WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY - PHILIPPINES...COURSE SYLLABUS ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 (WITH GRADING SYSTEM)...

WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY - PHILIPPINES JOHN WESLEY SCHOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE

Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

COURSE SYLLABUS ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

(WITH GRADING SYSTEM)

Course Title : Constitutional Law 1

Credit : 3 Units

Time Allotment : 54 Hours (Tuesdays 6:00-9:00 p.m.)

Professor : ATTY. ALVIN T. CLARIDADES

E-Mail Address: [email protected]

Mobile Number: 09175792055 / 09325973383

1. COURSE DESCRIPTION

This course is designed to assist law students in acquiring a general knowledge of Constitutional Law 1. At the end of the term, the students are expected to have a working know- how of what comprises national territory and sovereign jurisdiction, the basic State policies and principles, the bill of fundamental rights, as well as the various constitutional provisions on the major branches of government and its instrumentalities

Specifically, the course syllabus is devised and planned in such a way as to enable the students to:

understand the basic concepts, doctrines, and principles that underpin Philippine constitutional law;

appreciate the various nuances of the Philippine bureaucracy and understand the role of key government agencies and other actors in its development;

acquire knowledge of specific issues concerning pertinent constitutional provisions and jurisprudence.

2. COURSE AND LEARNING OUTCOMES

Upon completion of this course, the students must be able to:

demonstrate an understanding of the major provisions of the constitution on state sovereignty and jurisdiction, the adoption of the generally accepted principles of international law, bill of rights, separation of powers, and the rest of the government structure.

exhibit an understanding of the terminology, concepts, cases, and principles involved in the study of Constitutional law;

know the application of laws and rules relating to the powers, functions, composition, and operation of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, the various administrative agencies and instrumentalities, as well as the local government units.

3. LEARNING PLAN

mailto:[email protected]

We

ek

Tools

LO Topics Activities Resources Assessment

INTRODUCTION

I. Constitution A. Definition of Constitution

1. General 2. American 3. Filipino

B. Philosophical View of the Constitution CASE:

LO1 1

Submission of Case Digests Online

Group/Individ ual Report, Lecture

Oral Recitation, Canvas Discussion, Quiz

Library

Computer

/ Internet

Books/Ca se Laws

Grading of submitte d Case Digests

Graded recitation

6. The 1986 Freedom Constitution 7. The 1987 Constitution

II. Constitutional Law

CASES:

III. Basic Concepts

Purpose of the Constitution Constitution as a Municipal Law Classifications of Constitutions Qualities of a Good Written Constitution Essential Parts of a Good Written Constitution

Constitutions

Constitution

Brief Constitutional History Malolos Constitution The American Regime and the Organic Acts

The 1935 Constitution

Occupation The 1973 Constitution CASES:

Marcos vs. Manglapus, G.R. No.

88211. October 27, 1989

Planas vs. Comelec, G.R. No. L- 35925. January 22, 1973

Javellana vs. Exec. Sec., G.R. No. L-36142. March 31, 1973

Aquino vs. Enrile, G.R. No. L- 35546. September 17, 1974

Sanidad vs. Comelec, G.R. No. L-44640. October 12, 1976

Occeña vs. Comelec, G.R. No. L- 56350. April 2, 1981

Phil. Bar Assoc. vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 72915, December 20,

1985

A. Concept of Constitutional Law B. Types of Constitutional Law C. Weight of American Jurisprudence

Francisco vs. HoR, G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003

Neri vs. Senate Committees, G.R.

No. 180643. September 4, 2008

A. Constitutionalism B. Philippine Constitutionalism C. Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy

CASES:

Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156. February 3, 1997

Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 157584. April 2, 2009

Ifurung vs Carpio-Morales, G.R. No. 232131. April 24, 2018

D. Republicanism

LO2

2

E. Principle of Separation of Powers

1. In the Constitution a. The major departments (Art. VI,

VII, and VIII) b. The constitutional commissions

(Art. IX) c. The other independent bodies

The Electoral Tribunals [Sec. 17, Art. VI and Sec. 4 (last par), Art. VII]

The Commission on Appointments (Sec. 18, Art. VI)

The Judicial and Bar Council (Sec. 8, Art. VIII)}

2. Manner of Conferment of Power a. Express

Legislative power to Congress (Sec. 1, Art. VI)

Executive power to the President (Sec. Art. VII)

Judicial power to SC, lower courts (Sec. 1, Art. VIII)

Others (e.g. powers of the independent constitutional bodies)

b. Implied (Doctrine of Necessary Implication)

CASE:

Arnault vs. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-3820. July 18, 1950

c. Inherent or incidental CASES:

In re McCulloch Dick., G.R. No. 13862. April 16, 1918

In re Sotto, January 21, 1949, 82 Phil 595

3. Purpose of separation of powers F. System of Checks and Balances

1. Lawmaking by Congress, veto by the President, override of the veto by the Congress (Sec. 27, Art. VI)

2. Grant of amnesty by the president, concurrence by the Congress (Sec. 19, Art. VI)

3. Entry into treaty by the president, concurrence by the Senate (Sec. 20, Art. VII)




Library

Computer

/ Internet

Books/Ca se Laws


Graded recitation

4. Conviction by the judiciary, pardon by the President (Sec. 19, Art. VIII)

5. Jurisdiction of courts may be reduced by the Congress (Sec. 2, Art. VIII)

6. Congress may abolish lower courts (Sec. 1 and 2, Art. VIII)

CASES:

