CONSTI TABLE OF CASES

1. Magallona vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011

The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9522, which adjusted the Philippines' archipelagic baselines to conform to the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). They argued that the law reduced the maritime territory of the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled
that RA 9522 was constitutional, as it complied with international law, and did not diminish the country’s sovereignty or territory.

2. Imbong vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014

This case involved the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health (RH) Law, which aimed to provide access to reproductive health services. Petitioners
argued that it violated the right to life and religious freedom. The Supreme Court declared the RH Law constitutional but struck down certain provisions that
imposed penalties on conscientious objectors and required mandatory support from private hospitals.

3. Oposa vs. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993

This landmark environmental case was filed by a group of minors, representing future generations, to stop the issuance of timber licenses. They claimed
that the destruction of forests violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology. The Supreme Court upheld their right to sue on behalf of future
generations and stressed that the government has a duty to protect the environment under the Constitution.

4. Poe-Llamanzares vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016

Grace Poe-Llamanzares was disqualified by COMELEC from running for president due to questions about her citizenship and residency. The Supreme Court
reversed COMELEC's decision, ruling that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen and met the residency requirements, allowing her to run for the presidency.

5. Abakada Group Party List vs. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008
The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the E-VAT (Expanded Value-Added Tax) law, arguing that it violated various provisions of the Constitution,
including due process and equal protection. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law, stating that it was a valid exercise of the state’s
taxing power to raise revenues for public purposes.

6. Agustin vs. Edu, G.R. No. L-49112, February 2, 1979

Agustin challenged the validity of a law requiring motor vehicle owners to install early warning devices. He argued that it was an undue delegation of
legislative power. The Supreme Court upheld the law, stating that the regulation was within the police power of the state to promote public safety.

7. Chiongbian vs. Orbos, G.R. No. 96754, June 22, 1995

This case involved the creation of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). Petitioners argued that the law creating the ARMM violated
constitutional provisions on the territorial integrity of the Philippines. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law, stating that it was
consistent with the Constitution’s provisions on local autonomy.

8. People vs. Vera, G.R. No. L-45685, November 16, 1937

This case challenged the constitutionality of the Probation Law, which gave provincial boards the power to grant probation. The Supreme Court declared the
law unconstitutional, as it delegated judicial functions to non-judicial bodies, violating the principle of separation of powers.

9. Atong Paglaum vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013

Petitioners challenged the disqualification of certain party-list groups by COMELEC. The Supreme Court clarified the guidelines for the party-list system,
stating that it is not exclusively for marginalized and underrepresented sectors but also for political parties with a nationwide constituency. COMELEC was
directed to reconsider the disqualifications..

10. Jimenez vs. Cabangbang, G.R. No. L-15905, August 3, 1966

Jimenez, a journalist, filed a libel case against Cabangbang, a former military officer, over derogatory statements made during a political campaign. The
Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cabangbang, holding that statements made in the context of political discourse are privileged and protected under the
Constitution’s free speech clause.

11. Pobre vs. Defensor-Santiago, A.C. No. 7399, August 25, 2009
Atty. Pobre filed a disbarment case against Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, accusing her of unethical conduct for using harsh and abusive language. The
Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that while Santiago’s language was strong, it did not rise to the level of gross misconduct warranting
disbarment. The Court emphasized that public officials, especially politicians, enjoy wider latitude in their speech under the protection of free speech.

12. Avelino vs. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-2821, March 4, 1949

Senate President José Avelino was ousted by a group of senators led by Mariano Cuenco. Avelino sought judicial intervention, arguing that the session where
his ouster took place was illegal. The Supreme Court ruled that it could not interfere with the internal proceedings of the Senate, citing the separation of
powers. The issue of leadership in Congress is a political question beyond the jurisdiction of the judiciary.

13. People vs. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76, November 16, 2001
Congressman Romeo Jalosjos was convicted of statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness. He argued that as an incumbent public official, his position should
grant him special privileges, including avoiding immediate imprisonment. The Supreme Court ruled that public office does not exempt a person from being
held accountable for criminal acts, and Jalosjos must serve his sentence regardless of his political position.

14. Osmeña vs. Pendatun, G.R. No. L-17144, October 28, 1960
Senator Sergio Osmeña Jr. criticized the administration of President Garcia, leading to the House of Representatives passing a resolution condemning his
remarks. Osmeña questioned the House’s authority to censure a senator. The Supreme Court ruled that the House was within its rights to express its
collective sentiment through a resolution, which did not impose any punitive action against Osmeña and thus did not violate his freedom of speech.

15. Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055, April 18, 2001
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago faced graft charges stemming from her tenure as Immigration Commissioner. She challenged the Sandiganbayan’s
finding of probable cause. The Supreme Court ruled in Santiago’s favor, holding that her actions were part of her discretionary powers as a public official,
and there was insufficient evidence of bad faith or corruption to justify a charge of graft.

