Constitutional Law 2 Reviewer

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 1
RIGHTS-BASED DISCOURSE: NORMS, RIGHTS AND THE PLACE OF JUDICIAL POWER

Judicial Powers
PROVISION ART 8 Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof. No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members. Section 4 (2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 FINALS REVIEWER
The Role of the Judiciary

The Courts have no mandate to make economic analysis; it is not a judge of the wisdom and soundness of the action of two other co-equal branches of government, but only of their legality and constitutionality. By no means does the expanded definition vest in the Courts the power to enter the realm of policy considerations under the guise of commission of grave abuse of discretion. The majority made a sweeping policy determination and transformed itself into a government by the Judiciary.(Garcia v Board of Investments) Patrimony heritage, not only to natural resources but to cultural heritage of Filipinos as well. Manila Hotel is a landmark, a living testament of Philippine heritage (Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS). As to whether such exercise [WTO ratification] was wise, beneficial, or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. That is a matter between the elected policy makers and the people (Tanada v Angara). RoC 65 Certiorari Commission on the ratings of students is not a tribunal, board, or office exercising judicial function against which an action for certiorari applies (Santiago v Bautista). Judicial power: (a) adjudication of rights and (b) construction of laws. (Santiago v Bautista) Judicial or quasi-judicial acts to be exercised require: Law gives some specific rights over person or property Adverse claims are made resulting in a controversy Such controversy is brought before a body of officers with authority to make the determination of law and adjudication of rights Recommendatory powers of judges are limited to those expressly provided by law, i.e., 5 RPC on commutation of sentence. It amounts to political interference and may result in loss of judicial prestige (Director of Prisons v Ang Cho Kho).
Self-executing Provisions
-
Self-executing provision: (a) complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of enabling legislation or (b) that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected (Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS). All constitutional provisions are presumed to be self-executing. A provision may be self-executing in one part and not on the other. Examples of self- executing: o Filipino First Policy (rights and concessions) o Right to Health o Right to Balanced and Healthful Ecology NOT examples of self-executing: o Self-reliant and independent national economy o Protect or prefer Filipino labour, products, domestic materials, and locally produced goods (preferential use) Principles in ART 2 1987C are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They are used as aides or guides in the exercise of the power of judicial review and by the legislature in the enactment of laws. IMPORTANCE OF CITING A MORE SPECIFIC LEGAL right to serve as a basis for a petition:

(1) Defendants may very well be unable to mount an effective or intelligent defence if the complaint points to a broad right (due process consideration) and (2) Substantive standards, e.g. right to a balanced and healthful ecology, and remedial standards, e.g. grave abuse of discretion result in propelling the courts to unchartered ocean of social and economic policy-making (Oposa v Factoran). Bill of attainder substitution of legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt (principle of separation of powers); it is an ex post facto law (People v Ferrer) Characteristics: (1) singling out a definite class (b) imposition of a burden on such class (3) legislative intent Ex Post Facto Law: Function: stand above politics Function: promote majority rule
Bill of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Laws

-
ANTI-POPULIST CRITIQUE OF DEMOCRACY Courts Politics/ the people Reasonable, Informed, Clear-headed, Emotional , Ignorant, Fuzzy-minded, Complex, Educated Simple-minded, Uneducated
POPULIST CRITIQUE OF CONSTITUTIONALISM: Inflation of constitutional law, its grandiose puffing as law imagined to be higher because better than ordinary law made by ordinary people
Case or Controversy
PROVISION ART 3 Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. DEFINITION: 1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act; (2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed; (3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed; (4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense; (5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and (6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. COUNTER-MAJORITARIAN DIFFICULTY Allow unelected judges to overturn the Expertise/training decisions made by democratically elected Mandate branches of government Legitimacy SOP Allow unaccountable courts to supplant the democratic will Thus, insulate judges from pressures of politics GOAL: transcend politics TWO NOTIONS ABOUT THE PLACE OF CONLAW Constitutional democracy Populist democracy Goal: contain or tame popular political Goal: nurture, galvanize and release energy popular political energy Constitution is higher law, superior to Constitution belongs to the true politics sovereign
(1) ACTUAL OR JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY existence of present or possible adverse parties whose contentions are submitted to the court for adjudication (Muskrat v US). It is essential to the protection of rights of parties concerned (PAACU v Secretary of Education). It must exist at stages of appellate or certiorari review and not simply at date action is initiated (Defunis v Odegaard; Roe v Wade). Definitions o Case suit instituted according the regular course of judicial proceedings o Controversyless comprehensive; only civil in nature NOT an example of actual controversy: Mere apprehension that Secretary of Education might under the law withdraw school permits and licenses making inspection and recognition of private schools and colleges mandatory (PAACU v Secretary of Education). a) RIPENESSsomething should have been accomplished or performed by either branch before the court may come into the picture (Francisco v House of Representatives). GR Ripeness: Question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity. If it is not raised in pleading, it may not be raised at trial and subsequently on appeal. XPNS: (1) criminal cases (2) jurisdiction of lower court assailed b) LIS MOTA very subject of controversy Liberality doctrine.Court can overrule when there is an extraordinary situation which calls for a relaxation of general rule on justiciability in order to (a) prevent multiplicity of suits (b) public policy demands immediate resolution (People v Vera). Examples: o Threat of prosecution WRT distribution of readily available contraceptiveslack of immediacy of threat described by the allegations raise questions of non-justiciability; Douglas dissent: court is asking people to violate the law and hope it is not enforced or that they don't get caught (Poe v Ullman) o Mere interest in a problem, no matter how long standing and how qualified the organization is in evaluating it, is not sufficient to render the organization adversely affected or aggrieved. (Sierra Club v Morton) o Washington Law School: denied admissionDefunis is not class action; his only remedy was that he be admitted. He has had that remedy and no

matter resolution of issues, he will no longer be affected because he is in final term and will be allowed to graduate (DeFunis v Odegaard). Doctrine of mere voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not moot case because university implie no concession that admission policy is unlawful and it may re-institute and return to old ways (Dissent Brennan Defunis Odegaard) STANDING AND REAL PARTY IN INTEREST Justiciability of substantive issues are (a) only relevant once a party has been granted standing, e.g. political questions will not be considered. (Flast v Cohen) o Taxpayer's suitlook at substantive issues to decide on standing to establish logical nexus between status asserted and claim sought to be adjudicated. Court has declared that it is not devoid of discretion as to whether or not suit should be entertained (Kilosbayan v Guingona). Examples of taxpayers suit: Education Act involves spending power of Congress (a). It violates establishment and free exercise clauses of US C (b). (Flast v Cohen) NOT examples of taxpayers suit CIA ActNo claim that funds are being spent on constitutional limitation upon taxing and spending power, rather Richardson asks the Courts to compel Government to give information of how CIA spends funds (a). No logical nexus between status as taxpayer and failure of Congress to require Executive to supply a more detailed report (US v Richardson). Logical Nexus- requisites: logical link (1) Between status, i.e. taxpayer, and type of legislative enactment attacked (2) Between status and nature of constitutional infringement alleged Declaratory reliefIt will not make an unconstitutional law disappear, but it is useful since a declaration of full unconstitutionality will result in the reversal of previous convictions and a declaration of partial unconstitutionality will limit statues applicability. Irreparable injury is not a prerequisite. (Steffel v Thompson) Direct injury. he has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the law's enforcement and not only in an indefinite way (Kilosbayan v Morato). Real Party in Interest. a party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment or the party entitled to the avails of the suit (Kilosbayan v Morato). o When real party in interest is unable to vindicate his rights by seeking the same remedies as in the case of Chief Justice who for ethical reasons cannot himself invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioners should be granted standing, said Dean. (Francisco v House of Representatives) Transcendental importance: o Party's standing is a procedural technicality, which courts may brush aside because of the transcendental importance to the public that demands cases settled promptly and definitely (Kilosbayan v Guingona). O FELICIANO'S INSTRUCTIVE DETERMINATION OF TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE character of funds or other assets (public) disregard of constitutional or statutory provision lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in raising the question Why is STANDING A SPECIAL CONCERN in constitutional law? Because in some cases suits are brought not by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of a law or by official action taken, but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest (Kilosbayan v Morato). o Real party in interest civil procedure o Standing constitutional underpinnings STANDING OR LOCUS STANDI (a) requires a partial consideration of merits as well as broader policy concerns relating to the proper role of the judiciary in certain areas and (b) a question on whether parties allege such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy to assure concrete adverseness, which sharpens presentation of issues upon which the courts rely on illumination of difficult constitutional questions Application of Standing: (exception to GR on standing- suing on a public right; mere fact petitioner is citizen satisfies requirement of personal interest) 1) Citizen.(a) direct and personal (b) party should appear or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled (c) party about to be subjected to burden or penalty by reason of statute or act complained of 2) Taxpayer.(a) claim that public funds illegally disbursed (b) public money is being deflected to any improper purpose (c) there is a waste of public funds through enforcement of invalid or unconstitutional law 3) Legislator.infringes prerogatives as a legislator 4) Association.(a) legal personality to represent its members (b) prove members sustained direct injury (citizen/taxpayer) 5) Class suits.sufficiently numerous to fully protect interests of all concerned. Why? Judgment in a class suit whether favorable or not is binding on all members of the class though they were not before the court. Examples of standing: o Rice importationlocal rice planter has standing because he is entitled to a chance to sell to the government the rice the latter now seeks to import; also as a taxpayer because public funds used to effect purchase of foreign rice (Gonzales v Hechanova) o Pro-Environment Organization (all railroads in country; environmental impact is nationwide)Unlike in Sierra Club which alleged destruction of natural resources, e.g. forests and lakes, here petitioners claim that their activities will be disturbed by use of non-recyclable materials as a result in increased rates of railroad transportation costs. Dean said, It's an attenuated line of causation to eventual injury of SCRAP! (US v SCRAP). NOT examples of standing o CCP constructionno sufficient standing because funds came from donations and contributions to Marcos not public funds raised through taxation; absence of requisite of pecuniary of monetary interest, taxpayer suit will not prosper; Dean said, It's reclaimed land! (Gonzalez v Marcos) o Pro-Environment Organization (limited to specific geographic area)Public interest as the issue is not enough. Otherwise, any group or individual with special interest in the issue can be given standing, which
C)

may undermine adverseness requisite of judicial review. Organization may represent members but it must show that they are injured parties. (Sierra Club v Morton). Request for CIA documentsno claim funds are being spent in violation of specific constitutional limitation upon Congress taxing and spending power. (US v Richardson) Most essential, insistent, illimitable of powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs. It rests upon public necessity and upon the rights of the state and of the public to self-protection thus, its scope expands and contracts with changing needs [i.e. only regulation, not prohibition of profession or calling; morality of gambling is not justiciable] Principal yardsticks against its exercise must be measured are due process & equal protection clauses.
DUE PROCESS
PROVISION ART 3 Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Procedural Due Process
Overview
The due process guaranty has traditionally been interpreted as imposing two related but distinct restrictions on government, "procedural due process" and "substantive due process." a. Procedural DP refers to the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Examples range from the form of notice given to the level of formality of a hearing. What constitutes due process When due process is/ is not required How much due process is duemore or less? what kind? compliance w/ steps, periods prescribed by statute in conformity w/ fair play and absence of arbitrariness on those who administer it b. If due process were confined solely to its procedural aspects, there would arise absurd situation of arbitrary government action, provided the proper formalities are followed. Substantive DP completes the protection envisioned by the due process clause. It inquires whether the government has sufficient justification for depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. Origins in protection for property (economic) Current law: focus on privacy and identity (liberty) Overlaps w/ EPC Intrinsic validity of law that interferes w/ rights of a person to his property STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: (1) Rational basis-laws or ordinance are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate govt interest - for review of economic legislation (2) Intermediate review- governmental interest is extensively examined and the availability of less restrictive measures is considered - for evaluation classifications based on gender and legitimacy; applied in substantive due process cases as well (3) Strict scrutiny- the focus is on the presence of compelling, rather than substantial, governmental interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest. POLICE POWER
- PURPOSE (1) Instrumental: contributes accuracy, minimizes errors in deprivation (2) Intrinsic: person subject of deprivation is given a sense of rational participation in a decision that can affect his destiny and enhances his dignity as a thinking person HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS: Property and property rights Human rights Prescriptible Imprescriptible Reasonable and rational relation Grave and imminent danger of a bet means employed by law and its substantive evil which the State has the object or purpose (law in not right to prevent arbitrary, discriminatory or oppressive) In the hierarchy of civil liberties, rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions The recognition of the inferior position occupied by property is a recognition of the importance of property for man thats why its the object of more intensive and extensive govt regulation to make its purpose equitably available to all. o Property is an important instrument for the preservation and enhancement of personal dignity o Various provisions protect property but w/ a reminder that property has a social dimension and that right to property is weighted w/ social obligation LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY: Liberty: measure of freedom w/c may be enjoyed in a civilized community, consistently w/ peaceful enjoyment of like freedom in others [i.e. blanket restriction on contact visits of military detainees; classification of property BUT doesnt include threatened demolition of dwelling] CHIEF ELEMENTS: right to contract, to choose ones employment, to labor & to locomotion Writ of Amparo: remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and property is violated or threatened w/ violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee or of a private individual or entity (purpose: to cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances & threats) Property: protected property (vested right)