Ocampo vs. Sec., G.R. No. L-7918, January 18, 1955

De la Llana vs. Alba, G.R. No. L- 57883. March 12, 1982

G. Judicial Review H. Due Process I. Corollary Concepts

1. Blending (Overlap) of Powers CASE:

Springer vs. PI, 277 US 189 2. Checks and Balances

o Lawmaking by Congress, veto by the President, override of the veto by the Congress (Sec. 27, Art. VI)

o Grant of amnesty by the president, concurrence by the Congress (Sec. 19, Art. VI)

o Entry into treaty by the president, concurrence by the Senate (Sec. 20, Art. VII)

o Conviction by the judiciary, pardon by the President (Sec. 19, Art. VIII)

o Jurisdiction of courts may be reduced by the Congress (Sec. 2, Art. VIII)

3. Delegation of Powers


Graded recitation

o General Rule: potestas delegata non delegari potest

~ Basis

o Exception: instances of permissible delegation Submission

of Case Digests Online

Library

~ Tariff powers to the president [Sec. 28 (2), Art. VI]

~ Emergency powers to the president [Sec 23 (2), Art. VI]

LO3

3

CASES: Group/Individ ual Report, Lecture

Computer / Internet

Abakada Guro Party List, vs. Exec. Sec., G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005

Freedom from Debt Coalition v. ERC, G.R. No. 161113, June 15, 2004, 432 SCRA 157

~ Legislative power to the people at large: System on initiative and referendum (Sec. 32, Art. VI)

~ Legislative power to LGUs (See Sec. 16 and 19 of RA 7160)

~ Legislative power to administrative bodies (power of subordinate legislation)


Books/Ca se Laws

CASE:

Cruz vs. Youngberg, G.R. No. L-34674. October 26, 1931

o Basis of delegation o How effected o Two tests of valid delegation

CASE:

Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA, G.R. No. 76633. October 18, 1988

a. Completeness test

CASE:

BOCEA v. Teves, G.R. No. 181704, December 6, 2011

b. Sufficient standards test

CASES:

Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA, G.R. No. 76633 October 18, 1988

o Application of the two tests: concurrent, not alternate

CASES:

Tatad vs. Executive

Secretary, G.R. No. 124360. November 5, 1997

o Delegation of ascertainment of facts, not delegation of legislative power

CASES:

Abakada Guro vs. Ermita, GR 168056, September 1, 2005 (Decision)

Abakada Guro vs. Ermita, GR 168056, October 18, 2005 (Resolution)

4. Role of judiciary in separation of powers (Sec. 1, Art. VIII)

CASE:

Garcia v. Exec. Sec., G.R. No. 157584, April 2, 2009

5. Supremacy of the Constitution upheld by the judiciary

6. Justiciable and Political Questions

CASES: KMU vs. Aquino, G.R. No.

210500, April 2, 2019

Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, November 8, 2016

Garcia v. Exec. Sec., G.R. No. 157584, April 2, 2009

Daza vs. Singson, 180 G.R. No. 86344. December 21, 1989

7. Expanded jurisdiction under the 1987 Constitution [sec. 1 (2nd par.), Art. VIII]




Library

Computer

/ Internet

Books/Ca se Laws


Graded recitation

o Also: Determination of the sufficiency of factual basis of Martial Law: Sec. 18, Art. VII

o Grant of plenary power to other branches: not bar to judicial inquiry

CASE:

Bondoc vs. Pineda, G.R. No. 97710. September 26, 1991

THE 1987 CONSTITUTION I. Preamble

1. Meaning 2. Function

o Function o Origin/Authorship o Scope and Purpose

3. Social Contract Theory

II. Art. I: National Territory

LO4

4

1. Territory 2. Archipelagic State; archipelago

o Definition under the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

o Philippine Archipelago o Archipelagic Waters

3. Archipelagic principle

o Archipelagic Doctrine under Article I, Section 1

CASE:

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

o Archipelagic waters, o Territorial sea

~ Sovereignty exercised by the coastal state

~ Right of innocent passage: ships of other States

o Internal waters o Elements of Archipelagic Doctrine o Definition of internal waters o The Straight Baseline Method of

delineating the territorial sea

~ Baselines

i Definition under the UNCLOS

ii Ways of drawing baselines: normal baseline method vs. straight baseline method: See Art. 7 (1), UNCLOS

iii Republic Act No. 9522

o Purpose of Archipelagic Doctrine

4. Archipelagic (internal/inland) waters: par.1, Art. I

o Sovereignty by coastal state; no right of innocent passage

5. Significant phrase: “and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction”

III. Art. II: Fundamental Principles & State Policies

1. Principles and State Policies 2. The State as a Legal Concept (§ 2)

o Definition o Elements of a State

a. People b. Territory c. Government

o Government of the Republic of the Philippines

o Government vs. Administration

o Functions: Constituent vs. Ministrant

~ Constituent CASES: Veterans Federation of

the Phils. vs. Reyes G. R. No. 155027. February 28, 2006

MIAA vs. CA, G.R. No. 155650. July 20, 2006

Badillo vs. Tayag, G. R. No. 143976. April 3, 2003

~ Ministrant CASES:

Spouses Fontanilla vs. Maliaman, G.R. Nos. L- 55963 & 61045. February 27, 1991

PVTA vs. CIR, G.R. No. L-32052, July 25, 1975

Shipside Incorporated vs. CA, G.R. No. 143377. February 20, 2001

LO5

5


Group/Individ ual Report,

Library

Computer / Internet

Books/Ca


Graded

o Classification of Government on the Basis of Legitimacy: De jure vs. De facto

CASES:

Lawyer’s League vs.

