A.
Concept, Scope, and Classification of Case Law
Case law refers to a broad category of official legal manifestations comprising decisions made by
individuals and bodies performing judicial and quasi-judicial roles in government. Judicial
decisions form a vital body of rules with the effect of law, reflecting legal principles derived
from court decisions.
Case law is generally classified into two main groups:
Conventional Decisions: These originate from courts of justice, whether regular or
specially constituted. (mga desisyong nagmula sa mga korte ng hustisya,
regular man o espesyal)
Subordinate Decisions: These are decisions made by administrative and legislative
tribunals following legal authorization.
More specifically, case law classification includes:
Decisions of regular courts of justice
Decisions of special courts of justice
Decisions of administrative tribunals
Decisions of legislative tribunals
Rulings of boards and commissions
Rulings of administrative officers
Opinions of government legal officers
B. The Philippine Court System
The court hierarchy in the Philippines is as follows:
Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
Sandiganbayan (anti-graft court)
Court of Tax Appeals
Regional Trial Courts
Shari’a District Courts
Metropolitan Trial Courts
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities
Municipal Trial Courts
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
1. Conventional Decisions
Decisions of the Supreme Court
Supreme Court decisions are written opinions illustrating the grounds and breadth of judgments.
Important decisions are published officially for reference and legal guidance.
Official Repositories of Supreme Court Decisions:
Advance Sheets: Early, mimeographed publications of final decisions, providing prompt
access.
Official Gazette: Government-published reports containing selected Supreme Court
decisions.
Philippine Reports: Comprehensive official collections of decisions since 1901,
arranged by promulgation date.
Philippine Reports (Reprints): Photocopied editions of volumes lost during wartime.
Jurisprudencia Filipina: Spanish editions of Philippine Reports, now discontinued.
Unofficial Publications:
Philippine Decisions: A selection of key cases historically compiled in volumes.
Philippine Reports Annotated: Private annotated editions providing legal analysis and
citation tracking.
Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA): Leading current private publication of
Supreme Court decisions starting 1961.
Supreme Court Decisions (SCD): Monthly compilations including full decisions and
expert syllabi.
Others include PHILAJUR (ceased), SCUD (unpublished decisions), SCAD (advance
decisions), and specialized reporters like The Sandiganbayan Reporter and The PCGG
Reporter.
2. Decisions of the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals acts as the intermediate appellate court. Its decisions guide lower courts
but do not establish binding jurisprudence unless ratified by the Supreme Court.
Key publications include:
Early Appellate Court Reports (two volumes only)
Advance Sheets (published 1960-1963)
Official publication of select decisions in the Official Gazette
Court of Appeals Reports (25 volumes, 1961-1980)
Court of Appeals Reports Annotated, containing selected and annotated cases
3. Decisions of Other Courts and Tribunals
Sandiganbayan: Published decisions in reports but only one volume exists.
Court of Tax Appeals: Established by law for exclusive jurisdiction on tax cases;
decisions published in the Official Gazette and digests.
Regional Trial Courts: Do not have official published reports; decisions accessed
through respective courts.
Metropolitan, Municipal Trial Courts: Also unpublished decisions, available only on
request from courts.
4. Subordinate Decisions
Electoral Tribunals
The Senate Electoral Tribunal and House Electoral Tribunal adjudicate election disputes
of members.
Composed partly of Supreme Court Justices and members of Congress.
The House Electoral Tribunal publishes its decisions in HRET Reports.
Administrative Agencies Exercising Quasi-Judicial Powers
Agencies with implied quasi-judicial powers perform investigative functions and may
decide cases under law (e.g., DFA, Commission on Immigration, Professional Regulatory
Commission).
Agencies with express quasi-judicial powers have formal judicial functions and appeals
processes (e.g., Insurance Commission, NLRC, Commission on Elections, GSIS, SSS).
Classification of Legal Sources
Classification by Authority
Primary Authority
The only authority binding on the courts.
Sources of law include the Constitution, statutes passed by Congress, decisions
promulgated by the Supreme Court, lower courts, and other quasi-judicial agencies.
Primary Authority
Mandatory primary authority refers to law created by the jurisdiction where it operates,
such as the Philippines.
Primary Authority
Persuasive mandatory authority refers to law created by other jurisdictions but having
persuasive value for Philippine courts.
Secondary Authority or Sources
Commentaries, books, treatises, writings, and journal articles that explain, discuss, or
comment on primary authorities.
