LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT:

1. Mariano, Jr. v. Comelec, G.R. No. 118577, March 7, 1995 (242 SCRA 211).
a. Whether or not the reapportionment of legislative districts may be made by
a special law other than by a general reapportionment of the law.
b. Whether or not the addition of another legislative district in Makati is
unconstitutional because Makati's population, as per 1990 census, stands
at only 450,000.
2. Aquino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010.
a. Whether or not RA No. 9716 runs afoul of the explicit constitutional
standard that requires a minimum population of 250,000 for the creation of
a legislative district.
3. Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. Comelec, G.R. No. 203766, April 3, 2013 + 52 other
petitions).
a. 6 Parameters in determining who are qualified to participate In the party-
list system of election.
b. May a political party participate in the party-list system of elections?
4. Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec, G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995.
a. Whether or not petitioner was a resident, for election purposes, of the First
District of Leyte for a period of one year at the time of May 9, 1995
elections.
b. Concepts of "domicile" and "residence"; elements of domicile
c. Domicile of origin v. domicile of choice
5. Abundo v. Comelec, G. R. # 201716, 08 January 2013.
a. 2 conditions for the application of the three-term limit rule.
b. Whether or not Abundo is deemed to have served three consecutive terms
c. Situations and cases/jurisprudence wherein the consecutive terms were
considered or not considered as having been involuntarily interrupted or
broken.
6. Trillanes v. Castillo-Marigomen, G.R. No. 223451, March 14, 2018
a. Coverage of the privilege of speech and debate
b. Are statements in media interviews covered by the parliamentary speech
or debate privilege?
7. Osmeña, Jr. v. Pendatun, G.R. No. L-17144, October 28, 1960
a. Whether or not Resolution No. 59 adopted by the House of
Representatives violates Osmeña's constitutional parliamentary immunity
for speeches delivered in the House.
8. Bondoc v. Pineda, G.R. No. 97710, September 26, 1991.
a. Do members of the Electoral Tribunal enjoy security of tenure?
b. Valid grounds for removal of a member of the Electoral Tribunal
9. Reyes v. Comelec et al., G. R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013
a. When is a candidate considered a member of the House of
Representatives

1
 b. Jurisdiction of the Comelec vis-@-vis that of the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal over contests involving members of the House of
Representatives;
10. Daza v. Singson, G.R. No. 86344, December 21, 1989 (180 SCRA 496).
a. May the Commission on Appointments be reorganized?
b. Expanded meaning of judicial power.

POWERS OF CONGRESS:
1. Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, October 30, 1995
a. Origin of Bills
b. Does the filing of a substitute bill (revenue, tariff, tax, bills of local
application, etc.) before the Senate violate Section 24, Article VI of the
Constitution?
c. Journal v. Enrolled Bill
d. Effects of a presidential certification of a bill
2. Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, 227 SCRA 630
a. Title of bills – requirements?
b. Title of bill - when sufficient?
c. What is a bi-cameral conference committee
d. Function of a bi-cam conference committee
3. Bengzon v. Drilon, G.R. No. 103524, April 15, 1992
a. Distinction between the General Veto Power and the Item Veto Power
4. Abakada Guro Party-List v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008
a. 3 categories of oversight powers of Congress
b. What is a legislative veto? Is it constitutional?
5. Sabio et al. v. Gordon et al., G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006
a. Does the power of legislative inquiry violate the right to privacy?
6. Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate Committee on Banks, G.R. No. 167173,
December 27, 2007
a. Whether legislative inquiry would encroach upon judicial powers vested
only in courts?
7. Gudani v. Senga, G.R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006.
a. May the President prevent a member of the armed forces from testifying
before a legislative inquiry?
8. Lopez v. De Los Reyes, 55 PHIL. 170 (1930)
a. Period of imprisonment for contempt during inquiries in aid of legislation
conducted by the House of Representatives
9. Balag v. Senate of the Philippines et al., G.R. No. 234608, July 3, 2018
a. Period of imprisonment for contempt during inquiries in aid of legislation
conducted by the Senate
b. Two instances when legislative inquiry of the Senate is considered
terminated.
10. Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006
a. Appearance of Department heads under Section 22, Art. VI; What are the
conditions?

2
 b. Distinctions between the power to conduct legislative inquiry under section
21, Art. VI and the power to conduct a question hour under Section 22,
Art. VI;
c.Meaning of executive privilege; What does it include/cover?
d. Who may invoke executive privilege?

11. David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006

a. Distinction between the President's authority to declare a "State of
rebellion" and the authority to proclaim a "state of national emergency."
b. Is it within the domain of the President to promulgate "decrees?"
c. Can the President enforce obedience to all decrees and laws through the
military?
d. Limitations on emergency powers of the President under Section 23, Art.
VI and Section 17, Art. XII.
12. Garcia v. Mata, G.R. No. L-33713, July 30, 1975
a. Constitutional prohibition against non-appropriation item inserted in an
appropriation measure (Section 25 (2), Article VI).
13. Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, November 11, 2013
a. Whether or not the 2013 PDAF special provisions that allowed legislators,
after passage of the GAA, to identify projects and that accorded them
post-enactment authority in the areas of fund release and fund
realignment violation of doctrine of separation of powers.
b. Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article insofar as it confers post-enactment
identification authority to individual legislators violates the principle of non-
delegability.
c. Whether or not the legislator's identification of the projects after passage
of the GAA violates the veto power of the President.
14. Araullo v. Aquino,
a. Constitutionality of Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP)
b. The 4 acts and practices under the DAP that violated the provisions of
Section 29 (1), Art. VI and Section 25 (5), Art. VI of the Constitution
c. "Savings" defined
d. Requirements in transfer of savings.
15. Lung Center of the Philippines v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 144104, June 29,
2004
a. Whether the real properties, the hospital building and those leased to
private entities, of the Lung Center, a charitable institution, are exempt
from real property taxes.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT:

