LegRes Midterms Outline

I. Introduction

A. Definition of Legal Research

1. Legal research is the process of identifying and retrieving information necessary to support legal decision-making

2. The Process of answering a legal question

3. Legal research versus Legal Writing

a) Merely putting thoughts into words is not legal research,

b) Finding what’s already there and supporting your thoughts.

c) Legal research is a process of identifying and supporting your thoughts through LEGAL RESEARCH.

(1) Process - step-by-step procedure

(2) Identifying Information - knowing what you’re looking for

(3) Retrieving - Knowing where to find what you’re looking for (sources)

(4) Supporting your legal decision-making

B. Importance of Legal Research

1. Bengzon v Drilon

C. Plagiarism

1. Re: In the Matter of charges of Plagiarism against del Castillo

D. Other unethical conduct

1. Code of Professional Responsibility

2. Hipos v. Bay

3. Allied Banking Corporation v CA

4. COMELEC v Noynay

II. The Philippine Legal System

A. Overview of the Philippine Legal System

1. In re: Application of Max Shoop for Admission to the practice of law

B. Types of laws

1. Substantive law v Remedial law

a) Substantive laws - creates, defines, and regulates rights, or which regulates rights and duties which give rise to a cause
of action. In Criminal law, this creates the penalties.

 b) Remedial law - the processes that one needs to follow and the law that prescribes the method of enforcing rights. In
Criminal law, this prescribes the steps in punishing a criminal.

2. Public law v Private law

a) Public law - for the whole society, relationship of people with the state

b) Private law - for particular classes of people with particular problems, concerns the relationship between individuals.

C. Principles of Jurisprudence

1. Stare Decisis

a) Lazatin v Desierto

b) Tala Realty Services Corp. v Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank

2. Ratio decidendi

a) People v Sandiganbayan

b) Res judicata (Conclusiveness of judgment)

(1) Degayo v Magbanua-Dinglasan

3. Law of the Case

a) Sy v Young

4. Obiter Dictum

a) Lhuiller v British Airways

D. Types of Legal System

1. Civil Law

2. Common Law

3. Religiously-oriented: Canon Law, Sharia Law, etc.

E. Judicial legislation

1. Silverio v Republic of the Philippines

 Topic Case Facts/Holdings Legal Research Issues/Notes

Importance of Bengzon v Drilon - Petitioners are justices who are asking the Court for 1. Wrong citation

Legal Research retirement benefits that are granted to them by law

• The case title was not LAW ASSOCIATION V
- OSG contends that giving them retirement benefits TOPEKA, but CITIZENS’ SAVINGS AND
would be equal to “robbery” because they are paying it LOAN ASSOCIATION OF CLEVELAND, OHIO
off of tax payer’s money to people who are already V TOPEKA CITY

retired and are therefore not anymore part of public 2. Outdated source

service. • Cited case was in 1874, it’s already 1992. The

case stated that municipalities’ right to
impose taxes cannot be used for private
interests to be used to improve their services.
But what is “robbery” before is social justice
now.
 Topic Case Facts/Holdings Legal Research Issues/Notes

Plagiarism Re: Justice - - In Vinuya v Romulo, petitioners Malaya Lolas 1. Whether or not Justice Del Castillo plagiarized the published
Mariano del Association filed a preliminary injunction against works of authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis. NO
Castillo (OG) Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the • Contra petitioners’ assertion that intent is immaterial in
Secretary of Justice, and the Office of the Solicitor plagiarism, SC claims that plagiarism is passing off of the
General, who have denied their request of helping them work of another as ones own is an indispensable element of
file for reparation against the Japanese government who plagiarism. SC contends that there was no plagiarism
systematically abused them during the WWII. They want because there was no intent on the part of Justice del Castillo
to Japanese government to issue an official apology and because the citations were unintentionally deleted by his
reparations to them. The Philippine government refused researcher.