No right is absolute; proper regulation as valid exercise of police power to secure gen welfare i.e. classification of property Pronouncements w/c say that licenses are not protected property but mere privileges cannot be taken as a sweeping declaration that revocation of licenses never requires opportunity for a hearing. [Bell v Burson: continued possession of license may be essential in pursuit of a livelihood] Life: right to be alive, to the security of ones limb against physical harm and to a good life Art 13 on social justice, policy against nuclear arms, abolition of death penalty Clear delineation of essentials of procedural fairness in judicial proceedings No waiver of any right provided in BOR may be waived, even if individual voluntarily relinquishes such right CONDITIONS OF DUE PROCESS (Banco Espanol Filipino v Palanca) o Court or tribunal must be clothe with judicial power to hear and determine matter before it o Jurisdiction must be acquired over person of defendant or property subject of proceeding o Defendant must be given opportunity to be heard o Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing PRIMARY RIGHTS WRT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS (Ang Tibay v CIR) o Right to hearing o Tribunal considers evidence presented o Decision has some legal principle to support it o Substantial evidence (reasonable evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support conclusion) o Decision based on evidence presented at hearing or contained in record and disclosed to parties affected o Tribunal acts on its own independent consideration and not accept views of subordinate o Decision: issues involved & its reason Administrative o Quasi-Legislative.lower due process requirement because (a) applies to all persons (b) consented to enter jurisdiction; notice & hearing is not necessary; delegated power to make rules and regulations (c. IRR) o Quasi-Judicial.higher due process requirement; applies to a specific class or group of persons Judicial o Civil o Criminal GR enactments made by executive and legislative branches do not require notice and hearing XPN when (a) the branch exercises quasi-judicial or judicial functions and (b) deprives party of life, liberty, or property, such that particular and immediate rather than general and prospective (Philcomsat v Alcuaz) Estrada v Sandiganbayan: Void for vagueness doctrine: a statute w/c forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its meaning and differ in its application REPUGNANT TO CONSTI IN 2 RESPECTS: 1) violates DP due to failure to accord persons fair notice of what conduct to avoid 2) arbitrary flexing of gov't muscle: leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions Does not apply to : 1) imprecise language but nonetheless specify a standard and can be saved by proper construction 2)ambiguous yet fairly applicable to certain types of activities (i.e. conduct unbecoming of an officer and gentleman) 3)legislation is clear and free from ambiguity Overbreadth doctrine: a gov'tal purpose may not be achieved by means w/c sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms APPLICATION (Philcomsat v Alcuaz)Fixing Quasi-legislative of rates general Quasi-judicial Fixing of rates WRT Philcomsat only (Ateneo v CA) (a) institution opened itself to public BOR application to private (b) education is public right entities (c) contract between school and student creates requirement of due process (Alcuaz v PSBA) Privilege becomes a right through the creation of a Contract terminates at the contract end of each semester (Non Judge Dames ) MINIMAL STANDARDS TO SATISFY PROCEDURAL Overturns Alcuaz DP: (a) contract is for 4 year (a) Students must be informed in writing of nature period and cause of accusation against them (b) Disciplinary issue (due (b) right to answer charges with assistance of process); Academic issue (no counsel if desired need for due process) (c) informed of evidence against them (c) Manual of school (there (d) right to adduce evidence on their own behalf must be strict application) (e) evidence must be duly considered by investigating committee or official designated to hear and decide (Goldberg v Kelly) Majority.privilege became a right (2 rights: (a) Welfare system; process to property subsequently (b) life) once so dependent on strike beneficiaries off list act of charity Dissent.effect act of benevolence is subject to certain requirements; defeats purpose of gratuitous act (Bell v Burson ) (a) Privilege became right upon proof license Confiscation of driver's necessary to livelihood license automatic with no (b) Not just taking of use of license but ownership of

insurance; pastor's job to car. travel to other places (UP v Hon. Ligot-Telan ) (a) Privilege offered to public; upon acceptance it Law student falsification of became a contract right and subject due process STFAP application requirements (DBP v NLRC ) Lien- established right over the property can't be disregarded due to another claim (must respect preference of right)*** (Sec of Justice v Hon Lantion ) Extradition proceeding is sui generis; nothing to protect bec there's no ruling on criminal liability (rudimentary, not full blown)-- US courts to afford due process not Phil courts (Estrada v Sandiganbayan ) Void as applied to you vs. void on its faceVagueness produce facial validation, while statutes found vague as a matter of due process typically are invalidated only as applied to a particular defendant bakers & consumers Means: limit number of working hours 16 to 10 ground for legislative interference. Clean and wholesome bread not dependent on baker's hours of work. Overworked bakers do not die more times than other overworked professions. Dissent (Harlan). Case allows economic interests of owners through protection of freedom to contract to trump social justice interest e.g. health (Prevailing doctrine until West Coast Hotel v Parish 1937) SCRUTINY test
(c. Garcia v Board of Investment WRT judicial law-making)
Right: Freedom of Contract versus Government Interest: Public Health
B. OLD SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

Protection for property interests WRT property rights in hierarchy of BOR rights TRUMPS police power Guarantee against the exercise of arbitrary power even when power is exercised according to proper forms and procedure; rarely invoked with success because Supreme Court gives generous latitude to legislation to promote public health, safety, and welfare When is state interference justified? o Public interest Means are reasonably necessary for accomplishment of purpose; not unduly oppressive for individuals Concept of public welfare is broad and inclusive; represents interests spiritual, physical, aesthetic, and monetary Ex post facto provision of the Constitution applies solely to criminal cases, not civil; does NOT extend to prohibit the depriving of a citizen of vested right to property (Calder v Bull) o If anyone has a right to property, such right is a perfect and exclusive right, but no one can have such a right before he has acquired a better right to the property than any other person in the world.GR vested right canNOT be taken away without due process When the exercise of police power by local government are invalid (Balacuit v CFI) o violates Constitutional o violates act of Congress or legislature o against public policy or is unreasonable, oppressive, discriminating or in derogation of common rights APPLICATION Possible existence of unhealthiness is not legitimate RATIONAL BASIS a.k.a. MINIMUM
People v Pomar Purpose: health and economic benefit for pregnant females Means: +/- 30 days sick leave
Dissent (Holmes).some of these laws embody convictions or prejudices which judges are likely to share. Some may not. But a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory. Filipino version of Lochner v NY.
NDC and AGRIX v Phil. Veterans Mortgage or liens (security) was taken but loan still exists. Right to recover lost because no more security. People v Nazario Nazario refuses to pay taxes on operation of fishponds he leased
Right to contract one's affairs is a part of the liberty of the individual protected by the due process clause. Within this liberty are contracts of employment. Parties have an equal right to obtain from each other the best terms they can as the result of bargaining. Police power is not a cure-all for all constitutional maladies
RATIONAL BASIS a.k.a. MINIMUM SCRUTINY test
(a) no specific class or section of public identified, e.g. creditors and investors; no lawful subject (b) not shown by creation of new AGRIX and extinction of its creditors, the interest of public as a whole is promoted or protected 1)Merely a problem in computation does not entail vagueness in the law so as to constitute a violation of due process 2) though gov't owns the
Right: Freedom of Contract versus Government Interest: Public Health RATIONAL BASIS a.k.a. MINIMUM SCRUTINY test Right: Property rights of creditors versus Government Interest: Police power
Lochner v NY Purpose: health of

from govt asserting tax measure 1) ambiguous 2) applies only to owners of fishponds of private ownership and not lesses of public land Balacuit v CFI Purpose: promote family time Means: half-price for children land, it never had a share in profits so it's only logical that Nazario shoulders the burden of the tax Right to privacy of communication (wiretapped tapes) no physical taking bec what was used was recording of audio and no trespassing bec taps were done in the streets and not in houses of conspirators- (Olmstead v US) o Dissent (Brandeis): before- all invasions on the part of the govt and its employees of the sanctities of a mans home and privacies of life (invasion of right of personal security constitutes essence of the offense; now- immaterial where the physical connection w/ telephone wires leading into Ds premises was made; it is also immaterial that intrusion was in aid of law enforcement b. SC recognizes right to privacy as a fundamental right for the first time; National Computerized Identification Reference System is unconstitutional bec it lacks sufficient safeguards like purpose, who has access, etc. i. purpose: provide citizens and foreigners w/ facility to conveniently transact business w/ basic service and reduce fraudulent transactions in seeking basic services ii. test: strict scrutiny iii. no fit: vague and overbroad; interests are not compelling enough(Ople v Torres) Clients right: private right of married couples and those who exercise legitimate purpose in using wash up rates (White Light Corp v City of Mla) i. Concept of third party standing: (a) The litigant must have suffered an injury-in-fact (b) Litigant must have a close relation to the third party (c) There must exist some hindrance to the third partys ability to protect his or her own interests ii. It is those trivial yet fundamental freedoms w/c the people reflexively exercise any day w/o impairing awareness of their constitutional consequence that accurately reflect the degree of liberty enjoyed by the people. Right to choose a wife VS. right of Glaxo to protect its interest against the possibility that a competitor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures: BUT Tecson waived his right by signing the contract of employment (criticism: cannot waive a fundamental right) (Duncan Assoc v Glaxo Welcome) Dissent: Courts inaction is the State action Right to marital privacy (a) The concept of liberty embraces the right of marital privacy though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution. DPC protects those liberties that are so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental. (Griswold v Connecticut) (b) Right of individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to beget a child; converts Griswold right to privacy of married couples to unmarried individual; right to privacy is independent of marriage or relationship(Eisenstadt v Baird) Right to procreate: Oklahoma Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act; case extends due process to include decisional privacy i.e. to procreate (due process is lacking bec D is not given an opportunity to be heard on the issue as to w/n he a.
No lawful subject or lawful purpose.
Agustin v Edu Purpose: public road safety Means: early warning device requirement
(1) It is hard to distinguish between an 11 year old and 13 year old (impractical) (2) Disincentive to show films for children; result in more adult films (rational basis) (3) Children will frequent movies more instead of studying (rational basis) Argument should have been statutes limiting right to use property; bundle of rights: use, dispose, destroy, and alienate (?) Agustin still has car, but his right to use the car has been taken away. It remains in his garage FOREVER.
RATIONAL BASIS a.k.a. MINIMUM SCRUTINY test
2. RATIONAL BASIS a.k.a. MINIMUM SCRUTINY test Right: Use car (property) versus Interest: Safety drivers and pedestrian
3.
C. NEW SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

DEFINITION: Guarantee against the exercise of arbitrary power even when power is exercised accdg to proper forms and procedure TO JUSTIFY STATE INTERFERENCE: 1) interest of public generally require such interference 2)means are reasonably necessary for accomplishment of purpose; not unduly oppressive on individuals 1. Right to privacy: merely requires law be narrowly focused and a compelling interest to justify intrusions (Ople v Torres) Morfe accorded recognition to the right of privacy independently of its identification w/ liberty; in itself it is fully deserving of constitutional protection 4.
5.

is probable potential parent of socially undesirable offspring)- (Skinner v Oklahoma) Right to have sex for entire lifetime: medical treatment to prescribe contraceptives: 3 consecutive pregnancies terminating in infants w/ multiple congenital abnormalities; (procedural DP: dead letter law is a violation of DP bec you are unsure of w/n you will be convicted)- (Poe v Ullman) Right to abortion- when compelling point starts (when state should come into picture)- judicial legislation: 1st trimester: cannot ban and regulate; 2nd trimester: cannot ban but may regulate; 3rd trimester: may ban due to increased State interest (Roe v Wade) Right of homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sex- [sodomy= any deviant sexual behavior bet ppl of same sex]:right to privacy only extends to procreation; since homosexuals cant procreate so they do not have such right (Bowers v Hardwick); the liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexuals persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. DP gives them full right to engage in private conduct w/o govt intervention, there being no state interest to justify intrusion into individuals private life(Lawrence v Texas) Right to change ones name: not a right but a privilege bec there is public interest in stable identification of its citizens (a) A change of name does not alter ones legal capacity or civil status (b) Status refers to circumstances affecting the legal situation of a person in view of his age, nationality and family membership; it is more or less permanent in nature, not ordinarily terminable at his own will (Silverio v Republic) Police power is expanding but it cannot grow faster than the fundamental law of the State, w/c people can amend should they desire to have the police power extended EMINENT DOMAINlimitations: (1) Taking must be for public use Definition: public usefulness, utility or advantage or what is productive of general benefit; as broad as public welfare; equated w/ public necessity o justiciable: determination of w/n there is genuine necessity for exercise of eminent domain o political: question of necessity (2) Payment of just compensation Definition: Just and complete equiv of loss w/c the owner of the thing expropriated has to suffer by reason of the expropriation; receives the market value o market value-fair value as bet one who desires to purchase and one who desires to sell (+consequential damages- consequential benefits+ interests @time property was taken to the time compensation is given/ deposited w/ the court) (Republic v Castelvi) Computation: start from the filing of the complaint (Republic v Castelvi) o consequential damages: damages to other interest of the owner that can be attributed to the expropriation o consequential benefits: inc in value of other interest of the owner that can be attributed to the new use to w/c his former property will be put by the expropriating authority o GR: time of taking [XPN: time of filing of complaint (ROC 67, Sec 4)when owner would be given undeserved profit] Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered just inasmuch as the property owner is made to suffer the consequences of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving compensation Constitution does not required prior compensation neither does it specify that compensation be in money. What it requires is just compensation Not its prospective value from future use (NPC v CA) Determination of just compensation: judicial function: executive or legislative departments may make initial determinations but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in BOR, no statute, decree, or EO can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the courts findings. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the justness of the decreed compensation- (e.g. value either declared by owner or assessed value, whichever is lower impermissible encroachment of judicial prerogative) (EPZA v Dulay) o ASPECTS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL SCRUTINY: 1) adequacy of compensation 2) necessity of taking 3) public use character of the purpose of the taking
6. 7. 8.
9.
D. PROTECTED INTERESTS IN PROPERTY

-
I. Mere Regulation (DP) vs Taking of Property (ED)
INALIENABLE: The power of eminent domain and police power cannot be contracted away TEST: w/n there is a just restraint on injurious private use of property- if yes, regulatory taking AESTHETIC: SC, unlike US Courts, hold that police power can interfere w/ private property rights for purely aesthetic reasons; can be used as reason for taking but there must be due process and just compensation Before: aesthetic considerations are a matter of luxury, not necessity and do not justify exercise of police power (persons of refined taste) Now: the concept of public welfare is broad and inclusive; values it represents are spiritual, physical, aesthetic and monetary. It is w/in the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful, healthy, spacious, clean, well balanced and carefully patrolled. CONTRACTS: In all particulars the employer and employee have equality of right and any legislation that disturbs that equality is an arbitrary interference w/ the liberty of contract;

