Gamboa vs. Teves,  652 SCRA 690 (2011) FACTS On 28 February 2007, petitioner filed the instant petition for prohibition, injunction, declaratory relief, and declaration of nullity of sale of the 111,415 PTIC shares. Petitioner claims, among others, that the sale of the 111,415 PTIC shares would result in an increase in First Pacific's common shareholdings in PLDT from 30.7 percent to 37 percent, and this, combined with Japanese NTT DoCoMo's common shareholdings in PLDT, would result to a total foreign common shareholdings in PLDT of 51.56 percent which is over the 40 percent constitutional limit. Petitioner asserts: If and when the sale is completed, First Pacific's equity in PLDT will go up from 30.7 percent to 37.0 percent of its common - or voting- stockholdings, x x x. Hence, the consummation of the sale will put the two largest foreign investors in PLDT - First Pacific and Japan's NTT DoCoMo, which is the world's largest wireless telecommunications firm, o...

Tolentino vs. COMELEC,  41 SCRA 702 (1971)  FACTS A Constitutional Convention was called upon to propose amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines, in which, the delegates to the said Convention were all elected under and by virtue of resolutions and the implementing legislation thereof, Republic Act 6132. The Convention approved Organic Resolution No. 1, amending section one of article 5 of the Constitution of the Philippines to lower the voting age to 18. Said resolution also provided in its Section 3 that the partial amendment, which refers only to the age qualification for the exercise of suffrage shall be without prejudice to other amendments that will be proposed in the future by the 1971 Constitutional Convention on other portions of the amended Section or on other portions of the entire Constitution.  The main thrust of the petition is that Organic Resolution No. 1 and the other implementing resolutions thereof subsequently approved by the Convention h...

Lambino vs. COMELEC,  G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006  FACTS Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 constitution, they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under RA 6735. Lambino group alleged that the petition had the support of  6M individuals fulfilling what was provided by art 17 of the constitution. Their petition changes the 1987 constitution by modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and sections 1-4 of Art 7 and by adding Art 18. the proposed changes will shift the present bicameral- presidential form of government to unicameral- parliamentary. COMELEC denied the petition due to lack of enabling law governing initiative petitions and invoked the Santiago Vs. Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to implement the initiative Petitions. ISSUE Whether the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of ...

PIRMA vs. COMELEC,  G.R. No. 129745, September 23, 1997  TOPIC/DOCTRINE Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self  executory, thus, without implementing legislation the same cannot operate.The right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative would remain entombed in the cold niche of the Constitution until Congress provides for its implementation. Under Section 2 of R.A. No. 6735, the people are not accorded the power to “directly propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution” through the system of initiative—they can only do so with respect to “laws, ordinances, or resolutions.” FACTS Private respondent Atyy,. Jesus Delfin, president of People’s Private initiative for Reforms,Modernization and Action (PIRMA), filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution to lift the term limits of elective officials, through People’s Initiative. He based this petition on Article X...

Garcia vs. COMELEC,  237 SCRA 279 (1994) TOPIC/DOCTRINE Two Kinds of Legislative Power; Original legislative power is possessed by the sovereign people while derivative legislative power is that which has been delegated to legislative bodies, and is subordinate to the original power of the people. RESOLUTION- used whenever the legislature wishes to express an opinion which to have only a temporary effect. ORDINANCE- intended primarily to permanently direct and control matters applying to persons or things in general. FACTS In Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan agreed to the inclusion of the municipality of Morong as part of the Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ) in accord with RA no. 7227, otherwise known as the Bases Conversion Development Act of 1992. In May 24, 1993, Petitioners filed a petition to annul the Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993. In the said petition, they set some conditions which they want to be comp...

