Constitutional Law 1 Case List
Constitutional Law 1 Case List
Constitutional Law I
First Semester, 2017
Thursdays, 6:00-9:00pm | Room 407
FEU Institute of Law
Syllabus
Course Information
This course offers a comprehensive study of the Philippine constitutional law – its nature, formation
and amendment, operation, construction, and interpretation. The course will be devoted to the
provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution [except the Bill of Rights] and their interplay which
determine the political organization of the state, and how the political relations between the state and
the individuals are regulated. Below are the objectives of the class:
1. Constitutional Text, Doctrine, and History. By the end of the course, you should be familiar
with the Constitution itself (text, structure, etc.) and the doctrine—the rules and principles set
forth by the Supreme Court—in the areas we study. You should also have a sense of how the
doctrine has developed over time.
2. Constitutional Theory. By the end of the course, you should be familiar with and able to
evaluate critically the major theories on how the Constitution should be interpreted and who
should interpret it.
3. Legal Analysis and Argument. This course should improve your ability to read cases, identify
the rules, doctrines and principles they set forth, and situate them in the relevant body of
doctrine. This course should hone your ability to communicate legal arguments clearly,
concisely and persuasively—both orally and in writing.
Preparation and participation are basic requirements. We will cultivate an ethos of community and
accountability. We treat each other with respect, even as we encourage debate and critical thinking.
Students are expected to read the assigned cases and other readings in advance of class, attend every
class, and participate actively in section discussions. You will be evaluated on your mastery of the
materials, use of critical thinking skills, active participation, short reflection paper, and midterms and
finals scores. The grading rubric is as follows:
Participation 35%
Discussion Questions 5%
Recitation & Discussion Participation 30%
2 Reflection Papers (2 pages, double space, font size 12) 15%
Pre-Midterms 7.5%
Pre-Finals 7.5%
Midterm Exam 20%
Finals Exam 30%
Discussion Questions
Every week, students must submit TWO open-ended discussion questions that directly concern the
readings due. The deadline is 12 midnight before our class meets. These questions should not be
inquiries for more factual information. One quick way to decide whether you have generated a
1
discussion question is to ask yourself if you could find the answer to your question by searching the
internet. If you could—if you are asking for facts—then it is not a discussion question. All questions
will be graded on a credit/no credit basis, which means as long as you turn in open-ended questions
on time, you will receive full credit. This weekly assignment should take no more than a few minutes
of your time.
I ask you to send me your questions because I am interested in what caught your attention, what you
think deserve more attention, or what is puzzling or even confusing you. Generally, I want to reinforce
the idea that we should all be generating questions as we read, rather than just looking for the final
holding of the Supreme Court or the so-called “right” rules, doctrines and principles. Further, it is
actually quite difficult to come up with good questions and learning to do so is a skill. Please take this
opportunity to be creative. Don’t be afraid to ask big questions, but please keep them within the context
of the readings of the day. Always feel free to think beyond the readings and discussions.
The discussion questions can be a helpful resource when you’re trying to figure out a final refection
paper topic. Think through the questions that have been posed (your own or those written by your
colleagues) and see what sparks a possible short paper.
Required Readings
This course uses the book of Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. titled, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines: A Commentary, 2009 Edition along with assigned cases and other supplemental materials
that will be distributed in class. You need not purchase the book.
I have attached here a tentative list of readings/cases. Please note that I will likely make changes as the
semester progresses based on the pace of discussions and other developments. Any changes will be
announced in class.
Class Participation
This class will be very interactive. Although I’ll be calling students randomly every meeting, there is a
chance that you may be called more than once to respond to questions regarding the assigned material.