The standard of legitimacy is not compensation but reasonableness of the regulation; consider: a. eco impact of regulation on property b. extent to w/c regulation interferes w/ investment expectations (3) Due process must be observed in the taking -ELEMENTS OF TAKING OF PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EMINENT DOMAIN: (Republic v Castelvi) (1) the expropriator must enter a private property (2) entrance into the private property must be for more than a momentary pd (3) entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legal authority (4) must be devoted to a public use (5) utilization for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of property (a) right of eminent domain may not be exercised by simply leasing the premises to be expropriated the moment of adverse possession=moment of taking Regulation Taking Object: general welfare No compensation required even if Just compensation is required when property right is impaired property is taken Neither acquisition of title nor total destruction of value is essential to taking Property interest is appropriated Property interest is merely and applied to some public use restricted (destroyed) bec continued unrestricted use (existence) would be injurious to public welfare Note: Easement on property is a form While regulation affects right of utilization of said property of ownership (use was for public benefit (i.e People v limited), none of the Fajardo) property interests in the Mere declaration of an intention bundle of rights w/c to expropriate does not yet constitute ownership can be serve to curtail the dominical appropriated for use by or rights of the owner for the benefit of the public. When entry into private Total destruction w/o property is not just a simple utilization is not taking but right-of-way but for purposes of merely regulation by police exploration, extraction and power processing of minerals, there is already taking Right of way enforced makes adjoining property unusable APPLICATION: o (a) Billboard advertising is not so much use of private property as it is the use of public thoroughfares so must be regulated. Unsightly ads are not disassociated from general welfare of the public. No compensation because abatement is good for everyone, including the owner and because the owner himself created the nuisance [elements for abatement: 1) fault and 2) shared benefit] (Churchill v Rafferty) (b) Construction of a residential bldg w/c would block the view of public plaza- the State may not, under the guise of police power, permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their property and practically confiscate them solely to preserve or assure the aesthetic appearance of the community (beneficial use= what the property was intended for; can use property for any other purpose but in this case, it was bought to construct a house) (People v Fajardo) Comparison (a) Absolute ban on carabao slaughter, w/c are not unfit for agricultural purpose, w/o permit-not an eminent domain taking but a regulatory taking (a just restraint on injurious private use of property)only regulates use of property but doesnt deprive him of other elements of ownership (US v Toribio) Bundle of rights: right to possess, use, sell, destroy, consume (b) Absolute ban on movement to prevent slaughter: no fit so an invalid exercise of police power- easy circumvention: kill then transfer dead meat) Oder to open the gate was deemed an abatement of public nuisance; exercise of police power and not eminent domain (can claim that there was a loss of beneficial use but not decrease in value of land)- (Bel Air Village Assoc v IAC) Character of MMDA: no capacity to exercise police power. Police power is primarily lodged in the Legislature. It may be delegated to govt units. But MMDA is a devt authority, not a political unit (MMDA v Bel Air Association) Residential lot in a commercial zone: non-impairment clause of contracts is not absolute since it must be reconciled w/ legitimate exercise of PP; when gen. welfare and private property rights clash, the former must prevail through police power (Ortigas v Feati)
2.
3. 4. 5.
B. E minent Domain Taking

1.
2.
A. Regulatory taking
1. Aesthetic
Navigable air space: while there was no physical invasion or taking of property, the Court rules that rendering lands unusable for purposes of chicken farm entitles owner to compensation. The measure of value is not the takers gain but the owners loss. It is the character of invasion and not the amt of damage resulting that determines w/n property was taken (US v Causby) Interconnecting Lines Agreement: while Govt may not compel an agreement, it may require PLDT to permit interconnection bet it and the govt as an exercise of eminent domain. The power of eminent domain may be used to impose a burden on the owner, w/o having to relinquish the ownership and title. The State may require a public utility to render services in the general interest. (Republic v PLDT) decorporealized property: bundle of relations protected by govt
II. Takings under Eminent Domain VS. Takings under Social Justice Clause
Taking under Eminent Domain Public use Just compensation Social Justice Taking Benefits only some individuals or a group Some compensation- the State can make the public shoulder some part of the burden of social justice interest. The missing part from the compensation is considered as a duty on the part of the owner to help beneficiaries -
EMINENT DOMAIN: Choice of property to be expropriated is subject to judicial review as to reasonableness: private property to be taken cannot be chosen arbitrarily as landowner is entitled to due process. (De Knecht v Bautista) o Although DP does not always demand a proceeding before a court of law, it still mandates some form of proceeding wherein notice and reasonable opportunity to be heard are given to the owner to protect his property rights (Manotok v NHA) o WHAT IS THE PROCEDURAL OR SUBSTANTIVE REQUISITE: 1) responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice 2) arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided 3)must not outrun the bounds of reason and result in sheer oppression 4) should be reflective of democratic traditions of legal and political thought 5)not unrelated to time, place and circumstances 6) due process cannot be a slave to form or phrases Previous court decision is no obstacle to the Legislature in making its own assessment of the circumstances then prevailing as to the propriety of the expropriation and thereafter enacting the corresponding legislation (Republic v De Knecht) NOTE: De Knecht v Bautista: residents over motels:: Republic v De Knecht: residents lost EXPANSION OF PUBLIC USE REQUIREMENT: The very foundation of right to exercise eminent domain is a genuine necessity and that necessity must be of a public character. (Manotok v NHA) Expanded: application from general public to private individuals o although it benefits certain individuals, it still satisfies the public use requirement bec its purpose solves a social justice problem (Sumulong v Guerrero) Number of people to be benefitted test- property owner may not interpose objections merely bec in their judgment some other property would have been more suitable for the purpose; the right to use, enjoy or dispose of private property has to yield to the demands of common good (stewardship concept) (Sumulong v Guerrero) Social Justice: The right to property has a social dimension. While Article XIII of the Constitution provides the precept for the protection of property, various laws
and jurisprudence, particularly on agrarian reform and the regulation of contracts and public utilities, continuously serve as a reminder that the right to property can be relinquished upon the command of the State for the promotion of public good. Cannot be invoked to protect just one persons property rights (Republic v De Knecht) A built-in exception to EPC. (What you take from Peter to give to Paul, you must explain to Peter why) APPLICATION: 1. Agrarian reform program: expropriation it contemplated matches requirements for proper exercise of power of eminent domain public use: necessary measure to encourage just distribution of all agricultural lands just compensation: other forms of payment- shares of stock in GOCCs, bonds,etc. although traditional medium for payment of just compensation is money, this is not a traditional or ordinary expropriation where only a specific and limited area is sought to be taken by the State for a local purpose This is a revolutionary kind of expropriation w/c 1)affects all private agricultural land as long as they are in excess of max retention limits allowed their owners 2) benefits entire Filipino nation 3) purpose goes beyond in time to the foreseeable future (Assoc of Small Landowners v Sec of Agrarian Reform) 2. Increase in license fees- incidental to police power (power to regulate prostitution and to curb immorality). Cities and municipalities have plenary power to tax (1) for public purpose, (2) just, (3) uniform- (Ermita Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v City of Mla) 3. Charity burial of paupers- set aside 6% of land- exercise of eminent domain, not a mere police regulation but an outright confiscation. It deprives person of his private property w/o DP, even w/o compensation Can make a valid exercise of police power by arguing that Himlayang Pilipino must provide land to prevent public health hazard of dead paupers lying around OR Can make it a social justice taking by arguing that Himlayang Pilipino does not solely shoulder cost but govt shares w/ the burden by subsidizing the land set aside (equates to some compensation)- (City Govt v Judge Ericta) 4. Land to cultivate & harvest fruits vs land used for livestock, poultry and swineuse of land is incidental to but not the principal factor in productivity in this industry. It was never the intent of the framers to include livestock and poultry-raising in the coverage of the constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program (Luz Farms v Secretary) 5. One single family residential bldg restrictionrestriction not only clearly defines the type and no. of structures but also the no. of families to avoid overcrowding w/c would create problems in sanity and security for the subdivision. But concept of single-family dwelling may embrace the extended family as recognized by Filipino custom. Dissent (Gutierrez): Court is not protecting against unpleasant consequences but the inflated land values and elitist lifestyle. Under the

rules, one family could hire a battalion of servants without violating the single family rule. o Social function of land: Congress must give highest priority to measures w/c enhance the right of all people to human dignity and reduce social , economic and political inequalities through the equitable diffusion of wealth and political power (Cariday v CA) Senior citizens program: its success program rests largely on the support imparted by private establishments concerned. Means employed in order to achieve the purpose of the law is reasonably and directly related. Purpose: to maximize the contribution of senior citizens to nationbuilding, and to grant benefits and privileges for their improvement and well-being Means: invoking active participation of private sector thru Sec 4(a) grants 20% discount from all establishments relative to certain services(Carlos Superdrug Corp v DSWD) 30 m Buffer Zone: No fair distinction as to the area or size of the plantation, downsizing the area to be cultivated and constricting further the viability of their farmlands for profitable endeavors. Thus, the requirement violates DPC bec it unreasonably deprives plantation owners of the lawful and beneficial use of such areas to be ceded, w/o just compensation (a) Where a regulation places limitations on land that fall short of eliminating all economically beneficial or productive use of land, a taking nonetheless may have occurred and such requires compensation. (b) The area to be ceded is not injurious property or has not been devoted to an injurious purpose (farms or banana plantations per se are not injurious to public welfare) so police power cannot be invoked to justify compulsion for plantation owners to cede a portion of their property w/o just compensation. Thus, Sec 6 constitutes unlawful taking of property w/o due process. (Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Assoc v City of Davao) it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant. The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish- workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons. The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for largescale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources. The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution. Section 14.2: The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law. CONCEPT: guarantees legal equality: equality of persons before the law ( does not demand absolute equality but merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced) EPC does not forbid all legal classification. What is proscribed is classification w/c is arbitrary and unreasonable (Dumlao v Comelec) Inherent in the power to legislate is the right to classify and power to recognize and act upon factual differences bet individuals and classes Its not sufficient grounds for invalidation that it is unfair, underinclusive, unwise or not the best solution from public-policy standpoint (Quinto v Comelec) Even if the law is impartial on its face, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations bet persons in similar circumstances material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still w/in the prohibition of the CONST. Universal application of 14th A w/in territorial jurisdiction w/o regard to any differences of race, color or nationality. (Yick Wo v Hopkins) Alienage: civil rights of aliens on equal footing w/ those of local citizens; political rights do not enjoy the same protection (for material progress and welfare of citizens of a country) PURPOSE: against undue favor, individual or class privilege and hostile discrimination/ oppression of inequality
6.
7.
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

PROVISIONS: ART 2 Section 14: The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. Section 22: The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development. ART 12 Section 2: All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or

Example: (League of Cities) REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION (People v Cayat) (1) must rest on substantial distinctions real, not merely imaginary not immutable (2) must be germane to the purposes of the law (3) must apply not only to present conditions but also to future conditions which are substantially identical to those of the present (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class Elective Appointitive occupy ofc by virtue of mandate of hold ofc by virtue of designation by an electorate apptng authority elected to ofc for definite term and some in permanent capacity and may be removed only upon stringent entitled to security of tenure while conditions others at the pleasure of apptng hold pol ofcs so obviously allowed to take authority part in pol. and electoral activities as officers and employees in civil service are strictly prohibited from engaging in any partisan pol activity or take part in any election [xpn: to vote] KINDS OF TEST (1) strict scrutiny test (a) compelling state interest (b) classification necessary to serve CSI (i.e. rights recognized as fundamental- race, religion, alienage, right to vote, migration) political right (right to be voted)-strict scrutiny (i) 2 violations EPC: distinction bet legitimate and illegitimate AND bet illegitimate child of Filipino father and Filipino mother (ii) Real differences may justify distinction for one purpose but not for another (FC v political right) (iii) No state interest to disqualify illegitimate child from being public officer- punish for parents indiscretion (Tecson v Comelec) (2) intermediate/ heightened scrutiny test (a) important state interest (b) classification substantially related to ISI (i.e. suspect classification- gender, illegitimacy) Gender classification is not invidious but rather realistically reflects the fact that sexes are not similarly situated in certain circumstances (Michael M v Superior Court- statutory rape) When gender neutral statute is challenged there must be a TWOFOLD INQUIRY: (1) prove neutrality, not gender based (2) adverse effects reflects invidious gender-based discrimination. (impact is starting pt but its purposeful discrimination is the condition that offends CONST)- (Personnel Administrator v Feeney- Veterans Preference Statute) (3) minimum or rational basis scrutiny (a) legitimate state interest (b) classification rationally related to serve LSI (i.e. all subjects other than those listed above) - most used test in Phil jurisprudence APPLICATIONS: (1) Reasonable classification- Ormoc Sugar Inc v Treasurer of Ormoc (sugar mills now v future); League of Cities v Comelec (elective v appontitive) ; Goesart v Cleary (liquor license: males v females); Gedulig v Aiello ( disability insurance system: underinclusive v gender-linked disability v element of choice to get pregnant); Mississippi Univ School v Hogan (no disadvantage v freedom of choice); Goodridge v Dept of Health (same sex marriage); Tecson v Comelec (illegitimate v legitimate children wrt public office) (2) Procedure: Fragrante v City of Honolulu (accent- materially interfere w/ work performance) (a) complainant proves prima facie case- evidence that gives inference of unlawful discrimination (requisites: identifiable natl origin, qualified, rejected despite qualifications, position remained open and employer continued to seek applicants) (b) employer proves legitimate non-discriminatory reason- shouldnt be pretext for invidious discrimination (motivated by reasonable necessity) (3) Proxy: People v Non-Christian tribe= level of Insure peace and orders Cayat civilization Korematsu Ethnicity= loyalty to US Protection against v US espionage and sabotage Fragrante v Accent= nation of origin Listener prejudice (ability City of to communicate Honolulu effectively) Yick Wo v Type of bldg= ethnicity (as Protect public from fire Hopkins applied) Intl School Pt of hire= nationality Need to attract foreign Alliance v hires Quisumbing Diversity of faculty (4) Hypotheticals: Plessy v Ferguson (mixed races-proportion); Bradwell v Illinois (used pp to legislate) Fragrante v City and County of Honolulu (accent as trainable; as applied to call centers) (5) Comparison: (a) Univ of California v Bakke and Gratz v Bollinger (i) Univ of California v Bakke : The diversity that furthers a CSI encompasses a far broader array of qualifications and classficiations of w/c racial or ethnic origin is but a single though impt element. Racial quota is not necessary means towards that end. a) Race or ethnic bckgd may be deemed a plus in a particular applicants file yet it doesnt insulate him from comparison w/ others for available seats. Must consider all pertinent elements of diversity ad place them in same footing for consideration, although not necessarily accdg them the same weight.