stating that these reparations were already fulfilled by • Petitioners insisted that intent is not material in plagiarism.
the Peace Treaty between Philippines and Japan.
They pointed out that SC should apply to this case the ruling
- The Supreme Court, through Justice del Castillo, denied in University of the Philippines Board of Regents v. Court of
their petition on the following grounds: (1) it is within the Appeals and Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine. They
executive department’s jurisdiction on WON to grant argue that standards on plagiarism in the academe should
their petition of reparation (2) the Philippines is not under apply with more force to the judiciary.

any obligation in international law to grant the • If they apply a strict rule in the plagiarism that intent is
petitioner’s prayers.
material in plagiarism, then there will be no room for mistakes
- There was a filing of motion for reconsideration. One of in judicial decision-making.

the counsel of the Malaya Lolas claimed in a blog that 2. Whether or not Justice Del Castillo twisted the works of these
Justice del Castillo plagiarized and misrepresented authors to make it appear that such works supported the Courts
certain foreign journal articles to back his second position in the Vinuya decision. NO
ground in denying the petitioner. Petitioner filed a • The Court maintains that for there to be twisting of works,
supplemental motion for reconsideration there must be an intention to distort or pervert the works
cited. But, what Justice del Castillo did was merely to make
use of the citations as a background support on what
international law is, its development at every stage. Moreover,
different works can support conflicting theories. And since
there was no citation, one cannot

• There was no inexcusable conduct because only errors that

are tainted with fraud, corruption, or malice are subject of
disciplinary action.

• There was no inexcusable negligence because Justice del

Castillo had all the control over the situation. He hired a
competent person as a researcher. She has the qualifications.
Hiring a researcher is standard practice. But he cannot be
expected to guide the researcher every step of the way.
Topic Case Facts/Holdings Legal Research Issues/Notes

Motion for Recon - Petitioner’s filed a supplemental motion for 1. Whether or not SC through its decision legalized or
reconsideration accusing Justice Del Castillo of manifest approved of the commission of plagiarism in the
intellectual theft and outright plagiarism when he wrote Philippines? NO.

the decision and by twisting the true intents of the • The Court differentiated the original scholarship
expected in Academia and that of the judicial
plagiarized sources to suit the arguments of the assailed
system.

judgment.
- In the judicial system, Courts are not
- Petitioners claim that the Court essentially legalized expected to create original scholarship in
plagiarism when they dismissed the charges. every decision, given that our judiciary is
based upon the doctrine of stare decisis,
which makes use of already existing
decisions/precedent.

- As opposed to the academic scholarship

that disregards intent in plagiarism since
their scholarship is an objective evidence
that earns merit, the decisions of the court
are there for public service which deserves a
speedy and efficient system. Justice, not
originality, form, and style is the objective
of every judicial decision.
• Because of the need to be precise, justices are
usually permitted to life passages from previous
court rulings, and at times omit, without intention,
its citation.

• Legal materials belong in the public domain gives

justices the implicit right to be exempted from
charges of plagiarism when they fail to give proper
attribution to the works they cited. This is because
Judges are not writing a literary work, they are
writing to solve a dispute.

• The Court believed that what Justice del Castillo

has done is an honest work. He made us of the
reference materials, which are part of the public
domain, in the right way. He determined the
issues, presented contrasting views, and applied
those views that are applicable to the facts.
 Topic Case Facts/Holdings Legal Research Issues/Notes

Other Unethical Hipos v Bay 1. 2 informations for the crime of rape and acts of Counsel of petitioners cited an out of context ruling in Sanchez v
Conduct lasciviousness were filed against the petitioners. An Demetriou

anonymous complainant filed a motion for - Used to prove that the writ of mandamus is the correct remedy
reinvestigation, asking Judge Bay to review if the but it doesn’t apply to the case because the writ of mandamus
information filed is correct.
was used against the prosecutor and not the judge/trial court

2. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the case stating

that there is no probable cause to make them criminally Counsel of petitioners cut off portions which would expose the real
liable.
import in People v Montesa