Michael M. vs. Superior Court,  450 US 464 (1981) FACTS Section 261.5 of the California Penal Code prohibited sex with a female under the age of 18 but did not prohibit sex with males under the age of 18. A 17-year-old named Michael M. was charged under this law after he had sex with a woman under age 18. He argued that the complaint should be set aside because the statute excluded males from its coverage, which meant that it violated the Equal Protection Clause, but the state courts rejected this argument. Whether or not the policy violates the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution. (NO) HELD The court held that The state has a significant interest in preventing teenage pregnancies, which are likely to result either in abortion or in children who become wards of the state. Teenage boys are not similarly situated to teenage girls because they are not capable of becoming pregnant. Females also are more likely than males to suffer psychological and emotional conse...

University of California vs. Bakke,  438 US 265 (1978) FACTS  The University of California implemented a specific racial quotas , such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students who are allowed to enroll in the School for Medicine.   Whether or not the policy violates the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution. (YES) HELD  The court held that Affirmative action programs that take race into account can continue to play a role in the college admissions process, since creating a diverse classroom environment is a compelling state interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. State universities go too far, however, when they set a certain quota for the number of minority students who enroll. Lawyal (@lawyalstudent)

Brown vs. Board of Education,  347 US 483 (1954); 349 US 294 (1955) FACTS The entirely self-supporting disability insurance system in California paid benefits to people in private employment who were temporarily unable to work but would not be eligible for workers' compensation benefits. Each employee contributed one percent of his or her income to the fund in exchange for being insured against the risk of disability resulting from many types of mental and physical injuries and illnesses. However, the program defined "disability" in a way that excluded certain pregnancy-related disabilities. Women suffering from these disabilities, who otherwise would have been eligible to receive benefits under the program, argued that it violated the Equal Protection Clause. The lower court agreed that the program engaged in gender discrimination. Whether or not the law violates the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution. (NO) HELD S tates are not constitutionally req...

Plessy vs. Ferguson,  163 US 537 (1896) FACTS  Homer Plessy, a free man who was seven-eighths white and one-eighth of African descent, agreed to participate in a test case to challenge a Louisiana law known as the Separate Car Act. This law required that railroads provide separate cars and other accommodations for whites and African-Americans. The Comite des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens) was a group of New Orleans residents from a variety of ethnic backgrounds that sought to repeal this law. They asked Plessy, who was technically African-American under Louisiana law, to sit in a whites-only car. He bought a first-class ticket and boarded the whites-only car of the East Louisiana Railroad in a train for Covington. The railroad cooperated in the test case because it viewed the law as imposing unnecessary additional costs through the purchase of more railroad cars. It knew about the intention to challenge the law, and the Committee of Citizens also enlisted a private dete...

Yick Wo vs. Hopkins,  118 US 365 (1886) FACTS  The immigration of Chinese to California began in 1850 at the beginning of the Gold Rush . They soon began to branch out to jobs in agriculture and made up a large group of railroad workers. As the Chinese became more successful, tensions with Americans grew. Californians were wary of the cultural and ethnic differences. [2] The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first of many pieces of legislation put into place to keep people from China from entering the United States. [3] The government of California worked to prevent Chinese immigrants from working by requiring certain permits that they could not obtain, and passed legislation to prevent naturalization. [2] Many turned to the laundry business and in San Francisco about 89% of the laundry workers were of Chinese descent. It was often the only job they could find. In 1880, the elected officials of the city of San Francisco passed an ordinance making it illegal to ...

Bradwell vs. Illinois,  83 US 103 (1873) FACTS I n 1869, Myra Bradwell passed the Illinois bar exam and applied for admission to the Illinois bar in accordance with a state statute that permitted any adult of good character and with sufficient training to be admitted to the practice of law. Because she was a woman, however, the Illinois Supreme Court denied her admission, noting that the "strife" of the bar would surely destroy femininity. The legal rationale was based on the common law doctrine of coverture which denied a married woman a legal existence apart from her husband. Bradwell appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court , arguing that her right to practice law was protected by the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . Whether or not the decision violates the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution. (NO) RULING The court held that the second section of the fourth article is inapplicable, because the plainti...