b) Treats each applicant as individual in the admission process (ii) Gratz v Bollinger: Racial classification must be analyzed under strict scrutiny and does not violate EPC if narrowly tailored by not insulating each category of applicants w/ certain desired qualifications from competition with all other applicants (b) Board of Directors v Rotary Club v Boy Scouts of America v Dale (i) Board of Directors v Rotary Club: CSI: assure equal access to women extends to acquisition of leadership skills and business contacts as well as tangible G&S (ii) Right of assoc may be limited by state regulation necessary to serve a CSI unrelated to suppression of ideas a) private association: protection against unjustified govt interference w/ an individuals choice to enter into and maintain certain intimate or private rel size, purpose, selectivity and whether others are excluded from critical aspects of the relationship b) expressive association: protect freedom to associate for purpose of engaging in protected speech or rel activities (iii) Boy Scouts of America v Dale: freedom of association presuppose a freedom not to associate: forced membership is unconstitutional if persons presence affects in a significant way to grps ability to advocate public or private viewpoints- burden orgs right to oppose or disfavor homosexual conduct (a) association that seeks to transmit a system of values engages in expressive activity Purpose of protection: to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for bringing abt political and social changes Freedom of press VS freedom from the press= self-regulation: without lively sense of responsibility, a free press may become a power instrument of injustice (Frankfurter)- distinguished from self-censorship- (Borjal v CA) Undifferentiated fear or apprehension is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression (TINKER) Hecklers Veto: State becomes the agent of a private party Right of Assembly: a right on the part of citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs Right to petition: any person or grp of persons can apply, w/o fear of penalty, to the appropriate branch or of govt for redress of grievances Void for vagueness and overbreadth doctrine do not apply to criminal cases in general but only to cases involving speech o A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague or overbroad statute bec of possible chilling effect upon protected speech. o The possible harm to society in permitted some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech of others may be deterred and perceived grievance left to worsen bec of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes o Criminal statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from their very existence GUIDE TO INTERPRETATION: broadest scope and widest latitude extends to nearly all form of communication LIMITATIONS: it is not absolute bec relevant interests on type of speech determines level of protection (i.e. slander, libel, lewd, obscene and fighting words are not entitled to constitutional protection and may be penalized) 1. Criticism should be specific, constructive, w/in range of liberty unless intention and effect be seditious (see People v Perez, supra) 2. Criterion for permissible restriction: STEP 1: determine whether: (a) Content-neutral: incidents of speech or time, place and manner and under well-defined circumstances (test: immediate scrutinyOBrien) (b) Content- based: subject matter of speech (clear and present danger) STEP 2: apply a test: (a) Dangerous tendency: rational connection bet speech and danger; have natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance to bring abt substantive evil w/c L seeks to prevent (b) Balancing of interests: conscious and detailed consideration of interplay bet values and individual interests in a given situation Examples: (1) Re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage of Trial in Sandiganbayan of Plunder Cases against Former Pres Estrada: constitutional guarantees of freedom of press and right to public info VS right of accused Right of accused-preferred to win bec of liberty and life at stake public trial (enough facilities for reasonable no. of public to observe) is diff from publicized trial (influence witnesses and judge- integrity of trial) o
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
PROVISION ART 3 Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
First Prohibition of Prior Restraint: Liberty of the press is essential to the nature of a free state: but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publication, and not in freedom of censure for criminal matter published if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. Current Events Application (Re: 37 Lawyers Contempt)Guarantees of free press and free speech include the right to criticize judicial conduct when in good faith (Justice Malcolm) Current Events Application (Re: SWS Exit Polls)Ban on exit polls is invalid; it is a form of prior restraint bec. Grant of power to COMELEC limited to ensuring equal opportunity, time, space, and right to reply.
Freedom of expression is a preferred right and stands on a higher level than substantive economic or other liberties bec it is an indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom. Political discussion is essential to the ascertainment of pol. truth (DANS- Teehankee dissent)

Trial is test of truth in a courtroom, not a free trade of ideas nor competing market of thoughts (2) Adiong v Comelec: Freedom to speak by candidate/party + freedom of electorate to know > maintaining clean & free elections (3) Ayer v Judge Capulong: Freedom of speech v right to privacy o Movie limits itself in portraying Enrile to events which are directly and reasonably related to public facts; necessary to keep film truthful historical account (c) Clear and present danger: whether words used are of such nature as to bring abt substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent; ask whether gravity of the evil discounted by its improbability BUT reject success or probability of success as criterion (a) Clear: causal connection w/ danger of substantive evil arising from the utterance (b) Present: imminent, urgent and impending (extremely high) (c) Danger: extremely serious- high quantum of proof a.
Prior R estraint: official govtal restrictions on the press in advance of
CPD
Pure Speech
Speech/ Conduct
TMP
Speech Plus
OBrien
Contentbased Protected Speech
Contentneutral Unprotected Speech
Public Property No PermitFreedom Park Obscenity Miller Permit: TMP Regulation Fighting Words Cohen
Pruneyard
Private Property
Political, Artistic, Commercial KINDS
Public forum
Not public forum
1) PROTECTED SPEECH
NYT, Rosenbloom
Defamation (Libel)
actual publication or dissemination; freedom from censorship of whatever form, wielded by any branch of govt ESSENCE OF CENSORSHIP: newspaper or periodical is suppressed and further publication is made punishable as a contempt (Near v Minnesota); Any form of permission before publication can be made (Chavez v Gonzales) TESTED BY OPERATION & EFFECT: (case-to-case basis) (1) Not aimed at the redress of individual or private wrongs (2) Directed not simply at circulation but continued publication (3) Object of the statute is not punishment but suppression of newspaper or periodical (4) Also, puts publisher under effective censorship (Near v Minnesota) o The protection as to previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited. Limitation has been recognized only in exceptional cases: 1) war 2)prevention of destruction to recruiting service 3) obscene publications 4) incitement to acts of violence and overthrow by force of orderly govt (Schneck v US) GUIDELINES FOR PRIOR RESTRAINT: (1) burden of proving film is unprotected expression: censors Any system of prior restraint has a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity (2) require judicial determination to impose a valid determination Any restraint imposed in advance of judicial determination must be limited to preservation of status quo for the shortest fixed pd compatible w/ sound judicial resolution ( must have regard to possible consequences for constitutionally protected speech) (3) prompt determination w/in a specified period o Ratio: it may take very little to deter exhibition in a give localityexhibitors stake in any one picture may be insufficient to litigate and distributor can freely exhibit his film w/o difficulties elsewhere(Freedman v Maryland) APPLICATION: (1) Chavez v Gonzales: Press statements by NTC and Gonzales should be struck down as prior restraints- any act done for and behalf of govt in an official capacity is covered by the rule on prior restraint (a) Enough evidence of chilling effect-Chavez was left to fight the battle, silence on media practitioners. (2) Pharmaceutical and Health Assoc of Phils v DOH Sec Advertising and promotion of breastmilk substitutes properly fall w/in the term commercial speech Commercial speech: (1) speech that proposes commercial transaction (2)separate category of speech from constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression but nonetheless protected

State regulation (absolute ban advertising of breast milk substitutes) is more extensive than is necessary to serve the interest of providing adequate nutrition to infants (1) Conspiracy to organize the communist party and to teach and advocate to overthrow the govt of US by force and violence created a clear and present danger ( Dennis v US) discussion vs. advocacy (2) Marketplace of ideas and sunshine is the best antisepticpublishing leaflets for general strike to produce ammunitions for US troops in Russia Speech Plus: Symbolic Speech- speech has a lower level of resonance OBrien Test: When speech and nonspeech elements are combined, a sufficiently impt govt interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on 1st A (also used to distinguish bet content-based & content-neutral) (1) W/in CONSTAL power of govt (2) Furthers impt or substantial govtal interest (3) Govtal interest is unrelated to suppression of free expression (4) Incidental restriction on 1st A is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest APPLICATION: o US vs OBRIEN: burning of registration cert. (1) Congress has the power to insure continuity of issued cert (2) Substantial interest: system for raising armies that functions w/ max efficiency (3) 1965 A- punishes those who knowingly destroy or mutilate a certificate o Tinker v Des Moines School District (1) NO. school officials have no absolute authority over students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional right to freedom of expression at the schoolhouse gate (2) NO showing that that they materially or substantially interfere w/ requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school (3) NO. prohibition on black armbands was singled out (buttons relating to natl campaign and Iron Cross (Nazism) allowed) Hilado dissent: Govt has right to regulate use of public places; right to freedom of expression is not absolute, subject to regulation as to time, place and manner of its exercise Mayor possess reasonable discretion to determine the streets or public places to be used in order to secure convenient use thereof and provide adequate and proper policing to minimize the risk of disorder and maintain public safety and order The rights of free expression are not only civil rights but also political rights essential to mans
b. Subsequent Punishment
-
Criticism is permitted to penetrate even the foundations of the government. No matter how severe, it is permitted. BUT if intention and effect of the act is seditious, the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, press and assembly must yield to punitive measures designed to maintain the prestige of constituted authority, supremacy of CONST and laws and existence of the State (People v Perez); unrestrained threat of subsequent punishment itself operates as very effective prior restraint. o Sedition: raise commotions or disturbances in the State , violation of public peace; produces disaffection among the ppl and a state of feeling incompatible w/ a disposition to remain loyal to the govt and obedient to laws o Distinguished from RPC 256- contempt of ministers of the Crown or other persons in authority, where one tends to defame, abuse or insult a person in authority GUIDELINES FOR SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT: (1) Cardinal requirements for admin proceeding as laid down in Ang Tibay v Industrial Relations (2) There is an unavoidable standard to w/c govt action must conform before depriving a persons right (3) All forms of media are entitled to freedom of speech as long as they pass the clear and present danger rule (4) Broadcast media is necessarily under stricter supervision than print media (a) Broadcast has to be licensed bec airwave freqs must be allocated among qualified users (b) Factors: scarcity, pervasiveness (intrusive) and accessibility to children (c) Even so, clear and present danger applies to both in terms of content-based restrictions (5) The clear and present danger test must take particular circumstances of broadcast media into account- calls for thoughtful, intelligent and sophisticated handling, either by govt or self-regulation (balancing of interests: right of govt to protect itself against broadcasts w/c incite listeners to violently overthrow it VS. right of ppl to be informed) (6) The freedom to comment on public affairs is essential to the vitality of representative democracy (7) Broadcast media as the most popular and convenient info disseminators around deserve special protection by the due process and freedom of speech clauses APPLICATION:
c. -
d. Assembly and Petition

Primicias v Fugoso: public mtg at Plaza Miranda Navarro v Villegas: prev student demonstrations in front of Congress w/c ended violently; now wants to hold rally at Plaza Miranda. Mayor suggests Sunken Garden PBM Employees v PBM (iron mill): rally against police, not

employers enjoyment of his life, to his happiness, and to his full and complete fulfillment Natl Union of Workers in the Cropped hair per se does not evoke neg or Hotel Restaurant and Allied unpleasant feelings but when theres substantial Industries v CA (Dusit: number of F&B employees have it, it suggest to cropped hair) customers that theres something wrong and force Hotel to accede to their demands in violation of duty to bargain in gf Reyes v Bagatsing: rally in (1) discretion of licensing authority limited to front of US Embassy to remove time, place, manner regulation and involves US mil bases realistic appraisal of what may probably occur, not what may possibly occur (2) there is freedom of access to public places (3) Navarro v Villegas- pro tanto modified (diff situation wherein police assured position to cope w/ emergency) Malabanan v Ramento: rally (1) No clear and present danger of public inside school but violated disorder considering excitement, propensity terms of permit issued to exaggerate and it was daytime (2) Draw line bet. disorderly and seditious conduct AND peaceable assembly and tumultuous uprising (3) disproportionate penalty Bayan v Exec Sec: Ps seek to 1) BP 880 codified ruling in Reyes- merely stop violent dispersals of regulates time place and manner. rallies under no permit, no 2) Max tolerance is for the benefit of rallyists rally policy and CPR policy 3) Delegation to mayors of power to issue rally permits is valid bec it is subject to clear and present danger standard 4) Not every expression of opinion is a public assembly (law refers to rally, demonstration, march, parade, procession, or any other form of mass or concerted action held in a public place) 5) Freedom parkjudicial legislation IBP v Atienza: modify Blank denial would render illusory any judicial Mendiola bridge to Plaza scrutiny when granted Miranda DUE PROCESS: heard unfavorable decision go to court DISCUSSION: when time, place, regulation would be content-based? (1) Sanidad v Comelec: (limit coverage before and on plebiscite day)Comelec has no right to supervise and regulate the exercise by media practitioners themselves of their right to expression during plebiscite pds- no candidates involved in plebiscite, w/c involves clash of ideas, not personalities (2) Gonzales v Comelec: (limit pd of election campaign or partisan pol activity before election) must be narrower- making of speeches, commentaries, interviews, campaign matls- how to limit? (1) simple expression, opinion, thoughts shall not be considered part of election campaign (2) views on current pol problems or issues or from mentioning names of candidates whom he supports (3) National Press Club v Comelec: (limit selling or giving free of charge print space or air time for campaign)- narrowly tailored (1) duration-election pd (2) scope-paid political ads, not cover commentaries or expressions of belief (3) exempts purchase by or donation of Comelec Sec 11, RA6646- Electoral Reforms Law 1987: does not authorize content based regulation or control of pol ads or operations of media (4) Adiong v Comelec- (limit posting of stickers in mobile places xpn in Comelec common posted areas & house & HQ of candidate)(1) not narrowly tailored in terms of time & scope, (2) restricts expression of belief in candidate or own opinion of his/her qualifications- (a) deprive use of property (b) deprive right to espouse ideas [though it may be a lesser right since it involves property BUT in this case, it is joined by liberty interest](3) no clear and reasonable nexus w/ objective (5) ABS CBN v Comelec: (limit holding of exit polls bec it destroys credibility of elections)-overbroad bec (1) no showing it will cause chaos in voting centers(2) limits use for studies (3) doesnt leave alternatives (4) other less restrictive means (6) SWS v Comelec: (limits publishing surveys before election)- fails OBrien test: #3- prefer personal opinion to statistical results (suppress a whole class of expression) #4-more narrowly pursued by punishing unlawful acts rather than speechbandwagon effect and herd mentality cannot be legitimately prohibited by suppressing publication of surveys, so theres no fit.
f.
Use of Private Property as a F orum for Others Speech
e. F ree Speech and Suffrage