3. The OSP and the assistant prosecutor Cruz affirmed - They made it seem as if the judge must follow the
the Information. But it was reversed by another city recommendation of the prosecutor but the counsel cut off the
prosecutor because of lack of probable cause. Thus, portion that this should not be considered a doctrine

he filed before Judge Bay a motion to withdraw

information.
Incorrectly cited Ledesma v CA

4. Judge Bay dismissed the petitioner. Petitioners filed a - Incorrect citation because Atty. Beltran quoted something that was
petition for mandamus against Judge Bay claiming that not in the statement of the court.
he judged wrongly.

5. OSG contends that mandamus cannot compel a judge

to change his decision, it can only compel someone to
do their job, which Judge Bay did. The right remedy is
certiorari,

Allied Banking Transfer to Cebu, didn’t want. NLRC wanted Lifted a case not from the decision of the court but from the
Corporation v CA syllabus.

COMELEC v According to the Omnibus code, the RTC has original Counsel falsely represented the case of identical circumstance in
Noynay jurisdiction over election issues except for those about the petition, getting the last name of the complainant wrong by
failure to register to vote.
acknowledging “Alberto Naldeza” instead of “ALBERTO
NALDOZA.”

Original jurisdiction of MTC doesn’t cover those that are

under the jurisdiction of RTC. He also misquoted a court decision deliberately to help his cause,
by making use of the memorandum of a court administrator, making
it seem as if it were the words of the SC.

Overview of the In re: Application

Philippine Legal of Max Shoop
System
 Topic Case Facts/Holdings Legal Research Issues/Notes

Substantive v Bustos v Lucero 1. Bustos wanted the complainant to present her Substantive laws versus remedial laws

Remedial Law evidence and cross examine.

2. The lack of conducting a preliminary investigation is

not a bar from exercising one’s constitutional right for
equal protection and the need for one to know the
crime which they are being charged with.

3. Sec. 8, 11 was made use by the Court, claiming that

this is a remedial law.

Stare decisis - Lazatin v Questioning constitutionality of Sec. 3 of Ombudsman Act SC made use of the ACOP case as the ratio decidendi and the
the doctrine that Desierto which placed the OSP under their supervision. They following cases which made use of the ACOP case as the stare
follows the maintained that the Ombudsman does not have the decisis. They already made a ruling regarding the constitutionality of
judgment of authority to prosecute/overturn the decision/ the Ombudsman Act. Therefore, this should be followed. Stare
previous cases recommendation of the OSP.
decisis can only be revoked or removed by strong and compelling
or adhere to reasons. The petitioners are not able to show that.
precedence of SC ruled that the powers of the ombudsman is granted to
previous cases them by the constitution through the Congress who was
able to transfer certain powers of the OSP to the
Ombudsman.

Tala Realty Trust agreement was already void. Even if there is a Conclusiveness of judgment versus bar by prior of prior judgment

Services Corp v different cause of action that is being presented by Banco

Banco Filipino Filipino (1st - ejectment 2nd - Conclusiveness - same parties, same subject matter, but not the
Savings & same cause of action

Mortgage Bank
Bar by prior judgment - to prevent forum shopping because there is
an identity of the parties, subject matter and the same cause of
action

Ratio decidendi People v Used Soriano as the ratio decidendi

- rule of law that Sandiganbayan
where the
decision of a
Court is
founded
 Topic Case Facts/Holdings Legal Research Issues/Notes

Res Judicata: Degayo v

Conclusiveness Magbanue-
of Judgment Dinglasan

Law of the case Sy v Young

Obiter dicta Lhuillier v British

Airways

Judicial Silverio v
Legislation Republic of the
Philippines
 Topic Case Facts/Holdings Legal Research Issues/Notes

The 1987 Tawang Multi- The case is about the question of the constitutionality of
Constitution of Purpose Sec. 47 of PD 198 where it allows for the exclusivity of
the Philippines Cooperative v. La LTWD’s franchise on supplying water for Barangay
Trinidad Water Tawang, La Trinidad. Benguet.

