. Any attempt at abstraction could onlylead to dialectics and barren legal questions, and tosterile conclusions unrelated to actualities. Courtsaccord presumption of constitutionality to legislativeenactments, not only because the legislature ispresumed to abide by the Consti , but alsobecause the judiciary in the determination of actualcases and controversies must reflect the wisdomand justice of the people as expressed throughtheir representatives in the exec and legis depts.

David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo Constitutionality of Proclamation No. 1017 andGen. Order No. 5; state of national emergencybecause of kudetas from Magdalo camp & NPAs.Parts of Proc. No. 1017 unconsti, Parts of GO No.5 unconsti, Warrantless arrests and dispersalunconsti.

Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot andacademic, if 1) grave violation of Consti, 2)exceptional character of the situation andparamount public interest is involved, 3) whenconsti issue realised requires formulation ofprinciples to guide bench bar and public, and 4)



case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. Labor case regarding payment of petitioner'smoney claims; Last clause in 5th paragraph of RA8042 declared as unconstitutional. Petition granted

The 3rd condition that the constitutionality (lis mtoa)be critical to the reso of the case likewise obtainsbec. the monetary claim of petitioner to his lumpsume salary for the entire unexpired portion of his

12-mo. employment contract, and not just for a pd.of 3 mos. strikes at the very core of the subjectclause.

CASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - Jurisdiction- Political Question

Tanada vs. Cuenco 1935 Consti still in effect, composition of theElectoral Tribunal (Tañada was the only member ofthe minority in the Senate, so entitled to one seat ofSET.) Not a political question, bec. it involvespossible transgression of the Constitution. Cuencoand Delgado's nominations are null and void.

"Political question" is a question of policy. Refers tothose questions which, under the Consti, are to bedecided by the people in their sovereign capacity,or in regard to which full discretionary authority hasbeen delegated to the legis or exec branch of gov't.It is concerned with issues dependent upon theWISDOM, not legality, of a particular measure. [On

judicial review] Though legis power is vested

exclusively in Congress, this does not detract fromthe courts the power to pass upon theconstitutionality of acts of Congress.

PBA vs. COMELEC "Conditional resignation" of Marcos and validity topass a snap election law.

Case was clearly a justiciable controversy, but SCdecided not to rule on it. Accdg. to the Polifile, VVMendoza states: "A Court which does not issue aninjunction to enjoin an official act when it could haveissued one is actually deciding the case in favor ofthe validity of the act. Failure to issue an injunctionis as much an exercise of judicial review."

Javellana vs. Executive Secretary Creation of a Constitutional Assembly andratification of the 1935 Constitution

Said issue is inherently and essentially justiciable.One of the principal bases of non-justiciability is the

SEPARATION OF POWERS, and SYSTEM OFCHECKS AND BALANCES (exceeds constiauthority si Marcos). SC cited Powell vs.McCormack, where it says that WON a constiamendment has been properly adopted accordingto the requirements of an existing Consti is a



JUDICIAL QUESTION.

Romulo vs. Yniguez Impeachment of Pres. Marcos but was insufficientin form. Petition dismissed for lack of merit.

From the Polifile: What seems like a legal questionwhen viewed in isolation (namely, whether therules of the Batasan enabling it to shelf a complaintfor impeachment against the President isconstitutional,) is really a political question whenviewed in a broader context (i.e., that the case wasfiled against the Speaker of a coequal branch tocompel him by mandamus to recall the complaintfrom the archive, and that the ultimate result of thecase was to question the decision of the Batasan toshelve the case, a matter, that is solely committedto that department.) Yet, despite the really politicalnature of the question, the SC passed on thevalidity of the rules to erase doubts that may still beentertained.

Dumlao vs. COMELEC Implementation of BPs 51, 52, and 53 re: retired

elective officials not qualified to run for sameelective local office from which he has retired.Petition dismissed because they have no cause ofaction and the necessity for resolving the issue isabsent (procedural regularity).