Secondary Authority or Sources
Legal research for statute law in the Philippines faces challenges due to:
a) Absence of complete and updated published or printed search tools or law finders for
statute law.
b) No comprehensive compilation of statute law from 1901 to the present.
Secondary Authority or Sources
The ultimate goal of legal research is to locate mandatory primary authorities relevant to
the legal issue.
If these are scarce or absent, the next step is to seek persuasive mandatory authority.
Secondary Authority or Sources
When both primary and persuasive authorities are unavailable or insufficient, secondary
authorities, especially expert commentaries, may take precedence.
Using both primary and secondary sources is highly recommended.
Classification by Source
Primary Sources
Published by the issuing agency or in official repositories such as the Official Gazette.
The Official Gazette online was launched by the Office of the President in July 2010.
It is managed by the Presidential Communications Development and Strategic
Management Office.
Secondary Sources
Unofficial sources usually commercially published.
Not published by government agencies or instrumentalities.
Classification by Character
Statute Books
Case Law Books or Law Reports
Combination of Both
Law Finders
Include indices, citators, encyclopedias, legal dictionaries, thesauri, or digests.
The Philippines lacks up-to-date Law Finders.
Effective legal research should start from the latest available materials.
The exception applies when research covers a specific period.
Legal Research Process and Strategies
Systematic Approach to Legal Research
1. Identify and Analyze the Significant Facts
Use the TARP Rule to analyze facts according to these factors:
o T: Thing or subject matter
o A: Cause of action or group defense
o R: Relief sought
o P: Persons or parties involved
2. Formulate the Legal Issues to be Researched
This initial intellectual activity assumes some knowledge of substantive law.
The goal is to classify or categorize the problem from general to specific subject areas
and begin hypothesizing legal issues.
3. Research the Issues Presented
After analyzing facts and framing issues, start researching by:
o Organizing and planning
o Identifying, reading, and updating all relevant constitutional provisions, statutes,
and administrative regulations
o Identifying, reading, and updating all relevant case law
o Refining the research
4. Update
Law constantly changes as Congress passes new statutes and modifies old ones.
The Supreme Court also refines, reaffirms, or changes legal interpretations.
Keeping legal research current is essential.
Search Books / Law Finders
Search books or law finders guide researchers by indicating where to find cases or
statutes on specific subjects.
They usually do not contain the law itself or detailed explanations, except in rare cases.
Serve as guideposts providing explicit or general directions for locating legal authorities.
Though not authoritative sources themselves, they are valuable research tools.
Legal Textbooks
Summarize the current state of law for professional use or study.
For lawyers, textbooks compile relevant laws and court decisions.
Textbooks usually anchor the main text to extensive footnotes, tables of statutes, and
appended related laws.
Legal Encyclopedias
Provide concise yet comprehensive statements on current legal topics arranged
sequentially.
Primarily target practicing lawyers rather than students or laypeople.
Legal Dictionaries
Alphabetically arranged books defining legal terminology.
Include terms derived from lawmaking, judicial interpretation, and law administration.
Legal Digests and Indexes
Compilations of paragraph-style concise legal principles derived from statutes or case
law.
Organized under alphabetical and topical headings.
Each digested paragraph presents facts and the court’s applied legal principle.
Serve as subject indexes or topical finding tools.
Citators
The final step in legal research is law updating.
Verifies if the legal rules researched remain valid.
Shepardizing is the common technique, involving consultation of Shepard’s Citations to
check case history and court treatment.
In the case of Araullo vs. Aquino (July 1, 2014 and February 3, 2015 decisions), key issues
related to:
Blanket Authorization and Line-Spending Accelerate: The Disbursement
Acceleration Program (DAP) involved the withdrawal of unobligated allotments from
implementing agencies and declaring these as savings before the fiscal year ended. These
savings were then reallocated to fund other programs and projects, effectively
accelerating spending without specific approval by Congress.
Provision Allowing Executive (Savings): DAP allowed the executive branch, through
the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), to use savings derived from
unreleased or unobligated government funds without complying with statutory definitions
of savings in the General Appropriations Act (GAA).
Legislative Power: The Supreme Court emphasized that only Congress has the power to
appropriate funds for government spending, per Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution ("No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law"). The executive’s use of savings and cross-border transfers
under DAP violated this exclusive legislative power.