District

G.R. No. 166471 TMPC and LTWD is in a dispute regarding the authority
22 March 2011 granted by PD 198 declaring LTWD’s franchise to be
exclusive.

Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy - if a law or contract violates

The RTC ruled in favor of LTWD claiming that the authority any norm of the constitution, that law, whether promulgated by the
is consistent with the ultimate purpose of the constitution: legislative or by the executive branch, or entered into by private
for the state to be able to keep and maintain ultimate persons for private purposes, is null and void and without any force
control and supervision over the operation of public utility. and effect.

They also state that the Constitution doesn’t necessarily

prohibit a franchise that is exclusive on its face.
The Constitution is the fundamental, paramount, and supreme law
of the nation.

ISSUE: WON RTC erred in holding the subject provision

valid.
Police power doesn’t include the the power to violate the
Constitution. Even if they have the plenary power vested in the
HELD: Yes. The 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitution (Article legislature to make, ordain, and establish wholesome and
14, Sec. 5) all expressly and unambiguously state that any reasonable law, they must not be repugnant to the constitution.

franchise for the operation of public utility be exclusive in

character. In case of conflict between the Constitution and ————

a statute, the Constitution always prevails because the When you do legal research, you have to lay your foundation on the
Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must Constitution.

conform to.

Constitution —> statutes —> rules and regulations

The provision gives BOD and the LWUA the authority to

make an exception to the absolute prohibition in the If you overlook the Constitution,
Constitution, a power that Congress can’t even exercise.

Petitioners invoke 2 “reasonable and legitimate grounds”

for the creation of the exclusive franchise: (1) protection of
government interests and (2) avoid competition on the
supply of public utilities to the poor. —> SC maintains that
there is no reasonable and legitimate ground to violate the
Constitution, no matter what.
 Topic Case Facts/Holdings Legal Research Issues/Notes

Treaties and Bayan Muna v. Validity of the RP-US Non-surrender agreement - Executive agreements are as binding as treaties in international law

International Alberto Romulo, Exchange of notes is a generally accepted form of - EAs do not require Senate concurrence (Bayan Muna v. Romulo)

Agreements G.R. No. 159618, international agreement. It is actually used interchangeably

1 February 2011 with executive agreement that become binding through Pacta sunt servanda - agreements must be kept, and its non
executive action. Therefore, the E/N is a recognized mode fulfillment is a breach of the pact. “every treaty in force is binding
of concluding a legally binding international written contact upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good
among nations.
faith”, if we enter into a treaty we have to comply with that.

The Agreement, being an executive agreement doesn’t The Constitution does not classify the subject or the form of a
need the concurrence of the senate. Treaties are the only treaty. Its only requirement is that it be concurred by the Senate by a
ones that need the concurrence of the Senate. Executive vote to complete the ratification process.

agreements on the other hand doesn’t require the

concurrence of the Senate for its ratification. The president —

has the power to enter into International Agreements, and Relevance to legal research:

he just used the powers he already has.

- To know whether or not laws to be passed will be in
contravention of an international law or not

Primary consideration in the choice of the form of - We also know whether or not an international law is in
agreement is the parties’ intent and desire to craft an contravention with the constitution

international agreement in the form they so wish. - Incorporation versus transformation (for treaties)

No all international laws are written:

- customary international law: practices that may not be written but

are widely practiced and are seen by states as an obligation that is
binding (abolition of torture and slavery, importance of non-
aggression in international relations)
 Topic Case Facts/Holdings Legal Research Issues/Notes

Congressional Tañada v. Tuvera, Petitioners filed a writ for mandamus to order the
Statutes G.R. No. 63915, publication in the Official Gazette the various presidential
24 April 1985 decrees, letters of instructions, general orders,
proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation
and administrative orders.