Aquino, G.R. No. 73748. 73972. May 22, 1986

Estrada vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146710-15. March 2, 2001

Lecture


se Laws recitation

o Kinds of de facto government

i The government that gets possession and control or, or usurps, by force or by the voice of majority

ii Established and maintained by invading military forces

iii Government of paramount force

o Presidential vs. Parliamentary form of government

o Doctrine of Parens Patriae

CASES:

Gov’t vs. Monte de Piedad, G.R. No. L-9959. December 13, 1916

Cabanas vs. Pilapil, G.R. No. L-25843. July 25, 1974

d. Sovereignty

o Definition o Kinds

1. Legal 2. Political 3. Internal 4. External

o Characteristics

1. permanent 2. exclusive 3. comprehensive 4. absolute 5. indivisible 6. inalienable 7. imprescriptible

o Effects of Belligerent o Occupation o Effects of Change in

Sovereignty o Dominium vs. Imperium o Jurisdiction o “Sovereignty resides in the

people” o Types: Legal vs. Political

sovereignty o Doctrine of Jus

Postliminium o Effect of suspension or o change in sovereignty

CASES:

Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez, G.R. No. L-5. September 17, 1945

Peralta vs. Director of

Prisons, G.R. No. L-49.

November 12, 1945

Alcantara vs. Director

of Prisons, G.R. No. L-

49. November 12,

1945

Laurel vs. Misa, G.R.

No. L-409. January 30,

1947

Macariola vs.

Asuncion, A.M. No.

133-J. May 31, 1982

o Concept of “Act of State” o State Immunity from suit

Library

Computer

/ Internet

Books/Ca se Laws


Graded recitation

1. Basis

CASE:

DOTC v. Abecina, G.R. No. 206484, June 29, 2016

b. Suits Against Public Officials as Suits Against the State

o Test: will require an affirmative act from the State

CASES:

DOH vs. Phil Pharma

Wealth, Inc., G.R. No.

182358, February 20,

2013


LO6

6

c. Effect when public officer acts without, or in excess of, jurisdiction

Group/Individ ual Report, Lecture CASE:

Festejo vs. Fernando, G.R. No. L-5156, March 11, 1954 (The text of the main opinion is in Spanish. Use google to translate each paragraph to English and read the dissenting opinion of Justice Concepcion.)


d. Suits Against Government Agencies

o Test

1. If incorporated: consult charter

CASES: Arcega vs. CA, G.R,

No. L-20869. August 28, 1975

PNR vs. IAC, G.R. No. 70547. January 22, 1993

2. If unincorporated: determine nature of primary function

CASES:

Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Association, G.R. No. L-15761. January 28, 1961

Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. vs. Customs Arrastre Service, G.R. No. L- 23139. December 17, 1966

e. Suits against Foreign States

CASES:

Sanders vs. Veridiano II, G.R. No. L-46930. June 10, 1988

Holy See, The vs. Rosario, Jr., G.R. No. 101949. December 1, 1994

US vs. Guinto, G.R. No. 76607, February 26, 1990

f. Waiver of Immunity: Consent to be Sued

o Forms of Consent

1. Express

1. Thru a general law (Read Act No. 3083 and Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended by PD 1445)

CASE:

Amigable vs. Cuenca, G.R. No. L-26400. February 29, 1972

b. Thru a special law

CASE: Merritt vs.

Government of the Philippine Islands, G.R.

No. 11154. March 21, 1916

2. Implied




Library

Computer

/ Internet

Books/Ca se Laws


Graded recitation

1. When the commences litigation

State

CASES: Froilan vs. Pan

Oriental Shipping Co., G.R. No. L- 6060, September 30, 1950

Lim vs. Brownell, G.R. No. L-8587. March 24, 1960

b. When State enters into a contract

LO7

7

CASES: US vs. Ruiz, G.R.

No. L-35645. May 22, 1985

US vs. Guinto, G.R. No. 76607. February 26, 1990

g. Suit allowed even without consent to be sued

CASE:

Santiago vs. Republic, G.R.

No. L-48214. December 19, 1978

h. Consent to be Sued not Consent to Execution of Judgment

CASE:

Rep. vs. Villasor, G.R. No. L-30671. November 28, 1973

1. Exception CASE:

PNB vs. Pabalan, G.R. No. L-33112. June 15, 1978

i. Suability vs. Liability

1. Read also The Local Government Code of 1991

CASES: Republic vs. NLRC, G.R.