We will use the Socratic method in order to flesh out how the legal doctrines fit into the larger legal
context and what the practical stakes of the doctrines are. Recitations may also involve more than one
student reciting (e.g., two opposing counsels) because I want the Socratic method to help students
develop the habit of finding the weaknesses of their own arguments. You should be able to answer not
only my questions but the questions of your classmates as well. But more importantly, you should be
able to anticipate the questions as you read the material – a significant lawyerly skill. A major goal of
the Socratic method is to make the teacher unnecessary. For the length of your career, you will do it on
your own, or with the other lawyers who are on your team.
Every student should be able to answer and participate every class meeting. Being prepared is essential.
I do not expect perfect answers but I do expect that you have read the material thoroughly. Volunteers
are also welcome and encouraged. Please notice that, in our discussions, quantity and quality are not
the same thing. A high participation grade isn’t only about speaking a lot. Listening to other students,
doing your best to build into the conversation as opposed to subtracting from it, and being willing to
describe how your thoughts might be changing are all necessary to get the highest scores. Moreover,
listening thoughtfully and respectfully are big components as well.
It is my hope that our course will involve lots of discussion. Please come prepared to share your
thoughts, questions, uncertainties, and enthusiasm. In general, excellent participation in discussion
includes: coming prepared to discuss the cases/readings assigned (i.e. do the homework), listening
2
intently to other students’ thoughts, responding to them, sharing your ideas, being open to change your
mind, and reflect on any changes you might experience.
Attendance
Attendance and participation are mandatory. Once you are called and you are absent, you will
automatically get a FAIL grade. It is your responsibility to inform me of any absences related to official
university business. Also, contact me if you encounter any emergencies (health, family, etc.) that could
affect your attendance. If you are unable to participate or attend class on a particular day, please email
me in advance. I may ask for documentation supporting your request for an excused absence (i.e. a
doctor’s note).
Laptop/Mobile Devices
I will be imposing a strict policy against the use of laptops and cell phones during class. Students are
not permitted to use laptops to take notes. I believe we all learn better with fewer distractions. If you
have a special circumstance that makes your laptop necessary for learning, please ask for my
permission first.
I highly recommend that each of you choose a class partner or groupmates for this course. You will
better learn the material if you articulate your understanding of the material with peers who will
question, criticize and assist you so as to hone your understanding. There may also be times where we
break into groups during class for this purpose.
Class rosters are provided to the instructor with the student’s legal name. I will gladly honor your
request to address you by an alternate name or gender pronoun. Please advise me of this preference
so that I can make appropriate changes to my records. If your name or gender pronoun changes
during the semester, I am happy to accommodate this as well.
Preliminary Readings:
(Week 1)
PART 1: HOW TO READ THE CONSTITUTION
I. Textualism
3
• Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, 338 SCRA 81, Aug. 15, 2000 (focus on
commander-in-chief powers discussion)
• David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. 171396, 489 SCRA 161, May 3, 2006 (focus on commander-in-chief
powers discussion)
• CONST. art. IX-C, § 1(1)
• Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, 201 SCRA 210, Sep. 3, 1991
II. Structuralism
• Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, 177 SCRA 668, Sep. 15, 1989 (majority opinion by Justice Irene
Cortes) (focus on executive power discussion)
• McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)1 (focus on whether the US Congress had the power to
create a bank)
• De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 191002, Mar. 17, 2010 (focus on midnight appointment
of Chief Justice Renato Corona)
III. Originalism
• Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 415 SCRA 44, Nov. 10, 2003 (focus on use of
Constitutional Commission deliberations in discussing judicial power and the one-year bar in
impeachment)
• De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 191002, Mar. 17, 2010 (focus on use of Constitutional
Commission deliberations in justifying midnight appointment of Chief Justice Renato Corona)
• Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 203766, Apr. 2, 2013 (focus on use of
Constitutional Commission deliberations in determining whether the party-list system is solely for
marginalized sectors)2
1 Available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0017_0316_ZO.html
2 This more recent decision reversed Ang Bagong Bayani v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 147589, 359 SCRA 698,
Jun. 26, 2001.
