Ebralinag v Cebu G.R. No.

95770 March 1, 1993

J. Grino-Aquino

Facts:
All the petitioners in these two cases were expelled from their classes by the public school authorities in
Cebu for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by
Republic Act No. 1265 and DECS Department Order No. 8 which stipulated compulsory flag ceremonies
in all educational institutions.
Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and
recite the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of worship" or "religious devotion" which
they "cannot conscientiously give . . . to anyone or anything except God"
They consider the flag as an image or idol representing the State. They allege that the action of the local
authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on the
State's power and invades the sphere of the intellect and spirit which the Constitution protects against
official control.
Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education- In requiring school pupils to participate in the flag salute, the
State thru the Secretary of Education is not imposing a religion or religious belief or a religious test on
said students. It is merely enforcing a non-discriminatory school regulation applicable to all alike.
Under the Administrative Code of 1987, Any teacher or student or pupil who refuses to join or participate
in the flag ceremony may be dismissed after due investigation. (This was due to Gerona)
In 1989, the DECS Regional Office in Cebu received complaints about teachers and pupils belonging to
the Jehovah's Witnesses, and enrolled in various public and private schools, who refused to sing the
Philippine national anthem, salute the Philippine flag and recite the patriotic pledge.
Cebu school officials resorted to a number of ways to persuade the children of Jehovah's Witnesses to
obey the memorandum. In the Buenavista Elementary School, the children were asked to sign an
Agreement (Kasabutan) in the Cebuano dialect promising to sing the national anthem, place their right
hand on their breast until the end of the song and recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
However, things took a turn for the worst. In the Daan Bantayan District, the District Supervisor, Manuel
F. Biongcog, ordered the "dropping from the rolls" of students who "opted to follow their religious belief
which is against the Flag Salute Law" on the theory that "they forfeited their right to attend public
schools."
43 students were subsequently expelled after refusing to sing.
The petition in G.R. No. 95887 was filed by 25 students who were similarly expelled because Dr. Pablo
Antopina, who succeeded Susana Cabahug as Division Superintendent of Schools, would not recall the
expulsion orders of his predecessor. Instead, he verbally caused the expulsion of some more children of
Jehovah's Witnesses.
The petitioning students filed on account of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondents in
violating their due process and their right to education. They alleged for the nullity of the expulsion or
dropping from the rolls of petitioners from their respective schools, prohibiting respondents from further
barring the petitioners from their classes, and compelling the respondent and all persons acting for him to
admit and order the re-admission of petitioners to their respective schools. They also prayed for a TRO.
On November 27, 1990, the Court issued a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction commanding the respondents to immediately re-admit the petitioners to their
respective classes until further orders from this Court.
The OSG commented on the defense of the expulsion orders and claimed that the flag salute was devoid
of any religious significance and the State had compelling interests to expel the children.

Issue: Whether school children who are members or a religious sect known as Jehovah's Witnesses may
be expelled from school (both public and private), for refusing, on account of their religious beliefs, to take
part in the flag ceremony which includes playing (by a band) or singing the Philippine national anthem,
saluting the Philippine flag and reciting the patriotic pledge.

Held: No. Petition granted.

Ratio:
Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest
protection among human rights, for it involves the relationship of man to his Creator
The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect, vis., freedom to believe and freedom
to act on one's belief. The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought.
The second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public
welfare.
Petitioners stress, however, that while they do not take part in the compulsory flag ceremony, they do not
engage in "external acts" or behavior that would offend their countrymen who believe in expressing their
love of country through the observance of the flag ceremony. Ie. they stand quietly during the ceremony.
The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise of religious freedom is the existence
of a grave and present danger of a character both grave and imminent, of a serious evi l to public safety,
public morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest, that the State has a right (and duty) to
prevent.
We are not persuaded that by exempting the Jehovah's Witnesses from saluting the flag, singing
the national anthem and reciting the patriotic pledge, this religious group which admittedly comprises a
"small portion of the school population" will shake up our part of the globe and suddenly produce a nation
"untaught and uninculcated in and unimbued with reverence for the flag, patriotism, love of country and
admiration for national heroes
Expelling or banning the petitioners from Philippine schools will bring about the very situation that this
Court had feared in Gerona. Forcing a small religious group, through the iron hand of the law, to
participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, will hardly be conducive to love of country or
respect for dully constituted authorities.
Furthermore, let it be noted that coerced unity and loyalty even to the country assuming that such unity
and loyalty can be attained through coercion is not a goal that is constitutionally obtainable at the
expense of religious liberty. A desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means.
Moreover, the expulsion of members of Jehovah's Witnesses from the schools where they are enrolled
will violate their right as Philippine citizens, under the 1987 Constitution, to receive free education, for it is
the duty of the State to "protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education . . . and to make
such education accessible to all
We hold that a similar exemption may be accorded to the Jehovah's Witnesses with regard to the
observance of the flag ceremony out of respect for their religious beliefs, however "bizarre" those beliefs
may seem to others. Nevertheless, their right not to participate in the flag ceremony does not give them a
right to disrupt such patriotic exercises. Paraphrasing the warning cited by this Court in Non vs. Dames
II, while the highest regard must be afforded their right to the free exercise of their religion, "this
should not be taken to mean that school authorities are powerless to discipline them" if they
should commit breaches of the peace by actions that offend the sensibilities, both religious and
patriotic, of other persons. If they quietly stand at attention during the flag ceremony while their
classmates and teachers salute the flag, sing thenational anthem and recite the patriotic pledge, we do
not see how such conduct may possibly disturb the peace, or pose "a grave and present danger of a
serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest that the
State has a right (and duty) to prevent.


























