Our survey of Supreme Court cases.

1. Case: Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines vs. Commission on Elections
Date of decision: January 13, 2004
Summary: The Supreme Court declared null and void the contracts awarded by the Commission on Elections for the automation of the 2004 elections.

2. Case: LA BUGAL-B’LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION, INC.,vs. VICTOR RAMOS
Date of decision: January 27, 2004
Summary: The Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the provisions of RA 7942 or the Mining Act and DENR Order 96-40 that allowed financial technical assistance agreements. It also voided the FTAA between Western Mining Corp.-Philippines and the government 

3. Case: SANLAKAS VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Date of decision: February 3, 2004
Summary: The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions assailing Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4, which both declared a state of rebellion, as unconstitutional.

4. Case: TECSON VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Date of decision: March 3, 2004
Summary: The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions seeking to disqualify Poe as a presidential candidate for allegedly not being a natural-born Filipino

5. Case: LA BUGAL-B’LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION, INC., VS. VICTOR RAMOS
Date of decision: December 1, 2004
Summary: The Supreme Court reversed its January 27, 2004 decision and declared as constitutional the Mining Act of 1995, DENR 96-40 and the FTAA between WMC Philippines and the government 

6. Case: ESTRADA VS. DESIERTO
Date of decision: December 9, 2004
Summary: The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing Estrada’s petition for certiorari for lack of jurisdiction. Estrada filed a motion for reconsideration at the appellate court questioning a resolution of the Ombudsman which dismissed criminal charges against the BIR and Citibank officials who placed his foreign currency deposit on hold.

7. Case: LEGARDA VS. DE CASTRO 
Date of decision: March 31, 2005
Summary: The Supreme Court denied De Castro’s motion for reconsideration and affirmed the jurisdiction of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal over Legarda’s petition.

8. Case: ABAKADA Guro Party List Officer Samson Alcantara vs. Executive Secretary
Date of decision: October 18, 2005
Summary: The Supreme Court junked the motions for reconsideration filed by Alcantara which questioned the September 1, 2005 decision of the High Court. In said decision, the SC declared RA 9337 or the VAT Reform Act as constitutional.

9. Case: PIMENTEL VS. ERMITA
Date of decision: October 13, 2005
Summary:  The Supreme Court saw no abuse on the part of the president when she made ad interim appointments as these were made during recess of Congress.

10. Case: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HON. HENRICK F. GINGOYON
Date of decision: December 19, 2005
Summary:  The Supreme Court granted in part the petition by modifying Gingoyon’s assailed January 4 and 5 orders, which prohibited the government from awarding concessions or leasing any part of NAIA 3 to other parties pending its payment of P3 billion to PIATCO.  The Court also affirmed Gingoyons’ January 7 order, which appointed three commissioners who would ascertain the amount to be paid to PIATCO for the NAIA-3 complex.  It also lifted its January 15 TRO against Gingoyon’s order for the compensation of PIATCO. 
 
11. Case: KILUSANG MAYO UNO VS. NEDA
Date: April 19, 2006
Summary:  The Supreme Court declared Executive No. 420, which streamlined the ID systems of the government, as valid.

12. Case: GUDANI VS. SENGA
Date of decision:  Aug. 15, 2006
Summary: The Supreme Court denied the petition, which sought the invalidation of a presidential directive that prohibited petitioners from appearing in Congressional inquiries without the president’s consent.

13. Case: LAMBINO vs. COMELEC
Date of decision:  Oct. 25, 2006
Summary: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, which questioned COMELEC’s decision refuting the petitioner’s appeal for a plebiscite that would authorize a people’s initiative as instrument for charter change.

14. Case:  BAYAN VS. ERMITA
Date of decision: April 25, 2006
Summary:  The Supreme Court declared Calibrated Preemptive Response as null and void as it goes against the principle of maximum tolerance and enjoined the Executive, DILG and PNP from enforcing it.  But the High Court ruled that Batas Pambansa No. 880 remains constitutional.

15. Case: Ejercito vs. Sandiganbayan
Date of decision: November 30, 2006
Summary: The Supreme Court upheld Sandiganbayan resolutions which denied JV Ejercito’s motion to quash subpoenas that order the production of documents about bank accounts in the Export and Import Bank and PCI-Equitable Bank.
 
16. Case: SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ERMITA
Date: April 20, 2006
Summary:  The Supreme Court declared provisions of EO 464 which allowed executive department heads to invoke executive privilege as valid.

17. Case:  DAVID VS. ARROYO
Date of decision: May 3, 2006
Summary: The Supreme Court declared PP1017 constitutional and G.O. No. 5 as valid, but struck down the arrest of David et al as unconstitutional.

18. Case: CHAVEZ VS. GONZALEZ
Date of decision: February 15, 2008
Summary: The Supreme Court nullified statements from Department of Justice and National Telecommunications Commission which prohibited the airing of alleged wiretapped conversations between Pres. Arroyo and former COMELEC Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano during the May 2004 elections.

19.  Case:  NERI VS. SENATE
Date of decision: March 25, 2008
Summary: The Supreme Court upheld the claim of Neri to executive privilege and nullified the Senate order which held him in contempt and also called for his arrest for snubbing a Senate inquiry on the aborted NBN-ZTE deal.

20. Case: AKBAYAN VS. AQUINO
Date of decision: July 16, 2008
Summary: The Supreme Court ruled that that the communications covered in the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement are not for public disclosure as they are covered by executive privilege

21. Case: The Province of Cotobato Vs. The Gov't of the Republic of the Philippines
Date of decision: October 14, 2008
Summary: The Supreme Court granted the petition and declared the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain unconstitutional.