3 This is the single most important American case in Constitutional Law but extremely difficult to read. A summary
4
(Week 2)
PART 3: THE SPECTRUM OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
• Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 415 SCRA 44, Nov. 10, 2003 (Puno, J., separate
opinion) (focus on coordinacy theory)
• Franklin Drilon, Judging Congress, 79 PHIL. L.J. 35 (2004) 7
• Oscar Franklin Tan, The 2004 Canvass: It is Emphatically the Province and Duty of Congress to Say
What Congress Is, 79 PHIL. L.J. 39, 60-72 (2004)8
6 http://pcij.org/blog/2007/07/17/no-room-for-neutrality-in-protecting-human-rights-puno#more-1834
7 copy to be emailed to class beadle
8 copy to be emailed to class beadle
5
• Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, 421 SCRA 656, Feb. 3, 2004 (focus on whether or not
the Court ruled whether the state of rebellion after the Oakwood mutiny was valid and the effect of the
lifting of the state of rebellion)
• David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. 171396, 489 SCRA 161, May 3, 2006 (focus on the section “moot and
academic principle” in relation to the state of national emergency and the effect of the lifting of the state
of national emergency)
• Fortun v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 190293, Mar. 20, 2012 (focus on whether or not the Court ruled
whether the declaration of martial law in Maguindanao after the Ampatuan massacre was valid and
the effect of the lifting of martial law)
• Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on
Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591, Oct. 14, 2008 (focus on the section “mootness” in relation to the
first Memorandum of Agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the effect of the
government’s declaration that it no longer intended to sign the MOA-AD)
(Week 3)
PART 4: ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT IN JUDICIAL REVIEW
(continued)
V. Standing
[for the following cases, focus on the standing issues on (a) why must a party have the proper standing
before being allowed to raise a constitutional issue in court? and (b) what kind of injury, generally,
must a party prove to establish standing?]
• Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 415 SCRA 44, Nov. 10, 2003 (focus on
standing issues specified above; read footnote 15)
• Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, 421 SCRA 656, Feb. 3, 2004 (focus on standing issues
specified above)
• David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. 171396, 489 SCRA 161, May 3, 2006 (focus on standing issues
specified above and distinguish how the standing of a people’s organization was recognized from how
such standing was treated in Sanlakas)
• Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on
Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591, Oct. 14, 2008 (focus on standing issues and distinguish the taxpayer
standing claim of Senators Ernesto Maceda and Franklin Drilon)
• Fortun v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 120293, Mar. 20, 2012 (focus on standing issues in the context
of a declaration of martial law, and distinguish the standing of “any citizen” from all other invocations
of citizen standing in all other cases)
6
• Hacienda Luisita Inc. v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, G.R. No. 171101, 653 SCRA 154, Jul.
5, 2011 (focus on when the constitutional issue was raised; ignore the other issues)
VIII. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction over all matters
(Week 4)
PART 4: ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT IN JUDICIAL REVIEW
(continued)
7
• Duncan Ass’n of Detailman-PTGWO v. Glaxo-Wellcome Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 162994, 438 SCRA
343, Sep. 17, 2004 (focus on the discussion of Glaxo having a right to guard its trade secrets and a right
to reasonable returns on investments; ignore the discussion on the right to marry)
• CONST. art. XIII, § 4
• Hacienda Luisita Inc. v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, G.R. No. 171101, 653 SCRA 154, Jul.
5, 2011 (Corona, C.J., concurring and dissenting) (focus on the section “Court’s duty to confront
constitutional question and compare the discussion of whether the constitutional provision on land
reform is self executing with the discussion in the majority opinion)
(Week 5)
PART 4: ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT IN JUDICIAL REVIEW
(continued)
XIII. The expansion of judicial power’s scope under the 1987 Constitution
• Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, 301 SCRA 96, Jan. 19, 1999 (focus on the Court’s
control over the execution of a judgment)
• Metro Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. No. 171947, Feb.