-
COMELEC: Art 9 Sec 4, 1987C- power to supervise and regulate the use and enjoyment of franchises, permits or other grants issued for the operation and transportation of other public utilities, media or communication to the end that equal opportunity, time and space and the right to reply for public info campaigns and forums among candidates are ensured APPLICATIONS:
PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V ROBIN: (1) use of property as forum for speech of others (a) State may not force an individual to display any msg at all (no specific msg dictated to be displayed) (b) Wrong attribution- merely speculative (c) Can disavow any connection w/ msg by posting signs

(2) not infringe property- no impairment in value or use of property-orderly, limited activity to common areas of shopping center (a) lose private property by opening to public to earn profit (3) not a taking- failed to demonstrate that right to exclude is so essential to use or eco value of property is so restricted as to amt to taking (a) not every destruction or injury to property by govtal action constitutes taking in constitutional sense [TEST: w/n restriction on private property forces some ppl alone to bear public burdens w/c should be borne by public as a whole] TESTS: (1) NYT v Sullivan: civil action by public official against newspaper those guarantees required (a) clear and convincing proof that a defamatory falsehood alleged as libel was uttered with malice (knowledge that it was false or w/ reckless disregard of whether it was false or not) reckless disregard of what is false or not: D entertains serious doubt as to the truth of the publication or that he possesses a high degree of awareness of their probable falsity (b) apply to public figures (person who by his accomplishments, fame, or mode of living or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings, affairs, character, and has become a public personage) (i) sought publicity and consented to it so could not complain; means of living (voluntary thrusting) (ii) personality and affairs had already become public and no longer their own private interest (iii) opportunity to rebut (e.g. press con) (iv) press has privilege under the consti to inform the public about those who have become legitimate matters of public interest (c) In order that a discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either (1) be a false allegation of fact or (2) a comment based on a false supposition- if expression of opinion based on established facts, then it is immaterial that opinion is mistaken, as long as it might be reasonably inferred from the facts (2) Rosenbloom v Metromedia: smut literature girly book peddler protests radio broadcast (a) constitutional protection to all discussion involving matters of public concern without regard to whether persons involved are famous or anonymous (b) Distinction between private person and public official makes no sense; denials and retractions depend on continuing interest of the media story in both cases (c) Idea that public figures voluntarily exposed their entire lives to public inspection while private individuals keep their carefully shrouded is a legal fiction. RATIO: (1) Newspapers must enjoy a certain degree of discretion in determining the manner in w/c a given event should be presented to the public; its presentation in a sensational manner is not per se illegal BUT to enjoy immunity, a publication containing derogatory info must be not only true but also fair and it must be made in gf and w/o any comments or remarks (Policarpio v Mla Times)
2) UNPROTECTED SPEECH
-
a. Defamatory Speech (L ibel)
DEFINITION: A publication is libelous per se if the words tend to injure a person in his reputation or to bring him in public content (NYT v Sullivan) Identification of victim: In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable although it is not necessary that he be named. Identification is grossly inadequate when even alleged offended party is himself unsure that he was the object of verbal attack Defenses: (1) truth as to particulars. Otherwise, general damages are presumed and may be awarded w/o proof of pecuniary injury (2) good faith and without malice (3) privileged communication implicit in freedom of press; always protective of public opinion a) Absolutely privileged- not actionable even if author acted in bf b) Qualifiedly privileged- containing defamatory imputations are not actionable unless found to have been made w/o good intention or justifiable motive (4) Doctrine of fair comment- while in general, every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false and malicious, when discreditable presumption is directed against a a public person in public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable Burden of proof: plaintiff to show actual malice Libel has both criminal (breach of peace by defamed person) and civil (deprives person of good rep) aspects usual offenders: province, radio, blocktimers (BUT areglo in prosecutors office so no chance to develop libel jurisprudence) Suggestions:1) decriminalize award damages, not imprisonment 2) separate liability for editor and writer (BUT negative bec writer wont have good lawyer as oppose to automatically impleading the publisher)

BUT weekly magazine is not oppressed by tyranny of deadlines as much as dailies. Theres no need to act in haste so theres an addtl requirement of reasonable care (Lopez v CA) (2) A rule compelling critic of official conduct to guarantee truth of all his factual assertions and to do so on pain of libel judgment amts to self-censorship- would-be critics deterred from voicing criticism, even though believed to be true, due to doubt w/n can be proved in court or fear of expense of having to do so. Effect: dampens vigor & limits public debate o To avoid self-censorship that would necessarily accompany strict liability for erroneous statements, rules governing liability for injury to reputation are required to allow an adequate margin of error by protecting some inaccuracies RPC 354: every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious even if it be true, if no good intention & justifiable motive for making it is shown xpn: fair & true report w/o any comments or remarks (1) defamatory- malice is presumed, truth is no defense (2) made public to at least 1 person APPLICATION: (1) Policarpio v Mla Times: exec sec of Unesco Natl Commission, who committed malversation of public funds and esta thru falsification of public docu- PCAC raps Policarpio on fraud: as remark besides being false (a) rectification or clarification does not wipe out responsibility but may mitigate (2) Lopez v CA: libel is incurred when wrong persons photo was published w/ libelous article (a) Whenever a man publishes a libelous article, he publishes at his own peril (b) If a man sees it fit to publish manifestly hurtful statements w/o justification than advertisement or pc of news, then the usual principles of tor will make him liable if statements are false or are true only of someone else (3) Ayer v Judge Capulong: Ponce Enrile Australia mini-series The 4 Day Revolution (a) Direct prior restraint because uncompleted and not exhibited so content unknown (b) Public and international interest so it passed into public domain (4) Soliven v Makasiar: (a) Court should not hesitate to quash a criminal prosecution in the interest of more enlightened and substantial justice = criminal liability of accused in libel case + broader considerations of governmental power versus preferred freedom (b) high official position would actually invite more attacks by those who wish to create sensation. What ordinarily be slander should be examined from various perspective if high public official. (i) some provocative words which if taken literally may appear to shame a public figure but may really be intended to provoke debate on public issue
b. F ighting Words
By their nature inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace (injury-specific, by mere utterance) (a) insulting by itself (b) almost equated to conduct (for false speech, solution is more speech but that doesnt apply to fighting words)s (c) mediation of consciousness- dont think anymore bec impulse is so immediate; provocative so attack right away Not essential part of any exposition of ideas or any benefit that may derived by them is outweighed by social interest in order or morality APPLICATION i. Chaplinsky v New Hampshire Statute punishes words or names addressed to another in a public place which are offensive, derisive, or annoying (i) Damn racketeer and Damn fascist likely to provoke average person to retaliation. (ii) Words must be directed face-to-face to person complaining injury (iii) Offensive: what mean of common intelligence would understand to be words likely to cause addressee to fight ii. Cohen v California: Fuck the Draft jacket LA courthouse to show feelings against Vietnam War (i) Linguistic expression serves a dual communication function; it conveys not only ideas capable of relatively precise, detached explication but otherwise inexpressible emotions as well (ii) Words are chosen as much for their emotive as well as cognitive force. We cannot sanction view that C while solicitous of cognitive content has little or no regard for that emotive function which may often be the most important element of overall message sought to be communicated (iii) Separately identifiable conduct which on its face may not necessarily convey any message and can arguably be regulated without effectively repressing Cohens ability to express himself; no showing of intent to incite disobedience or disruption WRT draft (iv) Mere presumed presence of unwitting listeners does not automatically serve to justify curtailing all speech capable of giving offense; we are often captives outside sanctuary of our own home
FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 19 c. Obscenity

Obscenity is not covered by guarantee on freedom of speech and press (Roth v US) - For commercial purpose, not for arts sake- no constitutional protection (People v Go Pin) Obscene v Sex: obscene matl deals w/ sex in a matter appealing to prurient interest; sex- mysterious motive force in human life; subject of absorbing interest to mankind (Roth v US) STANDARDS: 1. Hicklin test: effect of single excerpt of supposedly obscene matl upon particularly susceptible persons-REJECTED 2. Roth v US: a. obscenity not constitutionally protected b. presumption that porn is utterly w/o redeeming social value (eg. porn) substituted standard: contemporary community standards: dominant theme as a whole appeals to prurient interest ratio: lack of precision (subjective); may not convey sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct 3. Memoirs v Massachusettes: a. dominant theme appeals to prurient interest Prurient: arousing interest in sexual matters b. patently offensive bec it affronts contemporary comminity standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters c. utterly without redeeming social value 4. Miller v California a. contemporary community standards (need not employ national standards) b. patently offensive c. lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value 5. People v Kottinger a. corrupting tendency- to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication or other article charged as being obscene may fall b. offensive to sensibilities- shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as indecency c. community standard- judgment of the aggregate sense of the community reached by it APPLICATION: 1) Motion picture: Gonzales v Kalaw Katigbak Kapit sa patalimBoard abused its discretion when it classified it for adults only w/o deletion. Its perception of obscenity appears to be unduly restrictive. But this liberal view would not be applied to TV: a) motion pictures have patrons who pay their way but TV reaches every home b) hardly the concern of law to deal w/ sexual fantasies of adults pop but State as parens patriae must care for welfare of the young Internet- (Reno v ACLU and Ashcroft v ACLU) a) nature: 1) unlike broadcast w/c has extensive govt regulation and scarcity of avail. frequencies 2) not as invasivea) seldom encounter content by accident b) almost all sexually explicit images are preceded by warnings as to content b) overbreadth: not narrowly tailored- suppresses large amt of speech adults have constitutional right to send and receive in the interest of protecting children from potentially harmful matls 1) large size potential audience- open to all comers; confer broad powers of censorship in the form of Hecklers Veto (e.g. opponent of indecent speech might simply log on and inform would-be discoursers that a specific person would be present) 2) no method to prevent minors from obtaining access w/o also denying adults (no effective age verification process) 3) expensive for non-commercial and commercial speakers of websites c) blocking and filtering software: 1) selective restrictions on speech at receiving end, not universal restrictions at the source 2)does not condemn any category of speech so potential chilling effect is minimized 3) more effective bec it prevents minors from seeing all porno and not just those posted to web from America AND covers all forms of Internet communication and not just via WWW 4) no easy circumvention by moving operation overseas or ageverification when minors have credit cards (Ashcroft resolved Reno) d) defenses: gf- tried to restrict access to minors (e.g. age verification process, requiring use of credit card)
2)
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

PROVISIONS: ART 2 Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. Ratio: purpose rests on a belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion.
ART 3 Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

o Of all organic acts made during the American period, only President McKinleys Instruction spoke of real, entire, and absolute separation of Church and State. Provision therefore merely speaks of drawing a necessary and proper line between civil property interests of the Government and the religious trusts of the Church and between civil functions of Government officers and church functions of members and leaders of religious organizations. Literal interpretation of Free Exercise clause is frowned upon because provision must meet demands of an ever-changing society, e.g. what is religion? Implication: Court is the one that decides whether particular ritual is religious in nature; is this not in itself interference? The absoluteness of freedom to believe carries with it the corollary that the government cannot inquire into a persons religious pretensions, though it may look into good faith belief. Bernas says that religious conviction is a justifiable basis for classification for special treatment. No Religious Testthough citizen has duty to defend country (ART II S4), it is not limited to bearing arms. Conscientious objectors due to religion have been held constitutional. Current Events Application (re: Threat to Excommunicate Noynoy for Supporting RH Bill)Expulsion of members of religious organization is best left to discretion of laws and canons of said religion. It is not for the courts to exercise control over church authorities in performance of official functions.
INTERRELATIONSHIP BET. EST CLAUSE AND FREE EXERCISE: Inhibition of legislation has a double aspect. 1)Est Clause forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any form of worship 2) Safeguards free exercise of chosen form of religion (Cantwell v Connecticut) The right to religious belief embraces two conceptsfreedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but the second cannot. (Cantwell v Connecticut) DIFFERENCE: (Engle v Vitale) (1) Establishment Clause: does not depend on any showing of direct government compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce non-observing individuals or not indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain. (2) Free Exercise Clause: proof of coercive effect of enactment as it operates against anyone in the practice of any religion
A. Establishment Clause
-
ART 6 Section 29(2): No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
OVERVIEW