No. 120385 October 17, 1996 Palafox vs. Ilocos Norte,

G.R. No. L-10659, January 31, 1958

j. Exemptions from Legal Requirements of the State

k. Restrictive State Immunity: adhered by the Philippines

3. Republicanism (Sec. 1)

o Also: Supremacy of Civilian Authority (§ 3)

o Essential Features o Manifestations of Republicanism

a. Ours is a government of laws and not of men.

CASE: Republic vs. Southside HOA,

Inc., G.R. No. 156951, September 22, 2006

b. Rule of Majority (Plurality in c. elections) d. Accountability of public

officials e. Bill of Rights f. Legislature cannot pass

irrepealable laws Abas Kida vs. Senate, G.R.

No. 196271, February 28,

2012

City of Davao vs. RTC Br.

XII, G.R. No. 127383

August 18, 2005 g. Separation of powers

i. ii.

Democratic State Constitutional Authoritarianism

g. Renunciation of War and Incorporation clause (§ 2)

i.

ii.

See also: Independent Foreign Policy (Sec. 7) and Nuclear-Free Policy (Sec. 8) See also Sec. 25, Art. XIII: Re former US Military Bases

CASES: Bayan Muna vs. Romulo,

G.R. No. 159618, February

1, 2011

Secretary of Justice vs.

Lantion, G.R. No. 139465,

January 18, 2000

h. Supremacy of Civilian Authority (§3)

CASE:

Manalo vs. Sistoza, G.R. No. 107369. August 11, 1999

LO8

8

4. Defense of the State (§4) CASES:

People vs. Lagman, G.R. No. L-45892. July 13, 1938

People. vs. De Sosa, G.R. No. L- 45893. July 13, 1938

5. Peace and Order (§5) CASES:


Group/Individ ual Report,

Library

Computer / Internet

Books/Ca


Graded

Kilosbayan vs. Morato, G.R. No. 118910. November 16, 1995

Chavez vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 157036. June 9, 2004

Lecture


se Laws recitation

6. Separation of Church and State (§6)

1. See also Sec. 5, Art. III (The non- establishment clause and free- exercise clause)

CASE:

Peralta vs. Philpost, G.R. No. 223395, December 04, 2018

7. STATE POLICIES 8. Independent Foreign Policy (§7) 9. Freedom from Nuclear Weapons (§8) 10. Just and Dynamic Social Order (§9) 11. Promotion of Social Justice (§10)

CASE:

Calalang vs. Williams, G.R. No. 47800. December 2, 1940

12. Respect for Human Dignity (§11) CASE:

Basco vs. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 91649. May 14, 1991

13. Family, Rearing the Youth, and Women (§§ 12-14)

2. Family, Youth, and Women (Sec. 12- 14)

a. See Sec. 14, Art. XIII (re: working women)

b. See also Art. XIV (The Family) c. Read the salient features of the

United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) CASE:

PT&T vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 118978. May 23, 1997

14. Health (§15) and Balanced and healthful Ecology (§ 16)

3. Right to Health (Sec. 15); Right to Healthful and Balanced Ecology (Sec. 16)

4. See also the Rule on the Writ of Kalikasan

CASES:

LLDA vs. CA, G.R. No. 110120, March 16, 1994

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

15. Education, Science and Technology (§17)

5. Read also Art. XIV (Education, Science and Technology, etc.) CASES:

Guingona vs. Carague, G.R. No. 94571. April 22, 1991

Philippine Merchant Marine School Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 112844. June 2, 1995

PRC vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 144681. June 21, 2004

16. Labor as primary social economic force (§ 18)

6. Relate with Sec. 13, Art. XIII CASES:

Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009 (Read the concurring opinion of Justice Brion)

JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 120095. August 5, 1996

Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. vs. Drilon, G.R. No. 81958. June 30, 1988

17. Economy (§19) CASES:

Garcia vs. BOI, G.R. No. 92024. November 9, 1990

Tanada vs. Angara, G.R. No. 118295. May 2, 1997

18. Private Sector and Private Enterprise (§20) CASE:

Marine Radio Communications Association vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 86953. November 6, 1990

9

Midterm Examination

Library

Computer

/ Internet

Checking and Grading of Midterm Examinati on Answer Booklets

Books/Ca se Laws

Submissi on of Midterm Grades

19. Comprehensive Rural Development (§21) Submission of Case Digests Online


Oral Recitation, Canvas

LO9

10

7. National Economy (Sec. 19-21) 8. Read also Art. XII (National Economy

and Patrimony) CASE:

Library

Computer / Internet


Garcia vs. Corona, G.R. No. 132451, December 17, 1999

20. Indigenous Cultural Communities (§22)

CASE:

Cruz vs. Secretary of ENR, G.R. No. 135385. December 6, 2000

Books/Ca se Laws

Graded recitation

21. Sectoral Organizations (§23) 22. Communication and Information (§24)

CASE:

PLDT vs. NTC, G.R. No. 88404. October 18, 1990

Discussion, Quiz

23. Local Autonomy (§25)

9. Read Art. X (Local Government) CASE:

Dadole vs. COA, G.R. No. 125350. December 3, 2002

24. Equal Access to Opportunities (§26)

10. Opportunities for Public Service and Anti-Political Dynasty (Sec. 26)

CASE:

Pamatong vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004

25. Public Service (§27)

11. Honesty and Integrity in Public Service (Sec. 27)

1. Read Art. XI (Accountability of Public Officers)

12. Full disclosure of Public Transactions (Sec. 27)

1. Also read Sec. 7, Art. III, the right to information on matters of public concern

CASE:

North Cotabato vs. Government of RP, G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008

26. Full Public Disclosure (§28)

CASE:

Akbayan vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516. July 16, 2008

27. Social Justice and Human Rights (Sec. 9- 11; 18; 21)

1. See also Art. XIII (Social Justice and Human Rights) CASE:

Association of Small Landowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian, 175 SCRA 343

28. Art II provisions generally not self- executing

CASE:

Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156. February 3, 1997 (Read also the dissenting and concurring opinions)

IV. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

1. Legislative Power (§1)

A. Definition of Legislative Power B. Where Vested C. Classification of Legislative Power D. Scope of Legislative power

CASE:

Vera vs. Avelino, G.R. No. L-543. August 31, 1946

E. Limitations on Legislative Power F. Non-delegability of Legislative power G. Rationale of the Doctrine of Non-

delegability H. Valid delegation of legislative powers I. Delegation of rule-making power

CASES:

Abakada Guru Party List Officers vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. 168056, September 1, 2005. Reconsidered October 18, 2005

Gerochi vs. DOE. G.R. No. 159796. July 17, 2007

LO1 0

11

J. Requisites for a valid delegation of rule-making power




Library

Computer

/ Internet

Books/Ca se Laws


Graded recitation

CASE:

Pelaez vs. Auditor General, G.R. No. L-23825. December 24, 1965

K. Sufficient Standards

CASES:

Osmeña vs. Orbos, G.R. No. 99886 March 31, 1993

Tablarin vs. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 78164. July 31, 1987

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

Bayan vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 169838. April 25, 2006

L. Examples of Invalid of Delegation

CASE:

Ynot vs. IAC, G.R. No. 74457 March 20, 1987

People vs. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L- 45127 May 5, 1989

US vs. Ang Tang Ho, G.R. No. 17122. February 27, 1922

Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Board of Public Utility Commissioners, G.R. No. L- 11216. March 6, 1916

2. Powers of Congress

A. Inherent Powers B. Express Powers

3. Congress (§§ 2-10)

A. Composition of Congress B. Bicameralism vs. Unicameralism C. Composition of the Senate D. Qualification of Senators E. Senators’ Term of Office /

Staggering of Terms

F. Composition of HoR G. Qualifications of Members of HoR H. Domicile

CASE:

Romualdez-Marcos vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995

Domino vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 134015. July 19, 1999

Perez vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 133944. October 28, 1999

I. Property Qualification J. Term of Office of Representatives

1. Term vs. Tenure CASE:

Alba vs. Evangelista, G.R. No. L- 10360. January 17, 1957

2. Voluntary renunciation of office CASE:

Fariñas vs. Exec. Secretary, G.R. No. 147387. December 10, 2003

K. Party-List System CASES:

Veterans’ Federation Party vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 136781. October 6, 2000

CIBAC vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 172103. April 13, 2007

Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001

L. Legislative Districts

(a) Apportionment

CASES:

Matias vs. Comelec, G.R. No. L-18684. September 14, 1961, 3 SCRA 1

Tobias vs. Abalos, G.R. No. L- 114783. December 8, 1994, 239 SCRA 106

(b) Reapportionment

CASE:

Mariano vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 118577. March 7, 1995, 242 SCRA 211

LO1 1

12

(c) Gerrymandering Submission of Case Digests Online


Oral Recitation, Canvas Discussion,

Library

Computer

/ Internet

Books/Ca se Laws


Graded recitation

M. Election

(a) Regular Election CASE:

Ocampo vs. HRET, G.R. No. 158466. June 15, 2004, 432 SCRA 144

(b) Special Election CASE:

Tolentino vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 148334. January 21, 2004, 420 SCRA 438

N. Salaries 4. Privileges of Members (§ 11)

A. Privilege from Arrest CASE:

Trillanes vs. Pimentel, G.R. No. 179817. June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 471

B. Parliamentary freedom of speech and debate

CASE:

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

Quiz

5. Duty to Disclose, Disqualifications and Prohibitions (§§ 12-14) CASE:

Puyat vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. L- 51122. March 25, 1982

6. Internal Government of Congress (§§ 15- 16)

A. Sessions B. Adjournment C. Officers

CASE:

Santiago vs. Guingona, G.R. No. 134577. November 18, 1998

D. Quorum CASES:

People vs. Jalosjos, G.R. No. 132875-76. February 3, 2000

Arroyo vs. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255. June 26, 1998

E. Internal Rules F. Disciplinary Powers

CASE:

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

G. Legislative Journal and Congressional Record

H. Enrolled Bill Doctrine CASES:

Phil. Judges Association, G.R. No. 105371. November 11, 1993

Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, G.R. No. L-1123. March 5, 1947

Casco Philippine Chemical Co. vs. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-17931 February 28, 1963

Morales vs. Subido, G.R. No. L- 29658. February 27, 1969

7. Electoral Tribunal, CA (§§17-19)

A. HRET CASE:

Guerrero vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 137004. July 26, 2000