15, 2011 (focus on the Court’s control over the execution of a judgment contrasted with encroachment
on executive power)
• League of Cities of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 176951, Aug. 24, 2010 (note
the date of the decision; focus on the section “Operative Fact Doctrine”)
9Available at http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2011/12/12/articles-of-impeachment-against-chief-justice-renato-
c-corona-december-12-2011/
8
• Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 202242, Jul. 17, 2012 (focus on the discussion of the
operative fact doctrine at the end of the decision)
• Belgica v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013 (focus on the discussion of the
operative fact doctrine at the end of the decision)
• Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014 (focus on the discussion of the operative fact doctrine)
(Week 6)
PART 5: THE SUPREME COURT AND THE JUDICIARY
(continued)
10 Available at http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm.
9
• In re Matter of Impeachment of Renato C. Corona, Verified Complaint for Impeachment, art. VIII,
Dec. 12, 2011
• Metro Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. No. 171947, Feb.
15, 2011 (Carpio, J., dissenting) (focus on the argument that the Court was improperly performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions)
• Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 191618, 635 SCRA 783, Nov. 23, 2010 (focus on
whether the Justices as members of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal were improperly performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions)
(Week 7)
PART 6: EXECUTIVE POWER
II. The power of control and the doctrine of qualified political agency
10
• Angeles v. Gaite, G.R. No. 176596, Mar. 23, 2011 (focus on the application of the doctrine of qualified
political agency to the libel case being discussed and its review by the Department of Justice and the
Office of the President; the full background facts of this case are in the original 2009 decision)
• CONST. art. X, §§ 2, 4
• CONST. art. II, § 25
• Drilon v. Lim, G.R. No. 112497, 235 SCRA 135, Aug. 4, 1994 (focus on the difference between the
exercise of supervision versus control with respect to a local government unit)
(Week 8)
PART 6: EXECUTIVE POWER
(continued)
11
• CONST. art. XVI, § 6
• CONST. art. VI, § 18
• Calderon v. Carale, G.R. No. 91636, 208 SCRA 254, Apr. 23, 1992 (quoting the landmark decision
Sarmiento v. Mison, G.R. No. 79974, 156 SCRA 549, Dec. 17, 1987)
• Rufino v. Endriga, G.R. No. 139554, 496 SCRA 13, Jul. 21, 2006
• Luego v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 69137, 143 SCRA 327, Aug. 5, 1986 (ignore the facts and
focus on the doctrine regarding the nature of appointment as an essentially discretionary power and
how the Commission on Appointments and Civil Service Commission restrict the President’s power of
appointment)
• CONST. art. VII, §§ 13-15
• De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 191002, Mar. 17, 2010 (focus on the discussion of the
restrictions on the President’s power of appointment and how these restrictions apply to the judiciary)
• Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, 380 SCRA 49, Apr. 2, 2002 (focus on the validity of the ad
interim appointments involved)
• Pimentel v. Ermita, G.R. No. 164978, 472 SCRA 587, Oct. 13, 2005
• Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 203372, June 16, 2015 (focus on discussion of
why Arroyo’s midnight appointments were not valid)
II. Succession
• Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710, 356 SCRA 108, Mar. 2, 2001 (focus on the section “Whether or
not the petitioner enjoys immunity from suit”)
12
• CONST. art. VI, §§ 21, 22
• Exec. Order No. 464 (2005)
• Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, 488 SCRA 1, Apr. 20, 2006 (ignore the discussion of the right to
information)
• Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, G.R. No. 180643,
Mar. 25, 2008 (read the majority opinion and the dissent of Chief Justice Reynato Puno)
(Week 9)
PART 8: LAWMAKING
I. Composition
13
• CONST. art. VI, §§ 1-8
• Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 202242, Jul. 17, 2012 (focus on the discussion of Congress’
bicameral structure)
• Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No. 157870, 570 SCRA 411, Nov. 3, 2008 (focus
on the Pimentel petition)
• Sema v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 177597, 558 SCRA 700, Jul. 16, 2008 (focus on discussion
of creation and reapportionment of congressional districts)
• Aquino v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189793, 617 SCRA 623, Apr. 7, 2010 (focus on discussion
of creation of congressional districts)
(Week 10)
PART 9: CONGRESS AND ITS STRUCTURE
(continued)
IV. Restrictions
14
• Pimentel v. Senate Committee of the Whole, G.R. No. 187714, Mar. 8, 2011 (focus on definition of a
quorum and when internal rules must be published)
• Garcillano v. House Committee on Public Information, G.R. No. 170338, 575, SCRA 170, Dec. 23, 2008
(focus on requirement for publication of internal rules for legislative inquiries)
(Week 11)
PART 8: IMPEACHMENT
I. Common provisions
15
• Jaramilla v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 155717, 414 SCRA 337, Oct. 23, 2003 (focus on how
Commission on Elections decides quasi-judicial versus administrative issues; ignore the merits of the
case)
• Cayetano v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 193846, Apr. 12, 2011
• Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 203766, Apr. 2, 2013 (focus on
interpretation of art. IX-C, § 7)
• Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 119976, 248 SCRA 300, Sep. 18, 1995 (Puno,
J., concurring) (focus on interpretation of art. IX-C, § 10)
• Rep. Act No. 9006, §§ 2, 10 (the Fair Election Act) (2001)
• Commission on Elections Resolution No. 9615, § 14 (Implementing the Fair Election Act) (2013)
• National Press Club v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 102653, Mar. 5, 1992 (focus on the authority
of the Commission on Elections to enforce a right of reply)
16
• Pimentel v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 141489, Nov. 29, 2002 (focus on
whether an electoral tribunal must have party-list congressmen as members)
• Bondoc v. Pineda, G.R. No. 97710, 201 SCRA 792, Sep. 26, 1991 (focus on independence and security
of tenure associated with electoral tribunal)
I. Constitutional Amendments
(Week 12)
PART 11: PUTTING IT TOGETHER: THE BROADER CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME
• Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, The Federalist No. 51, INDEPENDENT JOURNAL, Feb. 6,
1788
• Macalintal v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 157013, 505 SCRA 160, Jul. 10, 2003 (Puno, J.,
concurring and dissenting) (focus on section “separation of powers and checks and balances”)
• CONST. art. I
• CONST. art. XII, § 2(2)
• Collector of Internal Revenue v. Campos Rueda, G.R. No. 13250, 42 SCRA 23, Oct. 29, 1971 (focus on
definition of a state)
17
• Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on
Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591, Oct. 14, 2008 (focus on “Second Substantive Issue”)
IV. Citizenship
18
• Bengson v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 142840, 357 SCRA 545, May 7, 2001
(focus on “On the issue of citizenship” and Part 4 of Justice Artemio Panganiban’s concurring opinion)
• Co v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 92191, 199 SCRA 692, Jul. 30, 1991 (focus
on “On the issue of citizenship”)
• Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, G.R. No. 83882, 169 SCRA 364, Jan. 24, 1989 (focus on whether renunciation
of citizenship needs to be explicit)
• Sobejana-Condon v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 198742, Aug. 10, 2012 (focus on “Petitioner
is disqualified from running for elective office for failure to renounce her Australian citizenship”)
• In re Muneses, B.M. No. 2112, Jul. 24, 2012
• Cordora v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 176947, Feb. 19, 2009 (focus on “Tambunting’s dual
citizenship” and “requirements for dual citizens”)
III. Supremacy of civilian authority over the military / national police force
V. Right to health
19
VI. Right to balanced and healthful ecology
XIII. Monopolies
20
• CONST. art. XII, § 19
• Garcia v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 157584, 583 SCRA 119, Apr. 2, 2009 (focus on “Actual Case
Controversy Susceptible of Judicial Determination”
21