16. Astorga vs. Villegas, G.R. No. L-23475, April 30, 1974
Manila Mayor Antonio Villegas suspended and dismissed several city officials without following due process. Astorga challenged these actions, arguing that
they violated the officials' right to due process. The Supreme Court ruled that the suspension and dismissal of the officials were invalid because due process
was not observed. Public officials are entitled to a fair hearing before disciplinary actions are imposed.

17. Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado, G.R. No. 105371, November 11, 1993
The Philippine Judges Association questioned the imposition of travel taxes on members of the judiciary, asserting that judges were exempt from such taxes
under existing laws. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the judges, stating that members of the judiciary are indeed exempt from paying travel taxes as
part of the special privileges accorded to them to ensure judicial independence.
KEY ISSUES
1. Pobre vs. Defensor-Santiago, A.C. No. 7399, August 25, 2009
Key Issue:
Whether or not Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s use of strong language constitutes unethical conduct
warranting disbarment, considering her right to free speech as a public official.
Constitutional Basis:
Article III, Section 4 – Freedom of Speech: The case primarily revolves around the limits of free speech for
public officials and whether such speech constitutes gross misconduct warranting disciplinary action under
ethical standards for lawyers.

2. Avelino vs. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-2821, March 4, 1949

Key Issue:
Whether or not the judiciary can intervene in the internal proceedings of the Senate, specifically
regarding the ouster of Senate President Avelino.
Constitutional Basis:
Separation of Powers (Article VI and Article VIII): The Court ruled that matters involving leadership and
internal processes of Congress are political questions beyond judicial review, highlighting the principle
of separation of powers under the Constitution.

3. People vs. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76, November 16, 2001

Key Issue:
Whether or not an incumbent congressman, convicted of a crime, is exempt from serving his sentence
due to his position in public office.
Constitutional Basis:
Article III, Section 1 – Equal Protection Clause: The Supreme Court ruled that public officials are not
exempt from criminal liability and must serve their sentences, ensuring equal protection and the principle
that no person, regardless of office, is above the law.

4. Osmeña vs. Pendatun, G.R. No. L-17144, October 28, 1960

Key Issue:
Whether or not the House of Representatives could pass a resolution condemning the speech of a
Senator, thus raising the issue of legislative immunity and freedom of expression within Congress.
Constitutional Basis:
Article VI, Section 11 – Parliamentary Immunity: The case delves into the extent of legislative immunity,
allowing members of Congress to express views without fear of external consequences, although
legislative resolutions expressing collective sentiment are allowed.

5. Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055, April 18, 2001

Key Issue:
Whether or not there was probable cause to charge Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago with graft for
actions taken during her tenure as Immigration Commissioner.
Constitutional Basis:
Article XI, Section 1 – Accountability of Public Officers: This case highlights the application of the
constitutional principle of accountability of public officials and the need for sufficient evidence before
proceeding with criminal prosecution for alleged graft.

6. Astorga vs. Villegas, G.R. No. L-23475, April 30, 1974

Key Issue:
Whether or not the suspension and dismissal of certain city officials by the mayor violated due process
rights.
Constitutional Basis:
Article III, Section 1 – Due Process Clause: The Court ruled that the suspension and dismissal of public
officials without due process is unconstitutional, reinforcing the right to due process under the
Constitution.

7. Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado, G.R. No. 105371, November 11, 1993
Key Issue:
Whether or not members of the judiciary are exempt from paying travel taxes, and if the imposition of
such taxes violates judicial independence.
Constitutional Basis:
Article VIII, Section 3 – Fiscal Autonomy of the Judiciary: The case emphasizes the fiscal autonomy of the
judiciary and its members, exempting judges from obligations that might impair their independence,
including certain taxes.

CASE DIGESTS
1. Magallona vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011
Facts: Petitioners, led by Professor Merlin Magallona, challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No.
9522, which redefined the baselines of the Philippine archipelago to comply with the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). They argued that the law reduced Philippine territory.
Issue: Whether or not RA 9522 is unconstitutional for reducing the national territory of the
Philippines.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that RA 9522 is constitutional. The Court stated that the law did not reduce
the territory of the Philippines but merely adjusted its maritime zones to conform to international law,
particularly UNCLOS.
Doctrine: The law is consistent with the Constitution's provisions on sovereignty (Article I) as it preserves the
country’s territorial integrity in accordance with international agreements like UNCLOS.