I. INTRODUCTION
a. Republic Act No. 6735
b. Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003]
c. Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997
d. People vs. Pomar, G.R. No. L-22008. November 3, 1924
e. Lambino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006
f. Defensor-Santiago vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325. March 19, 1997
g. Gonzales vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-28196. November 9, 1967
h. Sanidad vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 90878. January 29, 1990
i. Bondoc vs. Pineda, G.R. No. 97710. September 26, 1991
j. Mirasol vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128448. February 1, 2001
k. Dumlao vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-52245. January 22, 1980
l. Lascon vs. Perez, G.R. No. 147780. May 10, 2001
m. SANLAKAS vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 159085. February 3, 2004
n. Joya vs. PCGG, G.R. No. 96541. August 24, 1993
o. Oposa vs. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083. July 30, 1993
p. Agan vs. PIATCO, G.R. No. 155001. May 5, 2003
q. Umali vs. Guingona, G.R. No. 131124. March 29, 1999
r. In Re: Cunanan, March 18, 1954s. Province of North Cotabato vs. Govt. of the Philippine
s Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, GR No. 183591, October14, 2008

II. POLICE POWERa
. Agustin vs. Edu [88 SCRA 195]
b. Ichong vs. Hernandez [101 Phil 1117]
c. Lutz vs. Araneta [98 Phil 148]
d. Tio vs. Videogram Regulatory Board [151 SCRA 208]
. ALSP vs. Sec of DAR [175 SCRA 343]
f. Lozano vs. Martinez [146 SCRA 323]
g. Kwong Sing vs. City of Manila [41 Phil 103]
h. Tablarin vs. Gutierrez [152 SCRA 730]
i. Govt of QC vs. Ericta [122 SCRA 759]
j. MMDA vs. Bel-Air [ SCRA ]
k. Tatel vs. Municipality of Virac [207 SCRA 157]

III. EMINENT DOMAIN
a. Republic vs. Tagle (GR No. 129079, 2 Dec. 1998)
b. City of Manila vs. Chinese Cemetery (40 Phil. 349)
c. Republic vs. PLDT (26 SCRA 320)
d. People vs. Fajardo (104 Phil 443 (1958))
e. City of Baguio vs. NAWASA (106 Phil (1959))
f. NPC vs. Guttierez (193 SCRA (1991))
g. Republic vs. Castelvi (58 SCRA 336)
h. EPZA vs. Dulay (148 SCRA 305)
i. Amigable vs. Cuenca (43 SCRA 360)
j. Philippine Press Institute vs. COMELEC (244 SCRA 272)
k. Reyes vs. NHA (GR No. 147511, 20 January 2003)
l. Municipality of Paraaque vs. VM Realty (292 SCRA 676)
m. ASLP vs. Sec of Agrarian Reform (175 SCRA 343)
n. Eslaban vs. Onorio (GR No. 146062, 28 June 2001)
o. Knecht vs. Court of Appeals (GR No. 108015, 20 May 1998)
p. Republic vs. Ker (GR No. 136171, 2 July 2002)
q. Manosca vs. CA (252 SCRA 412)

IV. TAXATION
a. Pascual vs. Sec. of Public Works - 10 Phil 331
b. Punzalan vs. Municipal Board of Manila - 95 Phil 46
c. Osmena vs. Orbos - 220 SCRA 703
d. Lladoc vs. CIR - 14 SCRA 292
e. Casanova vs. Hord - 8 Phil 125