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

3
 a. Whether or not Estrada resigned as President.
b. Whether or not Estrada is only temporarily unable to act as
President.
2. Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 83896,
February 22, 1991
a. Does the prohibition in Section 13, Article VII of the
Constitution, insofar as Cabinet members, their deputies
or assistants are concerned, admit of the broad exceptions
made for appointive officials in general provided under
Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B?
b. To what particular instances does the phrase “unless
otherwise provided in this Constitution” refer?
c. Does the prohibition against holding dual or multiple
offices under Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution
apply to posts occupied by the Executive officials specified
therein without additional compensation in an ex-officio
capacity as provided by law and as required by the primary
functions of said official’s office?
3. Rubrico et al. v Arroyo et al., G.R. No. 183871, February 18, 2010
a. Whether or not the President may be sued during his
tenure of office?

POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT:

1. Sarmiento v. Mison, G.R. No. 79974, December 17, 1987

a. What are the four (4) groups of officers whom the President
shall appoint under Section 16, Article VII of the
Constitution?
b. Whether EACH of the 4 groups of officers is appointed by
the President with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments (CA).
c. Whether the appointment of the Commissioner of the
Bureau of Customs is subject to the consent of the CA.
2. Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002
a. Whether or not the assumption of office of Benipayo, Borra
and Tuazon on the basis of the ad interim appointments
issued by the President amounts to a temporary
appointment prohibited by Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the
Constitution.
a.1. Nature of an ad interim appointment.
b. Whether or not the renewal of their ad interim
appointments and subsequent assumption of office to the
same positions wiolate the prohibition on re-appointment
under Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.

4
 3. IBP v. Zamora et al., G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000.,
a. Whether or not petitioner has legal standing.
b. Whether or not the President’s factual determination of the
necessity of calling the armed forces is subject to judicial
review.
c. Whether or not the calling of the armed forces to assist the
PNP in joint visibility patrols violates the constitutional
provisions on civilian supremacy over the military and the
civilian character of the PNP.
4. Lagman et al. v. Medialdea, et al., G.R. No. 231658, July 4, 2017.
a. Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing to file
the petitions.
b. Whether or not the petitions are the "appropriate
proceeding" covered by paragraph 3, Section 18, Article VII
of the Constitution sufficient to invoke the mode of review
required of the Supreme Court when a declaration of
martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is promulgated.
c. Whether or not the power of the Court to review the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of
martial law under Section 18, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution is independent of the actions taken by
Congress.
d. Whether or not there were sufficient factual basis for the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus:
d.1. The “sufficiency of factual basis test”.
d.2. What are the parameters for review?
d.3. What is the threshold of evidence?
e. Was there is sufficient factual basis for the declaration of
martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus?
5. Llamas v. Orbos et al., G.R. No. 99031, October 15, 1991.
a. Whether or not the President of the Philippines has the
power to grant executive clemency in administrative cases.
6. Vidal v. Comelec and Estrada, G.R. No. 206666, January 21,
2015.
a. Whether or not the pardoning power of the President can
be limited by legislative action.
8. Pangilinan v. Cayetano, et al. G.R. No. 238875, March 16, 2021.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT:

1. Macalintal v. PET, G.R. No. 191618, November 23, 2010.

5
 a. Whether the creation of the PET is unconstitutional for
being a violation of paragraph 7, Section 4 of Article VII of
the Constitution.
b. Whether the designation of members of the Supreme Court
as members of the PET is unconstitutional for being a
violation of Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution.
b.1. Nature of the power being performed by the PET.
2. De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council et al., G.R. No. 191002,
March 17, 2010. (+6 other petitions)
a. Whether or not the petitioners have locus standi.
b. Whether or not the petitions set forth an actual case or
controversy that is ripe for judicial determination.
c. Whether or not the constitutional prohibition against
appointment under Section 15, Article VII of the
Constitution, apply to appointments to fill a vacancy in the
Supreme Court or to other appointments to the Judiciary.
d. Does the incumbent President have the power and
authority to appoint during the election ban the successor
of Chief Justice Puno when he vacates the position of Chief
Justice on his retirement on May 17, 2010?
3. Aguinaldo, et al. v. Aquino et al., G.R. No. 224302, November 29,
2016
a. Whether or not petitioners Aguinaldo et al. are the proper
parties to a quo warranto proceeding.
b. whether President Aquino, under the circumstances, was
limited to appoint only from the nominees in the shortlist
submitted by the JBC for each specific vacancy.
c. Constitutionality of the clustering of nominees by the JBC
4. Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation, G.R. No. 166006,
March 14, 2008.
a. Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction to decide
constitutional questions.
b. Effects of a declaration of unconstitutionality of a law.
c. What is the doctrine of operative fact.
5. GIOS-Samar, Inc., v. DOTC, G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019.
a. Doctrine of Hierarchy Courts in relation to Section 5(1),
Article VIII.
6. Maceda v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 102781, April 22, 1993.
a. Whether the Office of the Ombudsman could entertain a
criminal complaint for the alleged falsification of a judge's
certification submitted to the Supreme Court, and
assuming that it can, whether a referral should be made
first to the Supreme Court.
7. Ampong v. CSC, G.R. No. 167916, August 26, 2008.

6
 a. Whether the CSC has administrative jurisdiction over an
employee of the Judiciary for acts committed while said
employee was still with the Executive or Education
Department.
8. People v. Judge Gacott, Jr., G.R. No. 116049, July 13, 1995.
a. Whether or not only the Supreme Court En Banc, not a
Division thereof, has the power to discipline judges of lower
courts.