Cited People vs. Vera, "It is a well-settled rule that

the constitutionality of an act of the legis will not bedetermined by the courts unless that question isproperly raised and presented in appropriate casesand is necessary to a determination of the case; i.e.the issue of constitutionality must be the very lismota presented."

Gutierrez vs. HOR Committee on Justice Impeachment complaints against then-Ombudsman Gutierrez and alleged violation of theone-year bar provision.

Impeachment is a POLITICAL EXERCISE thatgives the HOR ample legroom to operate, subjectonly to the constitutionally imposed limits. Andbeyond these, the SC is duty-bound to respect thediscretion of a co-equal branch of gov't on matterswhich would effectively carry out on its

constitutional mandate.Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee onBehest Loans vs. Desierto

Alleged grave abuse of discretion of theOmbudsman for dismissing petitioner's complaintregarding MINCOCO (Marcos crony company)obtaining behest loans.

Ombudsman is still under the SC's power of judicialreview.

Baker vs. Carr From the Polifile: Prominent on the surface of



any case held to involve a political question isfound a textually demonstrable constitutionalcommitment of the issue to a politicaldepartment; or a lack of judicially discoverableand manageable standards for resolving it; orthe impossibility of deciding without an initialpolicy determination of a kind clearly for non-

judicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court'sundertaking independent resolution withoutexpressing lack of the respect due coordinatebranches of government; or an unusual need forunquestioning adherence to a political decisionalready made, or the potentiality ofembarrassment from multifariouspronouncements by various departments onone question.

CASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - Jurisdiction- All Courts can

Exercise Judicial Review JM Tuason & Co. vs. CA Tatalon Estate's expropriation proceedings,

authorized by RA 2616 that became law w/oexecutive approval. CA's injunction of the RTCruling is null and void for lack of jurisdiction on thepart of the CA to take cognizance of the case.

Plainly, the Consti contemplates that the inferiorcourts should have jurisdiction inc ases involvingthe constitutionality of any treaty or law, for itspeaks of appellate review of final judgments ofinferior courts in cases where suchconstitutionality happens to be in issue. (Art. 8,Secs. 2 and 10)

Ynot vs. IAC EO 626-A, which prohibits the transport ofcarabaos from one province to another. The EOwas declared unconstitutional.

Lower courts are not prevented from resolving thesame whenever needed, subject only to review bythe highest tribunal. The court has jurisdictionunder the Constitution to ―review, revise, reverse,

modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the lawor rules of court may provide,‖ final judgments andorders of lower courts in all cases involving theconstitutionality of certain measures.



CASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - Jurisdiction- Judicial Review andPolitical Questions

Garcia-Padilla vs. Ponce Enrile Writ of habeas corpus for detainees during MartialLaw.

The suspensions of the writ of habeas corpus andof the right to bail are political questions and cannotbe ruled upon by the courts.

Lawyer's League for a Better Philippines vs. Aquino

Minute resolution re: legitimacy of the governmentof Pres. Cory Aquino. Petitions dismissed.

The legitimacy of the Aquino gov't is a politicalquestion and not a justiciable matter. It belongs tothe realm of politics where the people are the

judge. (De jure gov't.)

In re: Bermudez Cory-Doy or Marcos-Tolentino ang Pres. and VP?Petition dismissed for lack of cause of action andlack of jurisdiction. Cory and Doy are the Pres. andVP.

The legitimacy of the Aquino gov't is a politicalquestion and not a justiciable matter. It belongs tothe realm of politics where the people are the

judge. (De jure gov't.) Community of nationsrecognized the legitimacy of the gov't.

Marcos vs. Manglapus Remains of Marcos banned from entering thecountry. MR denied.

Garcia vs. BOI Transfer of site of proposed petrochemical plant

from Bataan to Batangas and the shift of feedstockfrom naphtha only to naphtha and/or LPG. Petitiongranted, the plant stays in Bataan.