Ratio for exceptions: since the govt has deprived such persons of opportunity to practice their faith at places of their choice, govt may provide substitutes in order to avoid infringing Free Exercise Clause; extended to excusal of children from school on religious holidays or allowance by govt of temp use of public bldgs by religious orgs after natl disastersno violation of Est. Clause bec theres no coercion in appointment of mil or prison chaplains Issue under provision: what is the scope of allowable exemptions (covers all religions not grant to one particular)? Elimination of exemption entirely would expand involvement of Government in auditing, i.e., direct confrontation due to legal processes. Current Events Application (re: teaching religion in public schools)allowed upon written option of parents only; Church chooses the teacher who must not be a regular teacher at that school; without additional cost to Government normal maintenance costs, e.g. electricity and janitor, is allowed.
Step 1: distinguish if RELIGIOUS or SECULAR Step 2: determine if it falls under Establishment Clause or Free Exercise Clause Danger: when person occupies a secular position and claims mantle of protection by religious persons Religious symbol- meaningful only to a certain religion Symbols w/ dual meaning- the moment it has secular element, it becomes historical (i.e. fiesta)
DEFINITION: does not permit State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma Incidental benefit: If state regulates conduct by enacting, w/in its power, a general law w/c has for its purpose and effect to advance states secular goals, the state is valid despite its indirect burden on religious observance, unless the State can accomplish its purpose w/o imposing such burden (Anucension v NLU) 3 EVILS EST CLAUSE SOUGHT TO PREVENT: (Lemon v Kurtzman) 1) sponsorship- serve religious activity, employ organs of govt for religious purpose 2) financial support 3) active involvement- use essentially religious means to serve government ends when secularmeans would suffice. RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS PURSUE TWO GOALS: 1) religious instruction 2) secular education, w/c the State has a proper interest in TEST: 1) Lemon v Kurtzman b. must have secular legislative purpose c. principal effects w/c neither advance nor inhibit religion (guarantee of neutrality) d. not foster excessive entanglement with religion ( hand in glovework to closely that they fuse) continuing State surveillance necessary to enforce the specific provisions of the laws would inevitably entangled the state and religious affairs 2) OConners Endorsement test: Court will not tolerate some government endorsement of religion if it sends a message to outsiders that they are not full members of political community

i. Kennedys proselytization test (conversion to another religion): unlike endorsement test, it requires an obvious allegiance bet govt and favored sect; lowers level of scrutiny in Est Clause cases 3) Coercion test: at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that govt may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way w/c establishes a state religion or religious faith or tends to do so APPLICATION: 1) Stamps commemorating the 33rd Intl Eucharistic Congress might redound to benefit of Roman Catholic Church but only incidental to original purpose to promote tourism (Aglipay v Ruiz) 2) Image of San Vicente Ferrer was funded by selling of tickets and donations, so private property of the baranggay; has sufficiently secular purpose: celebrating barrio fiesta (Garces v Estenzo) 3) Salaries of teachers only for secular subjects- teachers cant be inspected to determine extent of personal beliefs and acceptance of limitations imposed by Est Clause. also, they are subject to religious authorities (Lemon v Kurtzman) Divisive political potential- vote predicated on religious lines (for vs against state aid) 4) Textbooks: a) purchasing of textbooks and lending them free of chargeno excessive entanglement bec ownership remains technically in the state. No funds or books are furnished to schools, and financial benefit is to children and parents (Board of Educ v Allen) b) Anti Evolution theory- (teachers dilemma: required to teach the textbook but to do so, she would incur criminal liability): an attempt to blot out a particular theory bec of supposed conficlit w/ Genesis Creation theory (Epperson v Arkansas)- violate Est Clause either by: i. prohibits explanation of theory of evolution; OR ii. forbids teaching that theory is true 5) Creche: ii. County of Allegheny v ACLU- 1) single element of display on the Grand Staircase 2) message: Glory to God in the highest 3) sign that discloses ownership by Roman Catholic grp iii. Lynch v Donnely- 1) it was in addition to Santa Clause house, xmas tree and sign that says Seasons greetings 2) annual display for 40 years (so expenses were de minimis) LESSON: govt may celebrate Xmas in some manner and form but no in a way that endorses Christian doctrine 6) Menorah (candelabra): a) recognizes that both xmas and Chanukah are part of the same winter-holiday season w/c has attained a secular status in society; recognition of cultural diversity; b)sign that says city salutes liberty 7) Prayer: a) Recitation of at least 10 verses from the Holy Bible w/o comment followed by Lords prayer but can be excused upon written request of parents: religious character of exercises and no preference of belief over non-belief (not establishing religion of secularism)- (School District v Schempp) b) Board of Educ composed a prayer to be recited at the start of each class- no part of business govt to compose official prayers Whenever govt had allied itself w/ one particular form of religion, the result had been it incurred hatred of those who held contrary beliefs Neither sacrilegious nor antireligious- must leave that purely religious funcn to people themselves (Engle v Vitale) 8) Federal grant and loan to construct academic facilities- a)only required to provide assurance that they will not use sectarian instruction for 20y grant will have the effect of advancing religious bec it still has a substantial value b) characterized by atmosphere of academic freedom rather than religious indoctrination 9) When religious leader a)endorses candidate for elective office or b) urges or requires members of flock to vote for a specified candidate- clear violation of separation clause (Velarde v Social Justice Society: however, not a precedent but merely an advisory opinion bec SJS had no factual and legal basis for Court to rule on the issue- sheer speculation doesnt give rise to an actionable right) 10) Pledge of Allegiance under God led by teacher daily contested by Atheist father (1) no secular purpose to 1954 amendment (2) endorsement of religious ideology to schoolchildren- age, impressionability, confined environment of classroom; also, bec it was teacher-led (3) coercion: required to adhere to norms set by school, teachers and fellow students Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that enjoys a preferred position in the hierarchy of rights (most alienable and sacred of HR). The State must articulate in specific terms the state interest involved in preventing the exemption, for only the gravest abuses, endangering paramount interest can limit the fundamental right to religious freedom. (Estrada v Escritor) The right to free exercise encompasses right to preach, proselyte and perform other similar religious funcns (McDaniel v Paty) The constitutional guaranty of free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship carries w/ it the right to disseminate religious information. Any restraint of such right can only be justified on the grounds of clear and present danger of any substantive evil w/c the State has the right to prevent (American Bible Society v City of Manila) Our Constitution adheres to benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise clause, provided it does not offend compelling state interests. Substantive equality (politically dominant and weak religious groups are equal in their inability to use the govt or law to assist their own religion or burden others) makes the most sense in the interpretation of BOR, which is designed to protect minorities and individuals from mobocracy in a democracy (Estrada v Escritor)
B. Free Exercise Clause

-

Constitutional protection of religious freedom is not a civil immunity and not a freedom from conformity to law bec of religious dogma (Gerona v Sec of Ed) Free exercise is not a complete defense for criminal or civil prosecution (Commonwealth v Twitchell) Every citizen has the undeniable and inviolable right to religious freedom, the exercise thereof, and of all fundamental rights must be done in good faith (NCC 19)- (German v Barangan) If the exercise of said religious belief clashes w/ established institutions of society and with the law, then the former must yield to the latter (German v Barangan) TEST: Compelling State interest: (1) sincerity of the religious belief is ascertained to avoid mere claim to escape mandatory regulation (2) government has to establish its purposes are legitimate for the state and that they are compelling- must precisely show how and to what extent those objectives will be undermined if exemptions are granted. (3) least intrusive means- way to achieve its legitimate state end that imposes as little as possible on religious liberties APPLICATION: 1. selling bibles w/o mayors permit and municipal license- the power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment; necessity of permit depends on power of city to license or tax a business, trade or occupation so both ordinances cant be applied. (American Bible Society v City of Mla) 2. saluting Phil flag and reciting Panatang Makabayan in public schoolsa) Gerona v Sec of Ed- practice of religion is subject to reasonable and non-discriminatory regulation by the State (social contract theory) i. Filipino flag is not an image that requires religious veneration (symbol of RP, sovereignty, freedom, natl unity) ii. Flag salute is not a religious ceremony (act of love and allegiance of loyalty of RP) iii. Sec of Ed was not imposing religious belief, just enforcing non-discriminatory regulation and carrying out duty imposed by CONST. (unlike West Virginia v Gobitis, no compulsion thru persecution by penal sanction, merely lost benefits of public education) iv. Trouble w/ exceptions: 1) demoralize school pop 2) disrupt school discipline b) Ebralinag v Div Superintendent- uphold right to refuse to salute flag on acct of religious belief upon showing that theres no grave and present danger if they quietly stand i. coerced unity and loyalty even to the country is not a goal that is constitutionally obtainable at the expense of religious liberty. A desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means (Meyer v Nebraska) 3. Exemption from closed shop agreement (membership in union as condition for employment): 1) protects members of religious sect w/c prohibit affiliation w/ labor org against CBA and relieve burden on their religious beliefs 2) promote well being of society by elimination economic insecurity due to unemployment. Therefore, purpose is secular, worldly and temporal (Anucension v NLU) INC TV programs attack against other religions WRT diff bible interpretationa) public broadcast on TV takes it out the bosom of internal beliefWhere the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions that affect the public, his freedom to do so becomes subject to authority of State (i.e. police power) b) mere criticisms- not the task of State to favor any religion by protecting it against attack by another religion (apply free market place of ideas) c) prior restraint on religious speech cant be justified by hypothetical fears but only by showing clear and present danger i. contends clear and present danger is not appropriate bec it involves content, however, case involves pre-taped shows Ecclesiastics to hold elective govt positions: *note nature of position a) Mun. mayor (Pamil v Teleron) i. no religious test provision + separation of church and State: the latter is not a redundancy but to cover situations not covered by prov on rel. freedom in BOR ii. no public ofc may be denied to any person by reason of rel belief or non-belief BUT when he becomes an ecclesiastic, he doesnt merely belong to his church but also becomes official minister of his church w/ duties and responsibilities w/c may no be compatible w/ impartiality to all religious beliefs w/c govt and all its officials must maintain at all times iii. to allow ecclesiastic to head exec dept of mun is to permit erosion of separation of church and state and open floodgates for violation of liberty of religion b) Delegate to Concon (McDaniel v Paty) i. violates free exercise bec it conditions right to free exercise on surrender right to seek ofc ii. no showing of danger of clergy participation in political process iii. Disq is directed not at religious belief but at status, acts and conduct of clergy ATOM march to hear mass at St Judge Chapel near Malacanang Palace- bad faith show through marched w/ clenched fists and shouts of anti-govt invectives + natl securitynot denied or restrained freedom of belief but only in the matter by w/c they attempted to translate the same into action (German v Barangan) Right to peacefully impart his views: solicit money, services or subscription for religious cause but needs permit from secretary of public welfare council- a) constitutes prior restraint; not a regulation bec its all or nothing; b) prior restraint by judicial decision after trial is as obnoxious under the Const as restraint by admin action c)no showing deportment was noisy or offensive; or intended to insult or affront listeners by playing
4.
5.
6. 7.

recordleft when told to do so; d)on a public street (Cantwell v Connecticut) Spiritual treatment provision (remedial treatment by spiritual means alone as satisfying parental obligation not to neglect a child or provide physical care) is not a bar to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter, w/c involves wanton or reckless conduct and not negligence cohabitation w/ married man but permissible due to Jehovahs Witnesses Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness a) No compelling state interest, only broad interest in 1) protecting the institutions of marriage and the family, which is the public policy underlying criminal sanctions against concubinage and bigamy- but State has never sought to prosecute R nor her partner 2) morality b) Dissent: i. Ynares-Santiago: Civil Service Law punishes its officers for immoral conduct and determined by personal concepts of morality ii. Carpio: Permissive accommodations granted by L not J; guarantee of religious liberty doesnt require exemptions from generally applicable laws that filled by God of those admittedly qualified for exemption (US v Seeger)
8. 9.
ACADEMIC FREEDOM
PROVISIONS: 1987C ART 14 Section 1: The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.
Premised on right of parents to educate and corresponding duty of State to support it by promoting quality education. When to demand right? From State not private parties; in private schools only commensurate to tuition fees they charge and student can afford. Education compulsory only to elementary level; moral and not penal bec. State recognizes parents right to decide what is best for kids. Every citizen has the right to study and prepare himself for the profession of his choice. Based on German concept lernfreheit transplanted in American educational system in the 19th C whose core is the educators freedom to do independent research, report findings to students, and win adherents to his theory. Generally not extended to students. (also the gist of journal article). A school has no obligation to see a student to graduation, but when it fails to satisfy reasonable academic standards set by the State (e.g. it may not raise fees in the middle of a term), it may be ordered closed. Courts may not interfere unless clear showing that uni has exercised judgment arbitrarily and capriciously. o o The guarantee of academic freedom for faculty members did not appear, thus they must anchor rights on general guarantee of freedom in BOR. (1) extended mantel of protection to private educational institutions (2) Protected private schools v. regulatory powers of the State (3) implicitly distinguishes academic freedom from citizens political right of free expression, i.e., taken in context of academic community
C. Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices
Section 5(2): Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.
-
1. States interest in universal education must be balanced w/ fundamental rights (eg. right of parents to provide direction of religious upbringing and education of their children in their early and formative years and right to prepare them for addtl obligations)- (Pierce v Society of Sisters) 2. Test: sincerity of belief/ good faith belief: (i) Amish objection to formal education beyond grade 8- long history and interrelated to their way of life, not merely personal preference; conflicts w/ values and programs, thereby interfering w/ religious devt (Wisconsin v Yoder) (ii) W/n Ds honestly and in gf believe representations in organizing and promoting the I am Movement thru the use of mails?--right to worship as he pleases and to answer to no man for verity of religious views. Men may believe what they cant prove. Law knows no heresy and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. (US v Ballard) (iii) Conscientious objector- exempts from combatant service in armed forces those who are conscientiously opposed to participation in war by reason of their religious training or belief orthodox religious sect: belief in an individuals relation to a Supreme Being involving duties beyond human relations and not merely personal moral code or political, sociological or philosophical views (e.g. Islamonly participate in jihad (holy war)- US v Clay) extension: whether it is a sincere or meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to
1973 C ART 15 Section 8 (2) All institutions of higher learning shall enjoy academic freedom.