OSG moved for the dismissal on the ground that they don’t
have locus standi. Petitioners respond that their petition
concerns public right and compels the performance of a
public duty, therefore, they don’t need to show an specific
interest. SC held that petitioners have standing because Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after 15 days following the completion
the right sought is a public right recognized by the law of of their publication in the Official Gazette or any newspaper of
the land.
general circulation, unless it is otherwise provided.

OSG contends that the publication in the Official Gazette is —-

not needed when the law itself provides for their effectivity Role of statutes in legal research:

date, as proven by Art. 2 of the Civil Code

- Why are PDs considered statutes: it was during the time of
Marcos which gave him the power to legislate.

SC held that OSG’s interpretation of the article is correct - Are PDs during the ML era still
only insofar as equating the effectivity of a statute with the
publication of it in the OG. However, there is still a need to
publish in the OG even if the law already provides the date
of effectivity. This is because of the following reasons:

1. Give the public adequate notice of various laws

2. Constitutional right to be informed of public matters—>

promotes the principle of due process (before one is
bound by the law, one must first be officially and
specifically informed of its contents)

3. If not published, they will have no binding effect.

 Topic Case Facts/Holdings Legal Research Issues/Notes

Rules and Victorias Milling Rules and regulations versus administrative interpretation.
Rules and regulations - when an administrative agency
Regulations Co., Inc. v. Social promulgates rules and regulations, it makes a new law with the
Security About Circular 22 which establishes how employers should force and effect of a valid law. This is the incidental power given to
Commission, compute for the premium to be given to their employees. administrative agencies because of the delegated legislative power
G.R. No.L-16704 Petitioners contend that the Circular is invalid since it is given to them. The details and manner of carrying out the law is left
17 March 1962 inconsistent with a previous Circular which excluded the to the discretion of administrative bodies, but should still be within
bonus to be given in the computation. They also contend the scope of the law.

of its invalidity because it hasn’t been approved by the

President nor published in the official gazette.
Administrative interpretion - merely advisory, for it is the courts that
finally determine what the law means.
SC finds their petition to be bereft of merit. The Circular is
just an administrative interpretation of what
“compensation” means. It does not create rules and
regulations which takes on the nature of a statute as to be
binding. Therefore, the Circular doesn’t need Presidential
approval nor to be published.

National
Federation of
Sugar Workers v.
Ovejera, G.R. No.
L-59743, 31 May
1982

Synthesis:
- Discipline in looking at all of the sources available

- Know the hierarchy of each. Start with constitutional provision, then laws, then look at IRRs, WON there are gruonds to question it. Go to case law on how
each of it plays

JURISPRUDENCE OR CASE LAW

A. Article 8, Civil Code

Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines.
Topic Case Facts/Holdings Legal Research Issues/Notes

Article 8, Civil Floresca v Philex Court of First Instance judge dismissed the case of the
Code
Mining Company petitioners in praying for damages against the negligence
of Philex Mining Company for the death of their family
members in the mining incident. The judge dismissed the
case claiming that the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over
the suit; that it is within the purview of the Worker’s
Compensation Commission.

ISSUE: WON an injured employee, worker or their heirs

can choose to file a case against their employer in the
regular courts (suing for high damages such as moral,
actual or exemplary) separate from the action of seeking
the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act
due to the negligence of their employers or their other
employees. Or WON they can avail of both options.

1. SC holds that the court of first instance has the

jurisdiction and that the judge erred in dismissing the
case. They also held that the judge was not able to
distinguish between compensation in the Worker’s
Compensation Act and the damages sought under the
Civil Code.

2. SC maintains the jurisprudence in Pacana v Cebu

Autobus Company holding that:

• An injured worker or their family member has the

choice of recovering from the employer the fixed
amounts set by the Workmen’s Compensation Act
or to prosecute for an ordinary civil action against
the employer for higher damages, as long as they
do not pursue the actions simultaneously.