Dissenting opinion of Griño-Aquino: Only the

BOI/Chief Exec. can answer because it is a politicaland economic decision. This Court, in the exerciseof its judicial power, may review and annulexecutive as well as legislative actions when theyclash with the Constitution or with existing laws, orwhen any branch or instrumentality of theGovernment has acted with grave abuse ofdiscretion amounting to lack or excess of

jurisdiction (Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution) butthe Court may not do more than that. It may notmake the decisions that the executive should havemade nor pass the laws that the legislature should

have passed.Dissenting opinion of Melencio-Herrera:When the Court decided on the issue, it decidedupon the wisdom of the transfer of the site of theproposed project. Power of judicial review does notvest in the Courts the power to enter the realm of



policy considerations under the guise of thecommission of grave abuse of discretion.

CASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - Jurisdiction- Judicial Restraint- refraining from deciding legal issues unless the

decision is necessary to the resolution of aconcrete dispute between adverse parties

(procedural) or granting substantial deference tothe views of the elected branches and invalidatetheir actions only when constitutional limits have

clearly been violated (substantial)

PPA vs. CA Contract with MAFISCOR to operate a floating bulkterminal facility is being contested. Petition grantedin favor of PPA, they can operate the facility. Courtscannot enjoin operation of the facility because theauthority in the best position to know is the PPA.

The courts may not tread into matters requiring theexercise of discretion of a functionary or office inthe executive and legislative branches, unless it isclearly shown that the government official or officeconcerned abused his or its discretion.

Chavez vs. COMELEC Melchor Chavez was disqualified from running forSenate in the 92 elections. Francisco Chavez was

to get the votes for himself. A lot weren't aware onelection day, which caused confusion. Petitiondismissed for lack of merit.

SC held that it can only review decisions ororders of COMELEC only in cases of grave

abuse of discretion committed in the dischargeof its quasi-judicial powers and not thosearising from the exercise of administrativefunctions. Alleged failure of implementing its ownresolution is administrative in nature and istherefore beyond judicial interference. Plus,COMELEC had ordered the deletion of Chavez’name, contrary to petitioner’s allegation.

Sinaca vs. Mula Substitution of mayoralty candidate TeodoroSinaca by petitioner Emmanuel Sinaca whichrespondent Miguel Mula contested. Petitiongranted in favor of Emmanuel Sinaca. (Can

substitute.)

The decision as to which member a party shallnominate as its candidate is a party concern whichis not cognizable by the courts. The rule is that thedetermination of disputes as to party nominations

rests with the party, in the absence of statutesgiving the court's jurisdiction.

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan Estrada contesting constitutionality of RA 7659(Plunder Law). SC ruled that it was constitutional.Petition dismissed for lack of merit.

In determining whether the acts of the legislatureare in tune with the fundamental law, courts shouldproceed with judicial restraint and act with cautionand forbearance. Every intendment of the law must



be adjudged by the courts in favor of itsconstitutionality, invalidity being a measure of lastresort. In construing therefore the provisions of astatute, courts must first ascertain whether aninterpretation is fairly possible to sidestep thequestion of constitutionality.

CASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - Jurisdiction over Criminal Caseswhere Penalty Imposed is Reclusion Perpetua

People vs. Daniel SC's jurisdiction to act on appeal in a criminal casewhere the offense is punishable by reclusionperpetua certified by the CA, but w/o imposing thepenalty of reclusion perpetua.

CA shall refrain from rendering judgment if andwhen it is of the opinion that reclusion perpetua ordeath is the proper penalty for the crime. SCdecides on the case as if on appeal.Entering judgment = when judgment has becomefinal; entered/recorded in book of entries of

judgmentsEntry of judgment = presupposes final judgmentbecause no appeal was taken from the decision of

the TC/CA w/in reglamentary period.People vs. Ramos Final determination of the court on a criminal case CA was duty bound to make its findings of facts to

support its opinion that the penalty to the imposedupon the appellant was either life imprisonment ordeath so as to bring the case w/in the jurisdiction ofthe SC.

*Rule 124, Sec. 13, Rules of Court "Whenever the CA should be of the opinion that thepenalty of reclusion perpetua or higher should beimposed in a case, the court after discussion of theevidence and the law involved, shall render

judgment imposing the penalty of reclusionperpetua or higher as the circumstances warrant,

refrain from entering judgment and forthwith certifythe case and elevate the entire record thereof tothe SC for review."