B. SET CASE:

Rasul vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 134142. August 24, 1999

C. CA

CASES:

Daza vs. Singson, G.R. No. 86344. December 21, 1989

Coseteng vs. Mitra, G.R. No. 86649. July 12, 1990

Guingona vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 106971 October 20, 1992

8. Records and Books of Accounts (§ 20)

LO1 2

13

9. Inquiries/Oversight function (§§ 21-22)




Library

Computer

/ Internet

Books/Ca se Laws


Graded recitation

A. Inquiries in Aid of Legislation CASES:

Arnault vs. Nazareno, G.R. No. L- 3820. July 18, 1950, 87 Phil 29

Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006

B. Oversight Functions CASE:

Macalintal vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 157013. July 10, 2003

10. Emergency Powers (§ 23)

A. Declaration of the existence of a state of war

B. Delegation of emergency power 11. Bills/Legislative Process (§ 24,26,27)

A. Origination Clause CASE:

Tolentino vs. Sec. of Finance, G.R. No. 115455 August 25, 1994

B. One bill-one subject rule CASES:

PHILCONSA vs. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-23326. December 18, 1965

Central Capiz vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. L-16197. March 12, 1920

Sumulong vs. Comelec, G.R. No. L-48609. October 10, 1941

C. Passage of a bill D. Presidential Approval, Veto or

Inaction; Legislative Reconsideration

(a) Presidential Approval (b) Presidential Veto (c) Presidential Inaction

E. Item Veto CASES:

CIR vs. CTA, G.R. No. L-47421. May 14, 1990

Bengzon vs. Drilon, G.R. No. 103524. April 15, 1992

F. Doctrine of inappropriate provisions CASES:

Gonzales vs. Macaraig, G.R. No. 87636. November 19, 1990

G. Executive Impoundment Legislative Veto

12. Power of the Purse/Fiscal Powers (§§ 28, 29, 25)

CASES:

Sison vs. Ancheta, G.R. No. L-59431. July 25, 1984

Planters Products, Inc. (PPI) vs.

Fertiphil Corp., G.R. No. 166006, March 14, 2008

13. Other Prohibited Measures (§§30-31) 14. Initiative and Referendum (§ 32)

CASE:

Lambino vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 174153. October 25, 2006

V. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

1. Executive Power (§ 1)

CASES:

NEA vs. COA, G.R. No. 143481. February 15, 2002

Webb vs. De Leon, G.R. No. 121234. August 23, 1995

Soliven vs. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585. November 14, 1988

2. The President (§ 2-13) A. Who is he? B. Qualifications C. Election D. Term of Office E. Oath of Office F. Privileges G. Prohibitions/Inhibitions

LO1 3

14

H. Vacancy Situations I. Rules of Succession

CASE:

Estrada vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738. March 2, 2001

J. Temporary Disability K. Serious Illness L. Removal from Office




Library

Computer

/ Internet

Books/Ca se Laws


Graded recitation

3. The Vice-President 4. Powers of the President

A. Executive Power B. Power of Appointment (§ 14-16)

(a) Definition of Appointment (b) Nature of Power of Appointment

CASES:

Government vs. Springer, G.R. No. L-26979. April 1, 1927

Binamira vs. Garrucho, G.R. No. 92008. July 30, 1990

Bermudez vs. Exec. Sec., G.R. No. 131429. August 4, 1999

(c) Classification of Appointment i. Permanent

ii. Temporary CASE:

Valencia vs. Peralta, G.R. No. L-20864 August 23, 1963

iii. Regular iv. Ad Interim

CASE:

Matibag vs. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036. April 2, 2002

(d) Kinds of Presidential Appointment

i. Appointments made by an Acting President (§ 14)

ii. Appointments made by the President within two months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term (§ 15)

iii. Regular Appointments (§ 16)

iv. Recess or Ad Interim Appointments (§ 13)

(e) Scope of Appointing Power

(f) Appointments needing Confirmation of CA

i. CA Confirmation CASES:

Sarmiento vs. Mison, G.R. No. 79974December 17, 1987

Soriano vs. Lista, G.R. No. 153881. March 24, 2003

Manalo vs. Sistoza, G.R. No. 107369. August 11, 1999

ii. Exclusive List CASES:

Bautista vs. Salonga, G.R. No. 86439. April 13, 1989

Calderon vs. Carale,

G.R. No. 91636. April 23, 1992

(g) Officials Who are to be Appointed by the President

(h) Steps in the Appointing Process

i. Nomination by the President

ii. Confirmation of the Commission on Appointments

iii. Issuance of the Commission

CASE:

Lacson vs. Romero,

G.R. No. L-3081. October 14, 1949

(i) Appointment of Officers Lower in Rank CASE:

Rufino vs. Endriga, G.R. No. 139554. July 21, 2006

(j) Limitations on the President’s Appointing power CASES:

In Re Appointment of Mateo Valenzuela, A.M. No. 98-5- 01-SC November 9, 1998

De Rama vs. CA, G.R. No. 131136. February 28, 2001

(k) Power of Removal C. Power of Control (§ 17) (a) Control

CASES:

Mondano vs. Silvosa, G.R. No. L-7708. May 30, 1955

LO1 4

15

(b) Control vs. Supervision (c) The President and Power of

Control CASES:



Library

Computer

/ Internet


NAMARCO vs. Arca, G.R. No. L-25743. September 30, 1969

Ang-angco vs. Castillo, G.R. No. L-17169. November 30, 1963

City of Iligan vs. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-30852. February 26, 1988

Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. vs. Paño, G.R. No. L-27811. November 17, 1967


Books/Ca se Laws

Graded recitation

(d) Alter ego Principle; Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency CASES:

Villena vs. Sec. of Interior, G.R. No. L-46570. April 21, 1939

Orosa vs. Roa, GR 14047, July 14, 2006

DENR vs. DENR Employees, G.R. No. 149724. August 19, 2003

ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Exec. Sec., G.R. No. 168056 September 1, 2005

(e) Supervision over LGUs CASE:

Drilon vs. Lim, G.R. No. 112497. August 4, 1994

(f) Faithful Execution Clause (The Take-Care Clause)

D. Military Powers (§ 18)

(a) The Military Power and its Limitations CASE:

Sanlakas vs. Exec. Sec., G.R. No. 159085. February 3, 2004

(b) Commander-in-Chief Clause/Calling Out Power CASES:

Gudani vs. Senga, G.R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006

Sanlakas vs. Exec. Sec., G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004

David vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 171409, May 3, 2006

(c) Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

CASE:

Aberca vs. Ver, G.R. No. L- 69866. April 15, 1988

(d) Martial Law

CASE:

Olaguer vs. Military Commission, G.R. No. L- 54558. May 22, 1987

E. Pardoning Power (Executive Clemency) (§ 19)

CASES:

Torres vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 76872. July 23, 1987

Monsanto vs. Factoran, G.R. No. 78239. February 9, 1989

Garcia vs. COA, G.R. No. 75025. September 14, 1993

People vs. Casido, G.R. No. 116512. March 7, 1997

Vera vs. People, G.R. No. L- 18184. January 31, 1963

Republic vs. IAC, G.R. No. L- 69344. April 26, 1991

Drilon vs. CA, G.R. No. 91626. October 3, 1991

LO1 5

16



Oral Recitation,

Library

Computer

/ Internet

Books/Ca se Laws


Graded recitation

F. Borrowing Power (§ 20)

CASE:

Spouses Constantino vs. Cuisia, G.R. 106064, October 13, 2005

G. Diplomatic Power (Foreign Affairs) (§ 21)

CASES:

Pimentel vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 158088. July 6, 2005

Commissioner of Customs vs. Eastern Sea Trading, G.R. No. L- 14279. October 31, 1961

In re R. McCulloch Dick, G.R. No. 13862. April 16, 1918

Tan Tong vs. Deportation Board, G.R. No. L-7680. April 30, 1955

Canvas Discussion, Quiz

H. Budgetary Power (§ 22) I. Informing Power (§ 23) J. Other Powers

(a) Call Congress to a Special Session (Art 6, § 15)

(b) Power to approve or veto bills (Art. 6, § 27)

(c) To consent to deputation of government personnel by the Commission on Elections (Art. 19- C. § 2(4))

(d) To discipline such deputies (Art 19-C, § 2(8))

(e) Emergency powers by delegation from Congress (Art. 6, § 23(2))

(f) Tariff Powers by delegation from Congress (Art. 6, § 28(2))

(g) General Supervision over local governments and autonomous regional governments (Art. 10)

VI. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

1. Judicial Department

CASE:

Bengzon vs. Drilon, G.R. No. 103524. April 15, 1992

2. Judicial Power (§ 1) CASES:

Infotech vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 159139. June 15, 2005

Channie Tan vs. Republic, G.R. No. L- 14159. April 18, 1960

Santiago, Jr. vs. Bautista, G.R. No. L- 25024. March 30, 1970

Felipe vs. Leuterio, G.R. No. L-4606. May 30, 1952

3. Jurisdiction (§ 2) CASES:

De La Cruz vs. CA, G.R. No. 139442. December 6, 2006

Echegaray vs Sec. of Justice, G.R. No. 132601. January 19, 1999

4. The Supreme Court (§§ 4, 7-12) CASES:

In re JBC vs. Judge Quitain, JBC No. 013, August 22, 2007

Kilosbayan vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 177721, July 3, 2007

Nitafan vs. CIR, G.R. No. 78780. July 23, 1987

In Re: First Indorsement from Hon. Raul Gonzalez, A.M. No. 88-4-5433, April 15, 1988

5. Powers of the Supreme Court (§§ 5, 6, 11, 16) A. General Power B. Specific Powers

(a) Original Jurisdiction (b) Appellate Jurisdiction

CASES:

People vs. Mateo, G.R. No. 147678-87. July 7, 2004

People vs. Lagua, G.R. No. 170565, January 31, 2006

People vs. Rocha and Ramos, G.R. No. 173797, August 31, 2007

(c) Temporary Assignment of Judges

(d) Change of Venue or Place of Trial

(e) Rule-Making Power



Oral Recitation, Canvas Discussion ans Quiz

LO1 6

17

CASES: Maniago vs. CA, G.R. No.