 Topic Case Facts/Holdings Legal Research Issues/Notes

• They dismissed respondent’s claim that this

cannot be applied anymore because the
petitioners already acquired of the compensation.
SC held that the petitioner’s act of getting the
compensation is nullified because they got the
compensation before knowing that Philex was
negligent and violated the law under the Civil
Code. Therefore there was a mistake of fact.

1. There is a difference between compensation in the

Workmen’s Compensation Act and damages sought
under the Civil Code

1. Compensation is given to employees who incur

injuries, ailments or death because of the hazards
of their work environment

2. Damages sough under the Civil Code are because

of the negligence of the employers in not providing
their employees the safety required by law

4. SC held that the Court didn’t legislate in the case at

bar. What they did was merely applied and give effect
to the constitutional guarantee of social justice.

1. Under Art. 8 of the Civil Code, the decisions of the

Supreme Court form part of the law of the land.
The decision, although are not laws, constitute
evidence of what the law means.

5. There is judicial legislation - When the Courts have to

legislate to supply the omissions or clarify the
ambiguities in the law

1. Limits: legislate only between the gaps and open

spaces of the law because the legislative cannot
be expected foresee each and every case to which
the law may apply.

B. Text Source

1. Supreme Court

• Binding upon lower courts

• Decisions of the Supreme Court:

• Regular decisions

• Extended resolutions

 • Primary Sources of SC decisions

- Philippine Reports - complete. Before the war, it was in Spanish titled: Jurisprudencia Filipina
- primary source for SC decisions; contain all decisions of SC except minute resolutions
- Official Gazette - selective,

- Office of the Reporter of the Supreme Court - where original decisions, with the signatures of the justices, are stored. As well as
unpublished decisions.
• Secondary Sources of SC decisions

• Supreme Court Reports Annotated - SCRA

• a secondary source, published by the Central Book Supply is more updated and popular in the legal community; SC decisions

• eSCRA

• Vital Legal Documents

• - secondary statutes, published by Central Book Supply, contains a compilation of PD

• Lex Libris Jurisprudence CD ROM

• CDAsia online

• Discontinued

• Supreme Court Advance Decisions - SCAD (Discontinued)

• Advanced Sheets - decisions in “reproduced form” or “photocopied “ copy of the actual original decision which contains the full text, the
signatures of the justices and the certification of the Chief Justice.

• Original Decisions - copy with the actual signatures, deposited in the Reporters Office of the Supreme Court

• Effective legal research for Supreme Court decisions: electronic!

2. Court of Appeals

• Merely persuasive for the lower courts

• Judicial guides to lower courts and that conclusion or pronouncement they make can be raised as a doctrine.

• Clerk of Court of Appeals keeper of all CA decisions

- Sources of Court of Appeals decisions are:

- Court of Appeals decisions are now being complete online starting from the latest to 1936.

- Official Gazette (selective publication)

- Court of Appeals Reports which was published by the Court of Appeals until 1980. Even this 

publication is not a complete compilation. It is still considered selective for not all CA decisions are 

included.

- Court of Appeals Reports (CAR) by Central Book Supply. One volume was published

- Philippine Law and Jurisprudence

- Reports Office of the Court of Appeals

C. Decisions

1. Sec. 1, Art. 8 of the 1987 Constitution

• Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
2. Supreme Court

• Does not conduct trials/oral arguments

• Looks at pure questions of law

 • First thing SC looks at: is there an actual judicial controversy/is there a question of law that merits actual review

• After reading the petition filed by the petitioner, we find that there is no justiciable controversy —> minute resolution

3. Regular Decisions vs Minute Resolutions

REGULAR DECISIONS MINUTE RESOLUTIONS

Published in court reports either in primary Unsigned minute resolutions are not
or secondary sources published

Provide the justice who penned the decision Issued and signed by the respective Clerks
or ponente and the other justices of Court En Banc or by any of the three (3)
responsible for promulgating the decision Division s and signed by their respective
Clerks of Court.