Lopez vs. Roxas [During the 1935 Consti]Constitutionality of RA 1793, creating the PET

Republic Act No. 1793 has not created a new orseparate court. It has merely conferred upon theSupreme Court the functions of a Presidential



Electoral Tribunal. The power to be the ―judge x x xof x x x contests relating to the election, returns,and qualifications‖ of any public officer is essentially

judicial. As such—under the very principle ofseparation of powers invoked by petitionerherein—it belongs exclusively to the judicial

department, except only insofar as the Constitutionprovides otherwise. Even though Constitution didnot explicitly provide for PET, the records ofConstitutional Convention shows that elimination ofsaid provision have the effect of leaving in thehands of the legislative department the power todecide what entity or body would ―look into theprotests for the positions of President and VicePresident.

CASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - Congressional Power overJurisdiction of the SC

Mantruste Systems, Inc. vs. CA Mantruste's right to purchase Bayview Hotel.Petition dismissed for lack of merit. Courts may not substitute their judgment for that ofthe APT, nor block, by an inunction, the dischargeof its functions and the implementation of itsdecisions in connection with the acquisition, sale ordisposition of assets transferred to it. There can beno justification for judicial interference in thebusiness of an administrative agency, except whenit violates a citizen's constitutional rights, or commitsa grave abuse of discretion, or acts in excess of, orwithout jurisdiction.

CASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - SC's Jurisdiction-AdminPowers/Rule-Making/Quasi-Judicial Work-

Supervision of the CourtsIn Re: Undated Letter of Mr. Louis C. Biraogo,Petitioner in Biraogo v. Nograles and Limkaichong,

Re: Allegations made under oath at the SenateBlue Ribbon Committee hearing held on Sept 26,2013 against Associate Justice Gregory Ong,

Justice Ong's relationship with Janet Napoles(Kevlar Cases). SC found Ong guilty of grossmisconduct, dishonesty and impropriety.

Court can discipline its own members.



Sandiganbayan

Noblejas vs Teehankee Noblejas is the Commissioner of Land Registrationand is being investigated. Noblejas is contendinghe can only be suspended and investigated in thesame manner as a Judge of the CFI. Petitiondenied.

SC held that although as Commissioner of LandRegistration and has the rank of the judge of CFI,Noblejas is still an administrative officia. SC cannotinvestigate him, as it would be performing non-

judicial work.Lorenzo v. Lopez Alleged misconduct of the Lopezes over lots. This Court will not shirk from its responsibility of

imposing discipline upon employees of theJudiciary. Any transgression or deviation from theestablished norm of conduct, work-related or not,amounts to misconduct. Judiciary personnel areheld to the highest standards of decorum andpropriety. But neither will the Court hesitate toshield the same employees from unfounded suitsthat only serve to disrupt rather than promote theorderly administration of justice.

Ampong v. CSC Ampong misrepresented herself as Evelyn Decirwhen she took the Professional Board Exam forTeachers. She waived her right of jurisdiction to theCSC, but technically, SC has jurisdiction over her.

The Supreme Court is given exclusiveadministrative supervision over all courts and judicial personnel. Regardless when the act wascommitted, administrative jurisdiction over a courtemployee belongs with the Supreme Court.

Leave Division vs. Heusdens Heusdens, a staff clerk of an MTC in Davao DelNorte, filed for an application for leave withoutwaiting for the result. It turns out it wasn't approvedbecause she had accountabilities to settle.Respondent is admonished with a warning.

SC can oversee all matters relating to the effectivesupervision and management of all courts andpersonnel under it. This includes the promulgationof rules and regulations on foreign travels.

CASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - SC's Jurisdiction-Admin

Powers/Rule-Making/Quasi-Judicial Work-Order a Change of Venue

People vs. Pilotin Crisologo filed for motion to transfer to a new prisonbecause his life was in danger in the presentvenue. SC allowed him to transfer.