V. DUE PROCESS
a. Ermita Malate Hotel and Motel Operators vs. Manila [20 SCRA 849; G.R. No.L-24693; 31 July 1967]
b. Villegas vs. Hiu Chiong [86 SCRA 270; No.L-29646; 10 Nov. 1978]
c. Namil vs. COMELEC [414 SCRA 553; G.R. No. 150540; 28 Oct. 2003]
d. Ichong vs. Hernandez [101 Phil 1155; L-7995; 31 May 1957]
e. Phil. Phosphate vs. Torres [231 SCRA 335; G.R. No.98050; 17 Mar. 1994]
f. Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro [39 Phil 660; G.R. No. 14078; 7 Mar. 1919]
g. Kwong Sing vs. City of Manila [41 Phil 103; G.R. No. 15972; 11 Oct. 1920]
h. Yu Cong Eng vs. Trinidad [47 Phil 385; G.R. No. 20479; 6 Feb. 1925
i. Aniag vs. COMELEC [237 SCRA 194; G.R. No. 104961; 7 Oct. 1994]
j. Javier vs. COMELEC [144 SCRA 194; G.R. Nos. L-68379-81; 22 Sept. 1986]
k. Ynot vs. IAC [148 SCRA 659; G.R. No. 74457; 20 Mar. 1987
l. Philcomsat vs. Alcuaz [180 SCRA 218; G.R. No.84818; 18 Dec. 1989]
m. Eastern Broadcasting vs. Dans [137 SCRA 628; L-59329; 19 July 1985]
n. Ang Tibay vs. CIR [69 Phil 635; G.R. No. 46496; 27 Feb. 1940]
o. Ateneo de Manila vs. Capulong [222 SCRA 644; G.R. 99327; 27 May 1993]
p. Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita (469 SCRA 1)

VI. EQUAL PROTECTION
a. Pp vs. Cayat [68 Phil 12; G.R. No. 45987; 5 May 1939]
b. PASEI vs. Drilon [163 SCRA 386; L-81958; 30 June 1988]
c. Dumlao vs. COMELEC [95 SCRA 392; L-52245; 22 Jan. 1980]
d. Telecom and Broadcast Attorneys vs. COMELEC [289 SCRA 337; G.R. No. 132922; 21 Apr. 1998]
e. Lacson vs. Exec. Sec. [301 SCRA 298; G.R. No. 128096; 20 Jan. 1999]
f. International School Alliance vs. Quisumbing [333 SCRA 13; G.R. No. 128845, 1 June 2000]
g. Ormoc Sugar Co. vs. Treasurer of Ormoc City [22 SCRA 603; L-23794; 17 Feb. 1968]
h. Phil. Judges Association vs. Prado [227 SCRA 703; G.R. No. 105371; 11 Nov. 1993]
i. Quinto vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189698, 1 December 2009