2. Imbong vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014

Facts: This case involved a petition questioning the constitutionality of the Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), particularly its provisions on reproductive health services,
mandatory reproductive health education, and penalties for health care providers who refuse to provide
reproductive health services.
Issue: Whether or not the RH Law violates the Constitution's provisions on the right to life,
freedom of religion, and parental rights.
Ruling: The Supreme Court declared the RH Law constitutional, but struck down certain provisions that
violated the rights to religious freedom, such as mandatory support from private hospitals and penalizing
conscientious objectors.
Doctrine: The Court upheld the constitutional right to religious freedom (Article III, Section 5) and the state's
duty to promote health and responsible parenthood (Article II, Section 15).

3. Oposa vs. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993

Facts: Minors, represented by their parents, filed a petition against the issuance of timber licenses by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). They claimed that the excessive logging
threatened the environment and violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioners, representing future generations, have legal standing to
file the case.
Ruling:The Supreme Court upheld the petitioners’ right to sue on behalf of future generations. The Court
emphasized the importance of environmental protection and the government’s duty to protect natural
resources.
Doctrine: The right to a balanced and healthful ecology (Article II, Section 16 of the Constitution) is a
fundamental right that includes both present and future generations.

4. Poe-Llamanzares vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016

Facts: Grace Poe-Llamanzares was disqualified by COMELEC from running for president due to questions
about her citizenship and residency. She sought relief from the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether or not Grace Poe is a natural-born Filipino citizen and has met the residency
requirement for running for president.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in Poe’s favor, declaring that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen and has
satisfied the residency requirement.
Doctrine: The ruling is based on the constitutional provisions on citizenship (Article IV, Section 1) and
qualifications for the presidency (Article VII, Section 2).

5. Abakada Group Party List vs. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008
Facts: Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9337 (E-VAT Law), arguing that it
violated various provisions of the Constitution, including due process and equal protection.
Issue: Whether or not the E-VAT law is constitutional.
Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the E-VAT law, ruling that it is a valid exercise of
the government’s taxing power for public welfare.
Doctrine: The decision emphasized the state’s inherent power to tax (Article VI, Section 28) and the equal
protection clause (Article III, Section 1).

6. Agustin vs. Edu, G.R. No. L-49112, February 2, 1979

Facts: Agustin challenged the law requiring the installation of early warning devices on motor vehicles,
arguing that it was an undue delegation of legislative power.
Issue: Whether or not the law is a valid exercise of the state’s police power.
Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the law, ruling that it is a legitimate exercise of police power to ensure
public safety.

Doctrine: The Court affirmed the state’s duty to promote public safety (Article II, Section 5) and the proper
exercise of police power.

7. Chiongbian vs. Orbos, G.R. No. 96754, June 22, 1995

Facts: Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the law creating the Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao (ARMM), arguing that it violated the constitutional provision on territorial integrity.
Issue: Whether or not the creation of ARMM is constitutional.
Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law, stating that it was consistent with the
provisions on local autonomy and the creation of autonomous regions.
Doctrine: The Court relied on Article X, Section 18 of the Constitution, which provides for the creation of
autonomous regions.

8. People vs. Vera, G.R. No. L-45685, November 16, 1937

Facts: The constitutionality of the Probation Law, which delegated the power to grant probation to provincial
boards, was questioned. The petitioners argued that this delegation violated the separation of powers.
Issue: Whether or not the Probation Law’s delegation of power is constitutional.
Ruling: The Supreme Court declared the Probation Law unconstitutional for improperly delegating judicial
functions to non-judicial bodies, violating the principle of separation of powers.
Doctrine: The ruling emphasized the constitutional principle of separation of powers (Article VIII, Section 1).

9. Atong Paglaum vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013

Facts: Several party-list groups were disqualified by COMELEC, leading to this case which questioned the
proper interpretation of the party-list system under the Constitution.
Issue: Whether or not COMELEC’s disqualification of certain party-list groups is valid.
Ruling: The Supreme Court clarified that the party-list system is not limited to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors but is open to political parties with a national constituency. It ordered COMELEC to
reconsider its disqualifications.
Doctrine: The decision was based on Article VI, Section 5 of the Constitution, which provides for the party-
list system.

10. Jimenez vs. Cabangbang, G.R. No. L-15905, August 3, 1966

Facts: Jimenez, a journalist, filed a libel case against Cabangbang over defamatory statements made during
a political campaign. Cabangbang invoked his right to free speech.
Issue: Whether or not Cabangbang’s statements were protected by the constitutional right to
free speech.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cabangbang, holding that his statements were part of political
discourse and thus protected under the free speech clause.
Doctrine: The ruling emphasized the constitutional protection of free speech (Article III, Section 4).