SC can oversee all matters relating to the effectivesupervision and management of all courts andpersonnel under it. This includes the promulgationof rules and regulations on foreign travels.



People vs. Sola Sola accused for murder. The witnesses told theprosecution that they needed to change venuebecause if the trial were to be held at their venue inCFI Himamaylan, their safety would be jeopardizedbecause the accused have power and influence inthat venue. Change of venue has become moot

and academic.

SC could, by Constitutional fiat, order a change ofvenue or place of trial to avoid miscarriage of

justice. In case of doubt (safety and liberty ofwitnesses to reveal what they know), the SCshould resolve in favor of change of venue. Noneed for certiorari to be filed with the SC, plea

could've been done administratively.CASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - SC's Jurisdiction-Rule-Making

In Re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption ofthe GSIS from Payment of Legal Fees

Baguio Market Vendors vs. Cabato-Cortes

CASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - SC's Jurisdiction-Rule-Making-Prior to 1987 Consti

In re Cunanan RA 972 (Bar Flunkers Act of 1953)'sconstitutionality. By the disputed law, Congress hasexceeded its legislative power to repeal, alter andsupplement the rules on admission to the Bar. It

was declared unconstitutional by the SC.

RA 972 is a manifest encroachment on theconstitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court.

CASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - SC's Jurisdiction-Rule-Making-Scope

Lim vs. CA Labor case; NLRC ruled that Exec. Labor Arbiterhad NO power to rule on the issue of ownershipover real properties. SC said Exec. Labor ArbiterDID have the power. Petition partly granted.

Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution gives SC the power to "promulgate rulesconcerning the protection and enforcement ofconstitutional rights, pleading, practice andprocedure in all courts." It is within the inherentpower of the Court to suspend its own rules inparticular cases in order to do justice. When proper,no serious impediment bars the allowance of tardyappeals under the Rules of Court, in recognition of

this Court's inherent power to suspend adjectiverules. (EXCEPT if period of appeal is provided by astatute)

Javellana vs. DILG Javellana was a public officer who continued topractice law. This cumulated into an administrativecase against him based on the memo circulars of

As a matter of policy, SC accords great respect tothe decisions/actions of administrative authoritiesnot only because of the doctrine of separation of



DILG prohibiting it. Petition denied for lack of merit.In the case, SC found no grave abuse of discretionof DILG in issuing the circulars and denying thepetitioner's motion to dismiss the administrativecharge against him.

powers, but also for their presumedknowledgeability and expertise.

CASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - SC's Jurisdiction-Rule-Making-

Prohibitions Against Diminution of SubstantiveRights

PNB vs. Asuncion

PNB vs. Independent Planters Association, Inc.

Santero vs. CFI of Cavite

Damasco vs. Laqui

Magat vs. People

Fabian vs. Desierto

Tan vs. Bausch and Lomb, Inc.

People vs. Mateo

People vs. Lacson

Republic vs. GingoyonCASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - SC's Jurisdiction-Rule-Making-

Special Courts

Land Bank of the Phils. vs. De Leon

CASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - SC's Jurisdiction-Rule-Making-Quasi-Judicial Bodies

Tan vs. COMELEC

CASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - SC's Jurisdiction-Rule-Making-Regulation of Demonstrations

In re Valmonte

CASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - SC's Jurisdiction-Rule-Making-

Requirements of International AgreementsTañada vs. Angara

CASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - SC's Jurisdiction-Rule-Making-Administrative Supervision over the Judiciary

Maceda vs. Vasquez

Sinsuat vs. Hidalgo



Caoibes, Jr. vs. Ombudsman

Fuentes vs. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao

Garcia vs. Miro

People vs. Gacott

Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice

CASE ABOUT WHAT + RULING DOCTRINE - SC's Jurisdiction-ContemptPowers over Constitutional Commissions

In Re: EM No.03-010- Order of the First Division ofthe Commission on Elections dated August 15,2003

Documents

Judiciary Doctrines pp.3-4 Constitutional Law 1