(1) M.A. in Theology-Loyala school admitted student for summer but refuse to admit her for 1st sem of the ff school year bec she frequently asks questions and her difficulties slowed down the progress of the class (Garcia v Faculty Admission Committee) (2) Criminology student is expelled from criminology course due to his objections to the increase in tuition fee payments- disproportionate (Isabelo v Perpetual Help) (3) Tasaday Folio and Anthro profs- UP confined itself to allegations of complaint by filing motion to dismiss or by alleging lack of COA as ground for dismissal. Though its motion to intervene was proper, it should have championed the cause of Bailen and Salazar in the course of the trial of the case instead of trying to abort the proceedings at its inception. But no irremediable injury so during the trial, it may still invoke the special defense of institutional academic freedom (UP v CA) (4) Admission test a) NMAT- valid exercise of police power bec there is a reasonable relation bet lawful subject (secure public health and safety- deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance in med profession) and lawful method (passing of NMAT as condition for admission to med school)- Tablarin v Gutierrez) b) 3 flunk rule- 1) more prepared than him 2) crowded med schools 3)nature of course-requires more stringent standards (med profession: delicate responsibility towards society that warrants a diff treatment towards them)- DECS v San Diego
INSITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING possess a right wherein: (1) They decide for themselves aims, objectives and means of who best to attain them (2) free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint (3)wide sphere of autonomy certainly extending to the choice of students FOUR ESSENTIAL FREEDOMS of a university to determine for itself on academic grounds- (1) who may teach (2) what may be taught (3) how it shall be taught (4) who may be admitted to study Academic freedom is not a ground for denying students rights. It cannot be utilized to discriminate against students who exercise their constitutional rights to speech and assembly for otherwise there will be a violation of their right to equal protection (Non v Judge Dames) Academic freedom has never been meant to be an unabridged license. It is a privilege that assumes a correlative duty to exercise it responsibly NCC 19 (Isabelo v Perpetual Help) Mandamus will lie when: (1) clear duty on the part of the School to admit the student every citizen has a right to choose a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements o discretion to turn down applicants even qualified ones due to limitations of space, facilities, professors and optimum size of classroom and component considerations (2) student demonstrates a clear legal right right to quality education is not absolute admission is a privilege and not a right; to invoke it, one must show he is entitled to it Contract theory: not semestral basis but right to be enrolled for entire period in order to complete his course; not an ordinary contract, imbued w/ public interest (Garcia v Faculty Admission Committee; Non v Judge Dames) APPLICATION:
PROTECTED INTEREST IN LIBERTY

A. Non-Impairment of Obligations of Contracts
PROVISION: : Art 3, Sec 10: No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
o o To come under C prohibition, law must affect a change on rights of parties WRT each other and not with reference to non-parties, e.g. additional tax on goods sold. Also protects public contracts, including onerous franchises and privileges granted by the State, e.g. timber licenses which are bit beyond the reach of police power usually exercised in the interests of social justice when it comes to contract. Non-impairment clause is a limit on legislative power and not judicial or quasijudicial power; and generally it will yield to loftier purposes of Government.
Civil Code Art 1306: The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Police power may only be invoked and justified by (1) an emergency, (a) temporary in nature and can only be exercised upon (2) reasonable conditions

in order that it may not infringe the constitutional provision against impairment of contracts (Home Builders and Loan Assoc v Blaisdell) While emergency does not create power, emergency may furnish the occasion for the exercise of power. Test: W/n if it is in response to particular conditions aka CSI +narrowly tailored means to achieve it Implied reservation of State power (essential attributes of sovereign power): rather than impairing the obligation of existing contract, they are comprehended w/in them(Home Builders and Loan Assoc v Blaisdell) Ratio: policy of protecting contracts presupposes the maintenance of govt by virtue of w/c contractual relations are worthwhile (Home Builders and Loan Assoc v Blaisdell) Impairment should only refer to the remedy and not to a substantive right. (Home Builders and Loan Assoc v Blaisdell) It is competent for the States to change the form of the remedy or to modify it otherwise as they may see fit provided no substantial right secured by contract is impaired; test: reasonableness for each case(Home Builders and Loan Assoc v Blaisdell) GR: Modes of proceeding and forms to enforce the contract, L has the control and may enlarge, limit or alter them provided it doesnt deny a remedy or so embarrass it w/ conditions or restrictions that seriously impair value of right(Home Builders and Loan Assoc v Blaisdell) Propriety of remedy: Any alteration or change must not be burdened w/ restrictions and conditions that would make the remedy futile (Home Builders and Loan Assoc v Blaisdell) WHEN: (1) Moratorium laws during eco. depression (Home Builders and Loan Assoc v Blaisdell and Rutter v Esteban) Defn: postponement of fulfillment of oblgn thru medium of courts or L Test of constitutionality: pd of suspension is definite and reasonable Purpose: afford Dbs an opportunity to rehabilitate/recover by giving them reasonable time (2) Subleasing w/o consent of owner (Juarez v CA and Caleon v Agus Devt) Leasing bldg naturally leases lot therein; rentals of bldg include lot Social justice cannot be invoke to trample on the rights of the property owner; not intended to take away rights from a person to give them to another who is not entitled thereto (2 parties to a contract) When pd of lease has not been fixed, it is deemed month-to-month basis (NCC 1697) As long as contract affect public welfare one way or another so as to require the interference of the State, them PP must prevail over IC PROVISION: ART 3 Sec 18 (2): No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
o Slavery and involuntary servitude, along with peonage, all denote a condition of enforced, compulsory service to another. Applied to any servitude in fact involuntary, no matter what form, e.g. domestic services shall always be remunerated; no agreement may subsist in law to allow service to be absolutely gratuitous (indentured servant).
C. Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt

o
Chief elements of civil liberty: right to contract, choose ones employment, labor and locomotion Involuntary servitude: 1) prison labor 2) indentured labor NOT Involuntary Servitude: if theres pay o If they are working for themselves (Manguianes: slowly fused w/ civilized world)(Rubi v Provincial Board) o Voluntariness of employees entering into a contract of employment w/ an implied condition of law negatives possibility of involuntary servitude (freedom to contract) (Kaisahan: asked to return to work after they staged a strike) (Kaisahan v Gotamco Saw Mill)
PROVISION: Art 3 Sec 20: No person shall be imprisoned for debt or nonpayment of a poll tax.
Obligations must be incurred by debtor to pay a contractual obligation, thus debt must be civil in nature; no imprisonment as a substitute for satisfaction of a debt or as a means of compelling satisfaction. Poll tax can also be considered a tax that is a prerequisite to right to vote, something the C already bans in ART 4 S1 on imposition of literacy, property, or other substantial reqs to vote.
D. Right Against Self-Incrimination

o o
(Lozano v Martinez) Inhibition for liabilities arising from actions ex contractu, not damages arising from actions ex delicto (imposed on D for wrong done and considered punishment) BP 22: punishes act of making worthless checks and putting them in circulation, not non-payment of an obligation o To protect the freedom to enter to contract, it must be a lawful one. o Checks: commercial instruments, not contracts o Declaration of L, as matter of public policy, that making worthless check is deemed a public nuisance to be abated by imposition of penal sanctions
PROVISION: Art 3 Sec 17: No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
B. Involuntary Servitude
-
Includes right to refuse to testify to a fact which would be a necessary link in a chain of evidence to prove commission of a crime by a witness (Malcolm) The privilege against self-incrimination meaningless if silence of witness can be used against him. However, law does not prohibit an unfavorable inference from failure to disclose or produce evidence that is in his control when asked. Coverage over private papers of natural individuals may be trumped when records required by law to be kept are appropriate subjects of government regulation and enforcement of restrictions is validly established, e.g. income tax reports.

Ratio: grounds of public policy and humanity- (1) to not place witness under the strong temptation to commit the crime of perjury and (2)to prevent extorting of confessions by duress Scope: limited to prohibition against compulsory testimonial self-incrimination (Villaflor v Summers) (1) Take witness stand- personal to the accused (2) Answer SI questions- ordinary witness applies to all cases in w/c action prosecuted is not to establish, recover or redress private and civil rights but to try and punish persons charged w/ commission of public offenses (Cabal v Kapunan) Prohibition against legal process to extract form Ds own lips, against his will, an admission of guilty (Villaflor v Summers) and extends to all furnishing of evidence (Beltran v Samson) Under DP, every person has natural and inherent right to the possession and control of his own body BUT inferior to PP in the orderly administration of justice (Villaflor v Summers) Waiver: The privilege not to give SI evidence while absolute when claimed may be waived by any one entitled to invoke it (Beltran v Samson) Only considered when given an option to do accept/ decline witness stand Must be knowing and intelligent; not presumed from silence of accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that confession was eventually obtained; any evidence that the accused was threatened, tricked or cajoled into a waiver will show that D didnt voluntarily waive his privilegeprotection against physical and psychological abuse in the hands of authorities (Miranda v Arizona) Miranda Warnings/Rights: (1) informed in clear and equivocal terms that he has a right to remain silentaware to the degree that he can make an intelligent decision-making afterwards; empowers the person against the intimidating interrogation atmosphere because the warning shows that the officers recognize his privilege should he chose to exercise it. (2) Miranda warning must be accompanied by explanation that defendant can understand (factors: age, intelligence, prior contact w/ criminal system) (3) right to be waived must be express (4) right to have counsel present during his interrogationensure that his will, will not be subjugated to that of the interrogators+ greatly reduce risk of abusive methods by authorities. It is the burden of the State to prove an intelligent waiver when right to counsel is waived. (4) Indigent must be informed of right to counsel even if cant afford one (5) No distinction bet statements or confessions made w/ OR w/o counsel. As long as there was no violation of Ds right puts burden to police authorities of informing citizens subject to questioning in a criminal investigation of their rights to DP and assures citizens it will be respected (fundamental fairness standard) when applicable: (1) evidence gathered (2) testimonial evidence (3) obtained while in police custody (custodial interrogation- taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action) (4) product of interrogation (5) conducted by state agents (6)offered by state during criminal prosecution 1. Judicial a. Criminal The right of D to be exempt from testifying applies equally to any compulsory disclosure of the guilt of offender himself, whether sought directly as object of inquiry or indirectly for purpose of establishing facts involving on issue bet parties (US v Navarro) Where law permits an accused person to testify as a witness, no presumption of guilt can be based upon his omission to testify (US v Navarro) The prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material (Villaflor v Summers) b. Forfeiture proceedings CRIMINAL(in personam- personal liability): if they are under a statute such that if an indictment is presented the forfeiture can be included in the criminal case (Republic v Sandiganbayan) Although technically a civil proceeding, are deemed criminal as its consequence is in the nature of a penalty, hence, exemption of D in criminal cases from obligation to be witness against themselves are applicable (Cabal v Kapunan) CIVIL (in rem- property itself): if does not involve conviction of wrongdoer for offense charged (Republic v Sandiganbayan) Forfeiture proceeding: civil in nature wrt procedural aspect and has no bearing on substantial right of Respondents (Almeda v Perez) Burden of proof: preponderance of evidence- govt is only required to state lawfully income of respondent for prima facie presumption of illegal provenance to attach (Republic v Sandiganbayan) Steps: petition, answer and hearing; prelim inv. before petition is filed is the same as prelim inv in crim case but similarity stops there (Republic v Sandiganbayan) Trial (reception of evidence and other processes) v Hearing (opportunity to be heard, not necessarily presentation of evidence) ass RA 1379, FORFEITURE OF UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED WEALTH Section 8. Protection against self-incrimination. Neither the respondent nor any other person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, correspondence, memoranda and other records on the ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to prosecution; but no individual shall be prosecuted criminally for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, except that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution

and conviction for perjury or false testimony committed in so testifying or from administrative proceedings. 2. Civil 3. Administrative a. Fact-finding committee: not deputized to file cases; run no risk of being prosecuted Admissibility in evidence of testimonies given by Rs, who did not invoke their rights against SI before the Agrava Board- deemed immunized to cure constitutional defects (Galman v Pamaran) Immunity statutes- kinds: (1) Use: prohibits use of witnesses, compelled testimony & its fruits in any manner in connection w/ criminal prosecution of witness (2) Transactional: immunity to witness from prosecution for an offense to w/c his compelled testimony relates 4. Examples: o Whereabouts or whether set at liberty- (US Navarro) o Comparison: Pregnancy test- omission not to prevent a physical exam so no compulsion to furnish evidence by means of testimonial act (Villaflor v Summers) Comparison of handwriting during cross-ex- positive testimonial act, though silent: write & give a sample of handwriting for comparison (Beltran v Samson) ROC Sec 3- No search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense Essence: invasion of indefeasible right of personal security, liberty and property; (Mapp v Ohio) place as the sanctity of the domicile and privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of peach officers (Stonehill v Diokno) examples of expectation of privacy: home, office, motel room or automobile Exclusionary Rule: All evidence obtained by searches and seizure in violation of the Constitution, is by the same authority, inadmissible in a State Court (Mapp v Ohio) To hold otherwise is to grant the right but in reality, is to withhold its privilege and enjoyment Purpose: (1) to deter, to compel, respect for constitutional guaranty in the only effective way of removing the incentive to disregard it (2) maintain judicial integrity: failure to observe its own rules will lead to its destruction; no shortcuts- govt as lawbreaker breeds contempt for law and invites every man to become a law unto himself (anarchy) Tantamount to coerced testimony by unconstitutional search and seizure WARRANT: requirements1) no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause to be determined by the judge 2)shall particularly describe things to be seized (Stonehill v Diokno) Necessity of fishing evidence (general warrant or roving warrant) for a crime is indicative of absence of probable cause (Stonehill v Diokno) Corporations have their separate and distinct legal personality: invoke for itself constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure (Stonehill v Diokno)
SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION

A. Who are entitled to Constitutional Protection
ART 4: Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: [1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution; [2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; [3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and [4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission, they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it. Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.s Power to deport, to detain and to arrest is different power to issue a warrant of arrest in criminal casesboth need determination for probable cause Probable cause: facts and circumstances antecedent to issuance of warrant that in themselves are sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely on them and act in pursuance thereof State has 2 options: 1) Deportation 2)Prosecution for criminal offense- if an individual is running after alien 1) Detention pending deportation Nature: political- sovereign powerfaster compared to extradition bec we have political discretion o Every sovereign power has the inherent power to exclude from its territory upon such grounds as it may deem proper for its selfpreservation or public interest. The power to deport aliens is an act of State, an act done by or under the authority of the
E. Unlawful Searches and Seizure