Available electronically in the Supreme Court Can find them in the Supreme Court e-
website under Decisions and the Supreme library, especially the motions for
Court E-Library under Decisions reconsideration

Not publicly available because it doesn’t

really add anything to the decision

Minute resolutions denying or dismissing unmeritorious petitions are the result of a

thorough deliberation among the Members of the Court although there are promulgated
through the Clerk of Court. They need not be signed by the Members of the Court
who took part in the deliberations thereon, nor do they require the Certification of the
Chief Justice (unlike decisions and signed resolutions) in order to avoid undue delay in
the disposition of cases

D. Opinion of the Court

1. Majority Decision - decision that won because most of the justices voted for it

2. Dissenting Opinion - opinion against the majority decision

• Can you cite dissenting opinions?

3. Concurring Opinion - opinion that agrees with the majority opinion

4. Separate Opinion - opinion which can either agree or disagree with the opinion written by the majority of judges, agreement or dissent on a particular
part of the decision

• Why would I write a separate concurring opinion? Why can’t I just ask the ponentia to add it to the majority?

• Not included in the majority discussion but the separate opinion coincide with their decision but using a separate opinion

5. Per Curiam Decision - court opinion issued in the name of the Court rather than specific judges

6. Sec. 13, Art. 8, 1987 Constitution

• Section 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation
before the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be
 issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any Member who took no part, or dissented, or
abstained from a decision or resolution, must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts.
E. Specific Sources:

1. Official Gazette

• all important legislative acts and resolutions of a public nature of the Congress of the Philippines;

• all executive and administrative orders and proclamations, except such as have no general applicability;

• decisions or abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals as may be deemed by said courts of sufficient
importance to be so published;

• such documents or classes of documents as may be required so to be published by law; and

• such documents or classes of documents as the President of the Philippines shall determine from time to time to have general
applicability and legal effect, or which he may authorize so to be published

2. Philippine Reports

• primary source for SC decisions; contain all decisions of SC except minute resolutions

3. Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA)

• a secondary source, published by the Central Book Supply is more updated and popular in the legal community; SC decisions

4. Vital Legal Documents

• secondary statutes, published by Central Book Supply, contains a compilation of PD

5. Public Laws Annotated

• Compilation of all laws from 1901 - 1935

• Commonwealth Acts Annotated (3 vols)

• Compilation from 1935 - 1945

• Philippine Permanent and General Statutes

• Are the rules and regulations promulgated by competent authorities, deliberations of laws are available

6. Commonwealth Acts Annotated

7. Philippine Permanent and General Statutes

8. Philippine Annotated Laws

1. A compilation of the statute law of the Philippines, containing all of the Philippine acts, the Commonwealth acts, the Republic acts of a
general and permanent nature, the Philippine Constitution and certain organic acts, and the Administrative code, all completely annotated

9. Supreme Court Advance Decisions

1. REX Book Store’s latest addition to its collection of legal materials

2. it chiefly chronicles cases/decisions promulgated by the SC and also includes SC Circulars, resolutions and other issuances for the
guidance of the members of the bar, the bench and the public at large.

10. Court of Appeals Reports

1. By Central Book Supply; one volume published

11. Records / Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention

• Provide for the intent and background of each provision of the Constitution

• Sources for the 1934-1935 Constitutional Convention are:

• 10 volumes of the Constitutional Convention Record by the House of Representatives (1966)

• Salvador Laurel's seven volumes book entitled Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention (1966)

• 6 volumes of the Philippine Constitution, Origins, Making, Meaning and Application by the Philippines

 • Lawyers Association with Jose Aruego as one of its editors (1970)

• Journal of the Constitutional convention of the Philippines by Vicente Francisco.

12. -  Velayo’s Digest

1. - digests of the SC and CA decisions

13. -  Philippine Treaty Series

1. - a collection of the texts of treaties and other international agreements which the Philippines is a party.