VII. SEARCH AND SEIZURE
a. Pp vs. Marti [193 SCRA 57; G.R. No. 81561; 18 Jan. 1991]
b. Waterous Drug vs. NLRC [280 SCRA 735 ; G.R.No. 113271, 16 Oct. 1997]
c. Stonehill vs. Diokno [20 SCRA 383; L-19550; 19 June 1967]
d. Burgos vs. Chief of Staff [133 SCRA 800; G.R. No. 64261; 26 Dec. 1984]
e. Tambasen vs. Pp [246 SCRA 184; G.R. No. 89103; 14 July 1995]
f. Placer vs. Villanueva [126 SCRA 463; G.R. Nos. L-60349-62; 29 Dec. 1983]
g. Soliven vs. Makasiar [167 SCRA 393; G.R. No. 82585; 14 Nov. 1988]
h. Salazar vs. Achacoso [183 SCRA 145; G.R. No. 81510; 14 Mar. 14, 1990]
i. Morano vs. Vivo [20 SCRA 562; G.R. L-22196; 30 June 1967]
j. Harvey vs. Santiago [162 SCRA 840; G.R. No. 82544; 28 June 1988]
k. Sales vs. Sandiganbayan [369 SCRA 293 G.R. No. 143802, 16 Nov. 2001]
l. Silva vs. Presiding Judge [203 SCRA 140; G.R. No. 81756; 21 Oct. 1991]
m. Veroy vs. Layague [210 SCRA 97; G.R. No. 95630; 18 June 1992]
n. Pp vs. Del Rosario [234 SCRA 246; G.R. No. 109633; 20 July 1994]
o. Pp vs. Gesmundo [219 SCRA 743; G.R. No. 89373; 19 Mar. 1993]
p. Umil vs. Ramos [187 SCRA 311; G.R. No. 81567; 3 Oct. 1991]
q. Pp vs. Sucro [195 SCRA 388; G.R. No. 93239; 18 Mar. 1991]
r. Pp vs. Rodriguez [205 SCRA 791; G.R. No. 95902; 4 Feb. 1992 ]
s. Pp vs. Sy Chua [ 396 SCRA 657; G.R. No.136066-67, 4 February 2003]
t. Go vs. CA [206 SCRA 138; G.R. No. 101837; 11 Feb. 1992]
u. Callanta vs. Villanueva [77 SCRA 377; G.R. Nos. 24646 & L-24674; 20 June 1977]
v. Posadas vs. CA [188 SCRA 288; G.R. No. 89139; 2 Aug. 1990]
w. Pp vs. Mengote [210 SCRA 174; G.R. No. 87059; 22 June 1992]
x. Pp vs. Tangliben [184 SCRA 220; G.R. No.L-63630; 6 Apr. 1990]
y. Pp vs. Malmstedt [198 SCRA 401; G.R. No. 91107; 19 June 1991]
z. Pp vs. Aminnudin [163 SCRA 402; G.R. L-74869; 6 July 1988]
aa. Pp vs. Saycon [236 SCRA 325; G.R. No. 110995; 5 Sept. 1994
]bb. Pp vs. Musa [217 SCRA 597; G.,R. No. 96177; 27 Jan. 1993]
cc. Pita vs. CA [178 SCRA 362; G.R. No. 80806; 5 Oct. 1989]
dd. Guanzon vs. De Villa [181 SCRA 623; G.R. 80508; 30 Jan. 1990]
ee. Pp vs. Aruta [ 288 SCRA 626; G.R. No. 120515; 13 Apr. 1998]
ff. Rule 113 and 126 of the Rules of Court

VIII. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL
a. Marcos vs. Manglapus [G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989]
b. Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. L-62100, May 30, 1986]
c. Silverio vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 94284, April 8, 1991]
d. Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil 660 (1919)

IX. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
a. Aglipay vs. Ruiz [G.R. No. 45459, March 13, 1937]
b. Garces vs. Estenzo [G.R. No. L-53487, May 25, 1981]
c. American Bible Society vs. City of Manila [G.R. No. L-9637, April 30, 1957]
d. Iglesia Ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996]
e. Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent of Cebu [G.R. No. 95770, March 1, 1993]
f. Estrada vs. Escritor [A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003]
g. German vs. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514 [1985]
h. Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines vs. Executive Secretary, GR No.153888, 9 July 2003X.


RIGHT TO INFORMATION
a. Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission [G.R. No. 72119, May 29, 1987]
b. Valmonte vs. Belmonte, Jr. [G.R. No. 74930, February 13, 1989]
c. Province of Cotabato vs. The Govt. of the RP Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain [G.R. No. 183591,
October 14,2008]
d. Echagaray vs. Secretary of Justice [G.R. NO. 132601, October 12, 1998]
e. Chavez vs. Presidential Commission on Good Government [G.R. No. 130716, December 9, 1998]XI.

RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCIATION
a. SSS Employees Association vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 85279, July 28, 1989]
b. Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union [G.R. No. L-25246, September 12, 1974]
c. In re: IBP membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial Edillon [A.C. No. 1928, August 3, 1978]XII.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION/ASSEMBLY
a. United States vs. Bustos [G.R. No. L-12592, March 8, 1918]
b. Ayer Productions PTY Ltd. vs. Capulong [G.R. No. L-82380, April 29, 1988]
c. Reyes vs. Bagatsing [G.R. No. L-65366, November 9, 1983]
d. Pita vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 80806, October 5, 1989]
e. Social Weather Stations, Inc. vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 147571, May 5, 2001]
f. Primicias vs. Fugoso [G.R. No. L-1800, January 27, 1948]
g. Malabanan vs. Ramento [G.R. No. 62270, May 21, 1984]
h. PBM Employees Association vs. Philippine Blooming Mills [G.R. No. L-31195, June 5, 1973]
i. Bayan vs. Ermita [G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006]
j. Chavez vs. Gonzales, 545 SCRA 441
XIII. NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE
a. Rutter vs. Esteban [G.R. No. L-3708, May 18, 1953]
b. Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership vs. Feati Bank & Trust Co. [G.R. No. L-24670, December 14, 1979]
c. Lozano vs. Martinez [G.R. No. L-63419, December 18, 1986]