104392. February 20, 1996

Fabian vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742. September 16, 1998

People vs. Lacson, G.R. No. 149453. April 1, 2003

PNB vs. Asuncion, G.R. No. L- 46095. November 23, 1977

Santero vs. CFI, G.R. Nos. L- 61700-03. September 14, 1987

Damasco vs. Laqui, G.R. No. 81381. September 30, 1988

Zaldivia vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 102342. July 3, 1992

LBP vs. De Leon, G.R. No. 143275. March 20, 2003

In Re: Request for Creation of

Special Division, A.M. No. 02- 1-07-SC, January 21, 2002

Library

Computer

/ Internet


(f) Appointment of Court Personnel (§5)

(g) Administrative Supervision of Courts (§6)

Books/Ca se Laws

Graded recitation

CASES: Maceda vs. Vasquez, G.R. No.

102781 April 22, 1993

Fuentes vs. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, GR.

No. 124295. October 23, 2001

(h) Disciplinary/Dismissal Powers (§11)

CASE:

People vs. Gacott, Jr., G.R. No. 116049. July 13, 1995

(i) Contempt Powers

(j) Annual Report (k) Other powers

6. Judicial Review

A. Requisites of Judicial Inquiry/Judicial Review

CASES: Francisco, Jr. vs. Nagmamalasakit

na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc., G.R. No. 160262. November 10, 2003

David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171409, May 3, 2006

B. Moot case

CASE: Province of Batangas vs. Romulo,

G.R. No. 152774. May 27, 2004 Quizon vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 177927, February 15, 2008

C. Standing/Proper Party

CASES: Legaspi vs. CSC, G.R, No. L-

72119. May 29, 1987

Francisco, Jr. vs. Fernando, G.R. No. 166501. November 16, 2006

Joya vs. PCGG, G.R. No. 96541. August 24, 1993

Gonzales vs. Narvasa, G.R. No. 140835. August 14, 2000

D. Facial Challenge

CASE:

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001

E. Political Questions

CASE:

Tañada vs. Cuenco, G.R. 1, No. L- 10520. February 28, 1957

7. Deciding a Case (§§ 4, 13-15) CASES:

Francisco vs. Permskul, G.R. No. 81006. May 12, 1989

Borromeo vs. CA, G.R. No. 82273. June 1, 1990

Prudential Bank vs. Castro, A.M. No. 2756. March 15, 1988

Hernandez vs. CA, G.R. No. 104874. December 14, 1993

8. Other Courts

A. Court of Appeals B. Court of Tax Appeals C. Sandiganbayan D. Regional Trial Courts E. Metropolitan Trial Courts F. Municipal Trial Courts in Cities G. Municipal Trial Courts H. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts I. Shari'ah Circuit Courts J. Shari'ah District Courts K. Bangsamoro Shari'ah High Court CASES: J.M. Tuason & Co. vs. CA, G.R. No. L-

18128. December 26, 1961

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_in_the_Philippines#Shari%27ah_District_Courts

Ynot vs. IAC, G.R. No. 74457. March 20, 1987

18

Final Examination

Library

Computer

/ Internet

Books/Ca se Laws

Checking and Grading of Final Examinati on Answer Booklets

Submissi on of Final Grades

4. STUDENT’S OUTPUTS

As evidence of attaining the above learning outcomes, the student is required to do and submit the following during the indicated dates of the term.

Teaching-Learning Activities Assessment Tasks

MODULE 1 – LO1-LO4 Oral Recitations, Reports, Case Digests, Written Tests




5. COURSE REQUIREMENTS

(a) The student must regularly attend the virtual class.

(b) Active participation in class discussion/oral recitation is required.

(c) Each student has to take and pass all formative (quizzes, written assignments, case digests, reports, etc.) and summative tests (midterm/final exams). Homework must be submitted the next meeting.

6. GRADING SYSTEM

Rating periods. The students will be graded for two (2) periods within the semester (midterm and final rating periods) according to the following:

1. Class Attendance 15%

2. Participation in Class Discussion / Oral Recitation 15%

3. Individual Formative Tests, Homework, Case Digests 15%

4. Summative Examination (Midterm and Final Exams) 55%

TOTAL 100%

Final Grade. The students will be given their respective final grades based on their average grades (AGs) in the mid-grading period (1st half of the term) and in the final grading grade (2nd half). The midterm rating has a weight of 45% and the final grading period accounts for 55% of the final grade.

SCHOOL OF LAW JD GRADING SYSTEM:

Number

Percentage Equivalent

Description

1.00 98 and above Excellent A

1.25 94 to <98

1.50 90 to <94 Superior

1.75 86 to <90

2.00 83 to <86 Very Good B

2.25 80 to <83

2.50 78 to <80 Good

2.75 76 to <78

3.00 75 to <76 Competent

5.00 Below 75 Fail

Prepared and submitted by: Approved by:

ATTY. ALVIN T. CLARIDADES DEAN SALVADOR B. BELARO

WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY - PHILIPPINES...COURSE SYLLABUS ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 (WITH GRADING SYSTEM)...

Documents

Transcript of WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY - PHILIPPINES...COURSE SYLLABUS ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 (WITH GRADING SYSTEM)...