11. Pobre vs. Defensor-Santiago, A.C. No. 7399, August 25, 2009
Facts: Atty. Vitaliano N. Pobre filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Senator Miriam
Defensor-Santiago, alleging that she had committed several unethical acts, including abusive language and
behavior. He claimed that she violated her lawyer's oath and was unfit to remain a member of the bar.
Issue: Whether or not Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago should be disbarred for alleged
misconduct.
Ruling: The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. It held that although Santiago’s language was harsh, it
did not amount to gross misconduct to warrant disbarment. The Court emphasized that public officials are
held to a high standard, but the remarks must be measured against free speech, especially in the context of
a political figure like Santiago.
Doctrine: The Court applied the rule that speech by public officials, especially legislators, enjoys a wider
degree of protection under the Constitution’s free speech clause, as long as it does not amount to gross
misconduct.
Constitutional Provision:
 Article III, Section 4: "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of
the press."

12. Avelino vs. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-2821, March 4, 1949

Facts: Senator Jose Avelino was ousted as Senate President by a group led by Mariano Cuenco. Avelino
challenged the legitimacy of the Senate session in which his ouster occurred, alleging that it was not properly
convened, and thus, his removal was invalid.
Issue: Whether or not the Supreme Court could intervene in the internal proceedings of the
Senate.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the internal affairs of Congress. The separation of
powers doctrine prevents the judiciary from intervening in the internal functioning of a co-equal branch of
government.
Doctrine:
The doctrine of separation of powers prevents the judiciary from encroaching on the prerogatives of the
legislative branch, especially concerning its internal rules and proceedings.
Constitutional Provision: Article VI, Section 16(3): "Each House may determine the rules of its
proceedings..."

13. People vs. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76, November 16, 2001
Facts: Congressman Romeo Jalosjos was convicted of statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness. He appealed
his conviction, arguing that his role as a legislator should afford him special considerations, including a
suspension of his sentence while in office.
Issue: Whether or not Jalosjos, as an incumbent congressman, can avoid serving his sentence.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld Jalosjos’ conviction and ruled that his position as a legislator did not grant him
immunity from criminal prosecution or the execution of his sentence. Public office is not a shield for avoiding
legal accountability.
Doctrine:
Public office does not exempt an individual from the consequences of criminal acts. The rule of law applies
equally to all, regardless of status.
Constitutional Provision:
 Article III, Section 1: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law..."

14. Osmeña vs. Pendatun, G.R. No. L-17144, October 28, 1960
Facts:Senator Sergio Osmeña, Jr. criticized President Garcia's administration. The House of Representatives
passed a resolution condemning his statements. Osmeña argued that the resolution violated his freedom of
speech and that the House had no right to censure a senator.
Issue: Whether or not the resolution of the House of Representatives infringed upon Osmeña’s
freedom of speech.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the resolution did not violate Osmeña’s freedom of speech because it
was merely an expression of the House's collective sentiment. It did not impose any penalty or sanction.
Doctrine:
Parliamentary bodies are entitled to express collective opinions without infringing on the free speech rights of
individuals, as long as no punitive action is involved.
Constitutional Provision:
 Article III, Section 4: Freedom of speech and expression.
 Article VI, Section 16(3): Rules of proceedings of each House.

15. Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055, April 18, 2001
Facts: Miriam Defensor-Santiago was charged with graft for allegedly approving a questionable contract
during her time as Immigration Commissioner. Santiago challenged the charges before the Sandiganbayan.
Issue: Whether or not there was probable cause to charge Santiago with graft.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that there was no probable cause to charge Santiago, stating that her
approval of the contract was a discretionary act within her powers as a government official, and there was no
evidence of corruption or bad faith.
Doctrine: Public officials may only be held liable for acts done in bad faith or with manifest partiality, evident
bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
Constitutional Provision: Article XI, Section 1: Accountability of public officers.

16. Astorga vs. Villegas, G.R. No. L-23475, April 30, 1974
Facts: Astorga challenged the legality of the suspension of several city officials by Manila Mayor Antonio
Villegas. He argued that due process was not observed in the dismissal proceedings.
Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the city officials violated due process.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Astorga, holding that the suspension and dismissal of the
officials were void for failure to comply with the requirements of due process. Public officials are entitled to a
fair hearing before they can be dismissed from office.
Doctrine: Due process must be observed in administrative actions involving the suspension or dismissal of
public officers.
Constitutional Provision: Article III, Section 1: Due process of law.

17. Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado, G.R. No. 105371, November 11, 1993
Facts: The Philippine Judges Association challenged the imposition of travel taxes on members of the
judiciary, arguing that judges and justices are exempt from such taxes based on privileges accorded to them
by law.
Issue: Whether or not members of the judiciary are exempt from paying travel taxes.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that members of the judiciary are exempt from paying travel taxes,
affirming the special privileges granted to judges under existing laws.
Doctrine:
Judges and justices enjoy certain privileges, including exemptions from travel taxes, under laws enacted to
ensure judicial independence.
Constitutional Provision:
 Article VIII, Section 3: The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.