XIV. EX POST FACTO LAWS
a. People vs. Ferrer 43 SCRA 381
b. Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan 128 SCRA 383
c. People vs. Sandiganbayan 211 SCRA 241

XV. NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
a. Serafin vs. Lindayag 67 SCRA 166b. Lozano vs. Martinez

XVI. INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
a. Caunca vs. Salazar

XVII. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
a. Lansang vs. Garcia [G.R. No. L-33964, December 11, 1971]
b. Rules on Habeas Datac. Rules on Writ of Amparo

XVIII. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
Custodial Investigation
a. Gamboa vs. Cruz [G.R. No. L-56291, June 27, 1988]
b. People vs. Macam [G.R. Nos. 91011-12, November 24, 1994]
c. People vs. Judge Ayson [G.R. No. 85215, July 7, 1989]
d. People vs. Pinlac [G.R. Nos. 74123-24, September 26, 1988]
e. People vs. Bolanos [G.R. No. 101808, July 3, 1992]
f. Navallo vs. Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. 97214, July 18, 1994]
g. People vs. Alicando [G.R. No. 117487, December 12, 1995]
h. Republic Act No. 7438

Right to Bail
i. People vs. Judge Donato [G.R. No. 79269, June 5, 1991]
j. Comendador vs. De Villa [G.R. No. 93177, August 2, 1991]
k. Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. L-62100, May 30, 1986]
l. Rule 114, Revised Rules of Court
m. Government of HK vs. Olalia, G.R. No. 153675

Criminal Due Process
n. Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan [G.R. Nos. L-72335-39. March 21, 1988.]
o. Galman vs. Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. 72670, September 12, 1986]

Presumption of Innocence
p. Dumlao vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. L-52245, January 22, 1980]
q. Marquez vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 112889, April 18, 1995]
r. Corpus vs. People [G.R. No. 74259, February 14, 1991]

Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel
s. People vs. Holgado [G.R. No. L-2809, March 22, 1950]
t. People vs. Agbayani [G.R. No. 122770, January 16, 1998]

Right to be Informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation
u. Pecho vs. People [G.R. No. 111399, September 27, 1996]
v. Soriano vs. Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. L-65952, July 31, 1984]
w. Borja vs. Mendoza [G.R. No. L-45667, June 20, 1977]

Right to Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial
x. People vs. Tee [G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January 20, 2003]
y. Conde vs. Rivera [G.R. No. 21741, January 25, 1924]
z. In Re: Request for Live Radio and TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder
Cases againstFormer President Joseph Estrada [A.M. No. 00-1-4-03-SC, September 13, 2001]

Right of Confrontation
aa. United States vs. Javier [G.R. No. L-12990, January 21, 1918]
bb. Talino vs. Sandiganbayan [G.R. Nos. L-75511-14, March 16, 1987]

Right Against Self-Incrimination
cc. United States vs. Tan Teng [G.R. No. 7081, September 7, 1912]
dd. Villaflor vs. Summers [G.R. No. 16444, September 8, 1920]
ee. Beltran vs. Samson [G.R. No. 32025, September 23, 1929]
ff. Chavez vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. L-29169, August 19, 1968]
gg. Pascual vs. Board of Medical Examiners [G.R. No. L-25018, May 26, 1969]Prohibited Punishmenth
h. People vs. Estoista [G.R. No. L-5793, August 27, 1953]
ii. People vs. Esparas [G.R. No. 120034, August 20, 1996]
jj. Echagaray vs. Secretary of Justice [G.R. No. 132601, October 12, 1998]Double Jeopardy
kk. People vs. Obsania [G.R. No. L-24447, June 29, 1968]
ll. Paulin vs. Gimenez [G.R. No. 103323, January 21, 1993]
mm. People vs. Balisacan [G.R. No. L-26376, August 31, 1966]
nn. Esmea vs. Pogoy [G.R. No. L-54110, February 20, 1981]
oo. People vs. Pineda [G.R. No. L-44205, February 16, 1993]
pp. People vs. Adil [G.R. No. L-41863, April 22, 1977]
qq. People vs. Relova [G.R. No. L-45129, March 6, 1987]

XIX. CITIZENSHIP
a. Co vs. House of Representatives [G.R. Nos. 92191-92, July 30, 1991]
b. Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago [G.R. No. 83882, January 24, 1989]
c. Frivaldo vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 87193, June 23, 1989]
d. Republic vs. De la Rosa [G.R. No. 104654, June 6, 1994]
e. Labo vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 86564, August 1, 1989]
f. Aznar vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 83820, May 25, 1990]
g. Mercado vs. Manzano [G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999]
h. Bengzon III vs. HRET [G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001]