Issue on Savings: The Court declared unconstitutional the withdrawal and transfer of
unobligated allotments as savings because they were done without complying with the
conditions in the GAA. The "cross-border" transfer of savings from one branch or agency
to augment appropriations in another branch was also ruled unconstitutional.
The Court partially granted the petitions, ruling that certain acts and practices under the DAP
violated the Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers. The use of unprogrammed
appropriations without certification of revenue collection exceeding targets was also void.
Thus, the blanket authorization to accelerate spending under DAP, executive reallocation of
savings, and encroachments on legislative appropriation powers were struck down as
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Article VI, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
Legislative power is vested in the Congress of the Philippines, consisting of the Senate
and the House of Representatives.
This section embodies the principle of non-delegation of legislative power, meaning
Congress cannot delegate its lawmaking authority unless permitted by the Constitution
itself.
The rationale is to preserve the separation of powers and ensure accountability in
lawmaking.
Non-Delegation of Power Doctrine
Legislative power is considered non-delegable, except under specific constitutional
exceptions.
Courts apply the completeness test and the sufficient standards test to validate any
delegation:
1. Completeness Test
o The law must be complete in itself with essential elements or standards clearly
defined.
o It must specify the policy, purpose, and limitations for delegated authorities to
implement.
2. Sufficient Standards Test
o The law must provide adequate guidelines for the delegated entity to prevent
arbitrary or abusive exercise of power.
Article VI, Section 28 of the 1987 Constitution
Grants the President the power to fix and adjust tariffs, imports, and export quotas
after due hearings, an example of constitutionally-authorized delegation of legislative
power.
Article VI, Section 25 (5th Paragraph) of the 1987
Constitution
Establishes that "No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of
an appropriation made by law, and a regular appropriation shall be deemed one
made for a period not exceeding the current fiscal year."
This provision highlights the exclusive authority of Congress over appropriations,
prohibiting the executive from spending public funds without legislative approval.
In the case of Belgica vs. Ochoa (November 19, 2013), the Supreme Court tackled key issues
regarding:
Agricultural Programs and Malampaya/Energy Sectors: The Malampaya Fund was
established by Presidential Decree No. 910 to finance energy resource development
programs, including exploration and exploitation of indigenous energy resources crucial
to economic growth.
General Appropriations Act (GAA): The case challenged lump-sum and discretionary
funds under the GAA, such as the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and the
Malampaya Fund, for being used without adequate legislative constraints.
Malampaya Funds: Use Unrelated to Energy: The Court declared unconstitutional the
provisions that allowed the use of Malampaya Fund proceeds for purposes not related to
energy development. The fund’s broad use for "other purposes as may be hereafter
directed by the President" was ruled unconstitutional due to lack of sufficient standards
and unchecked presidential discretion.
The decision halted the release of PDAF allocations for 2013 and certain uses of the Malampaya
Fund, emphasizing the need for transparency, accountability, and adherence to constitutional
limits on public fund usage. The ruling struck down the pork barrel system, including executive
lump-sum funds like the Malampaya Fund, for violating separation of powers and improper use
of appropriated funds.
This case clarified that funds such as the Malampaya Fund must strictly be used for their
intended energy-related purposes and not diverted to unrelated projects like agricultural
programs without proper legislative authority.
In the case of Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance (August 25, 1994), the main issues and holding
were:
The case challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7716, the Expanded Value
Added Tax (EVAT) Law, particularly on the procedural grounds concerning its
legislative process.
The petitioner, Arturo Tolentino, argued that the bill did not strictly comply with Section
24, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which requires revenue bills to originate
exclusively in the House of Representatives. Specifically, Tolentino contended that
although the bill originated as House Bill No. 11197, the Senate substituted its own
version (Senate Bill No. 1630), which raised questions about the procedural validity of
the substitution process.
The Supreme Court ruled by a 9-6 vote that the practice of the Senate amending a House-
originated bill by substitution was valid and consistent with constitutional provisions
allowing the Senate to propose or concur with amendments. The Court emphasized that
the key constitutional requirement was that the initiative must come from the House of
Representatives; amendment by substitution is a procedural formality that is widely
accepted.
The Court upheld the constitutionality of RA 7716, allowing the law to be implemented.
The decision clarified that the "enrolled bill rule" applies, meaning the certified final
version of a bill signed into law is conclusive evidence of its proper enactment.
This ruling upheld the authority of the legislature to amend bills through the conference
committee process and affirmed the legitimacy of the EVAT law as a valid exercise of
congressional power.