-

sovereign power. It is a PP measure against undesirable aliens whose continued presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and domestic tranquility of people (Harvey v Santiago) Applies to alien Who determines: Commission of Immigration o COI may issue warrants of arrest only after determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien (Board of Commisioners v Dela Rosa) o A warrant of arrest issued by COI must be for sole purpose of executing of final order of deportation, NOT: (1) for investigation (2) to determine existence of probable cause (Board of Commisioners v Dela Rosa) Highest form of punishment: to be declared a persona non grata Options: 1) nationality 2) habitual residence 3) last port of embarkation Period: warrant of exclusion based on final order of BOI are imprescriptible (Board of Commisioners v Dela Rosa) 2 ways: 1) by order of the President 2) by Commissioner of Immigration Deportation proceedings (Qua Chee Gan v Deportation Board) o not criminal (no punishment): need not be strictly in accordance w/ ordinary court proceedings (i.e. evidence); it is preventive (Harvey v Defensor-Santiago) o administrative/ summary (merely return alien to his country): but shall be given (1) sufficient Info about charges (2) fair hearing and counsel, if he so desires 2) Arrest for probable causes Nature: judicial- apply full range of protection; DPC Applies to citizen Who determines? judge 3) Extradition Sending back a fugitive, no matter what nationality - Juridical persons Nature of corporation: afforded rights against unreasonable searches and seizure and freedom of speech BUT not privacy and religion Not a general warrant- need to look at all the books to get a full range of transactions; cannot pinpoint specific transactions yet Public forum: no requirement of State action
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
RELIGION IN PRIVATE SPHERE (+) Protects individual believer from State Protects organized Churches from State Maintains State neutrality to all religion (-) 1 Way prohibition against state action Does not stop Church from interfering in secular matters (-) Restores two-way prohibition Neutralizes big churches that translate their influence into political will Pro Persons privacy and Free Exercise RH law has secular purpose, still respects religious choice Pro Reproductive choice is private choice Duty to help poor exercise reproductive choice
RELIGION IN PUBLIC SPHERE (+) Neutralize big churches that translate Recognize that individual worship can be threatened not just by public power but also by big Churches RH Anti Inconsistent with religious beliefs RH law inhibits religious beliefs 2 STAGES OF ARGUMENT LIBERTY SOCIAL JUSTICE
Anti Religious choice is private choice But why use Catholic money to pay for poor peoples condoms?
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE

Section. 1. Scope. - This Rule shall apply whenever DNA evidence, as defined in Section 3 hereof, is offered, used, or proposed to be offered or used as evidence in all criminal and civil actions as well as special proceedings. Sec. 2. Application of other Rules on Evidence. - In all matters not specifically covered by this Rule, the Rules of Court and other pertinent provisions of law on evidence shall apply. Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Rule, the following terms shall be defined as follows:
B. Who are subject to Constitutional Prohibitions

-
BOR: governs relations bet individual and the State; declares forbidden zones in private sphere inaccessible to any power holder GR: BOR can only be invoked against the State and not to private individuals Further requirement: private individual initiates the action Examples: unreasonable search and seizure- People v Marti; Tecson cannot invoke EPC against Glaxo XPN: right to privacy (e.g. wife suspects husband of cheating)
(a) "Biological sample" means any organic material originating from a person's bodyblood, saliva and other body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones; (b) "DNA" means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the chain of molecules found in every nucleated

cell of the body. The totality of an individual's DNA is unique for the individual, except identical twins; (c) "DNA evidence" constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles, results and other genetic information directly generated from DNA testing of biological samples; (d) "DNA profile" means genetic information derived from DNA testing of a biological sample obtained from a person, which biological sample is clearly identifiable as originating from that person; (e) "DNA testing" means verified and credible scientific methods which include the extraction of DNA from biological samples, the generation of DNA profiles and the comparison of the information obtained from the DNA testing of biological samples for the purpose of determining, with reasonable certainty, whether or not the DNA obtained from two or more distinct biological samples originates from the same person (direct identification) or if the biological samples originate from related persons (kinship analysis); (f) Probability of Parentage" means the numerical estimate for the likelihood of parentage of a putative parent compared with the probability of a random match of two unrelated individuals in a given population Sec. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order. - The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the following: (a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case; (b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may require confirmation for good reasons; (c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique; (d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and (e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing. Sec. 5. DNA Testing Order. - If the court finds that the requirements in Section 4 hereof have been complied with, the court shall This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court order, at the behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding is commenced. of prior court order, to the prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory judgment provided that (a) a biological sample exists, (b) such sample is relevant to the case, and (c) the testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction.
Sec. 7. Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence. - In assessing the probative value of the DNA evidence presented, the court shall consider the following: (a) The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were collected, how they were handled, and the possibility of contamination of the samples; (b) The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests; (c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable standards-setting institution and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be properly established; and (d) The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided. The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the appreciation of evidence shall apply suppletorily. Sec. 8. Reliability of DNA Testing Methodology. - In evaluating whether the DNA testing methodology is reliable, the court shall consider the following: (a) The falsifiability of the principles or methods used, that is, whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested; (b) The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or methods; (c) The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevant scientific community; (d) The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure the correctness of data generated; (e) The existence of an appropriate reference population database; and (f) The general degree of confidence attributed to mathematical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles and the significance and limitation of statistical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles. Sec. 9. Evaluation of DNA Testing Results. - In evaluating the results of DNA testing, the court shall consider the following: (a) The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance of mismatching DNA evidence; (b) The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other evidence presented in the case; and that (c) DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be conclusive proof of nonpaternity. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity.
(a) Order, where appropriate, that biological samples be taken from any person or crime scene evidence; (b) Impose reasonable conditions on DNA testing designed to protect the integrity of the biological sample, the testing process and the reliability of the test results, including the condition that the DNA test results shall be simultaneously disclosed to parties involved in the case; and (c) If the biological sample taken is of such an amount that prevents the conduct of confirmatory testing by the other or the adverse party and where additional biological samples of the same kind can no longer be obtained, issue an order requiring all parties to the case or proceedings to witness the DNA testing to be conducted.
An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately executory and shall not be appealable. Any petition for certiorari initiated therefrom shall not, in any way, stay the implementation thereof, unless a higher court issues an injunctive order. The grant of a DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence that may be obtained as a result thereof. Sec. 6. Post-conviction DNA Testing. - Post-conviction DNA testing may be available, without need
Sec. 10. Post-conviction DNA Testing. Remedy if the Results Are Favorable to the Convict. The convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin if the results of the post-conviction DNA testing are favorable to the convict. In case the court, after due hearing, finds the petition to be meritorious, it shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict, unless continued detention is justified for a lawful cause. A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with any member of said courts, which may conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the

court of origin and issue the appropriate orders.
Sec. 11. Confidentiality. - DNA profiles and all results or other information obtained from DNA testing shall be confidential. Except upon order of the court, a DNA profile and all results or other information obtained from DNA testing shall only be released to any of the following, under such terms and conditions as may be set forth by the court: (a) Person from whom the sample was taken; (b) Lawyers representing parties in the case or action where the DNA evidence is offered and presented or sought to be offered and presented; (c) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action; (d) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies; and (e) Other persons as determined by the court. Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in any form any information concerning a DNA profile without the proper court order shall be liable for indirect contempt of the court wherein such DNA evidence was offered, presented or sought to be offered and presented.
Where the person from whom the biological sample was taken files a written verified request to the court that allowed the DNA testing for the disclosure of the DNA profile of the person and all results or other information obtained from the DNA testing, the same may be disclosed to the persons named in the written verified request. Sec. 12. Preservation of DNA Evidence. - The trial court shall preserve the DNA evidence in its totality, including all biological samples, DNA profiles and results or other genetic information obtained from DNA testing. For this purpose, the court may order the appropriate government agency to preserve the DNA evidence as follows: (a) In criminal cases: i. for not less than the period of time that any person is under trial for an offense; or ii. in case the accused is serving sentence, until such time as the accused has served his sentence; and (b) In all other cases, until such time as the decision in the case where the DNA evidence was introduced has become final and executory. The court may allow the physical destruction of a biological sample before the expiration of the periods set forth above, provided that: (a) A court order to that effect has been secured; or (b) The person from whom the DNA sample was obtained has consented in writing to the disposal of the DNA evidence. Sec. 13. Applicability to Pending Cases. - Except as provided in Sections 6 and 10 hereof, this Rule shall apply to cases pending at the time of its effectivity. Sec. 14. Effectivity. - This Rule shall take effect on October 15, 2007, following publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
WRIT OF AMPARO
The writ of amparo is an order issued by a court to protect the constitutional rights of a person. Relatives of missing persons usually file a petition for habeas corpus to compel the state to produce persons thought to be victims of forced disappearances. However, petitions for habeas corpus usually end up with state agents simply denying they had the missing person in their custody. The writ of amparo would compel state agents to look for the missing person. And if the court were to find that the officials did not exert enough effort in finding the person, it could hold them liable. SECTION 1. Petition. The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by
What is the writ of amparo? It is a remedy available to ANY PERSON: a. whose right to LIFE, LIBERTY and SECURITY b. is VIOLATED or THREATENED with violation c. by an unlawful act or omission d. of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity (Sec. 1, Rule on the Writ of Amparo) Notes: a. it is not an available remedy for violations or threatened violations of the right to PROPERTY per se; The right to property may in some cases however be so closely connected with the right to liberty that it could be included in a petition where that liberty is violated or threatened; b. it can be directed not only against a public official or employee but even against PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS or entities; In Mexico, its country of origin, it is even available in cases of domestic violence, which is probably a situation not envisioned in the present rule. SC ANNOTATION: Philippine Version: Since the writ of amparo is still undefined under our Constitution and Rules of Court, Section 1 enumerates the constitutional rights protected by the writ, i.e., only the right to life, liberty and security of persons. In other jurisdictions, the writ protects all constitutional rights. The reason for limiting the coverage of its protection only to the right to life, liberty and security is that other constitutional rights of our people are already enforced through different remedies. Be that as it may, the Philippine amparo encapsulates a broader coverage. Whereas in other jurisdictions the writ covers only actual violations, the Philippine version is more protective of the right to life, liberty and security in the sense that it covers both actual and threatened violations of such rights. Further, unlike other writs of amparo that provide protection only against unlawful acts or omissions of public officials or employees, our writ covers violations committed by private individuals or entities. Entities refer to artificial persons, as they are also capable of perpetrating the act or omission. The writ covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. Extralegal killings10 are killings committed without due process of law, i.e. without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings. As such, these will include the illegal taking of life regardless of the motive, summary and arbitrary executions, salvagings even of suspected criminals, and threats to take the life of persons who are openly critical of erring government officials and the like.11 On the other hand, enforced disappearances12 are attended by the following characteristics: an arrest, detention or abduction of a person by a government official or organized groups or private individuals acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to
an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.

acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside the protection of law. (c) Students of secondary and tertiary schools. 1)pursuant to the related rules and regulations in student handbook 2) notice to the parents 3)RANDOM 4) expenses borne by govt (d) Officers and employees of public and private offices. 1) MANDATORY whether domestic or overseas 2)contained in company's work rules and regulations 3) borne by the employer, for purposes of reducing the risk in the workplace. 4) positivedealt with administratively as ground for suspension or termination (e) Officers and members of the military, police and other law enforcement agencies. annual, MANDATORY (f) All persons charged before the prosecutor's office with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day -MANDATORY (g) All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government- MANDATORY Section 44. Heads, Supervisors, and Teachers of Schools. For the purpose of enforcing the provisions of Article II of this Act, all school heads, supervisors and teachers shall be deemed persons in authority and, as such, are hereby empowered to apprehend, arrest or cause the apprehension or arrest of any person who shall violate any of the said provisions, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. They shall be deemed persons in authority if they are in the school or within its immediate vicinity, or even beyond such immediate vicinity if they are in attendance at any school or class function in their official capacity as school heads, supervisors, and teachers. Any teacher or school employee, who discovers or finds that any person in the school or within its immediate vicinity is liable for violating any of said provisions, shall have the duty to report the same to the school head or immediate superior who shall, in turn, report the matter to the proper authorities. Section 52. Abatement of Drug Related Public Nuisances. Any place or premises which have been used on two or more occasions as the site of the unlawful sale or delivery of dangerous drugs may be declared to be a public nuisance, and such nuisance may be abated, pursuant to the following procedures: (1) Any city or municipality may, by ordinance, create an administrative board to hear complaints regarding the nuisances; (2) any employee, officer, or resident of the city or municipality may bring a complaint before the Board after giving not less than three (3) days written notice of such complaint to the owner of the place or premises at his/her last known address; and (3) After hearing in which the Board may consider any evidence, including evidence of the general reputation of the place or premises, and at which the owner of the premises shall have an opportunity to present evidence in his/her defense, the Board may declare the place or premises to be a public nuisance.
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. (1) safeguard the integrity of its territory and the well-being of its citizenry particularly the youth, from the harmful effects of DDs on their physical and mental well-being, and to defend the same against acts or omissions detrimental to their development and preservation. (2) enhance further the efficacy of the law against dangerous drugs, it being one of today's more serious social ills pursue an intensive and unrelenting campaign against the trafficking and use of DDs and other similar substances through an integrated system of planning, implementation and enforcement of anti-drug abuse policies, programs, and projects. (3) achieve a balance in the national drug control program so that people with legitimate medical needs are not prevented from being treated with adequate amounts of appropriate medications, which include the use of dangerous drugs. (4) provide effective mechanisms or measures to re-integrate into society individuals who have fallen victims to drug abuse or dangerous drug dependence through sustainable programs of treatment and rehabilitation. DIFFERENT CLASSES OF ACTS PUNISHED: 1. Manufacture/importation/sale manufacture, importation, selling, administering, dispensing, delivering, giving away, distributing, dispatching, transporting (of DD, precursor, and equipment) 2. Possession/use (of DD, precursor, equipment, instrument, apparatus, other paraphernalia for drug use, where use = smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, introducing into the body; penalty on possession depends on the amt of substance possessed) 3. Maintenance of Den (employees and visitors of den are liable) KINDS OF SUBSTANCE PROHIBITED: 1. Dangerous drugs (list found in the Schedules annexed to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs) 2. Controlled precursor ingredients for manufacture of dangerous drugs Section 36. Authorized Drug Testing. Authorized drug testing shall be done by any government forensic laboratories or by any of the drug testing laboratories accredited and monitored by the DOH to safeguard the quality of test results. The DOH shall take steps in setting the price of the drug test with DOH accredited drug testing centers to further reduce the cost of such drug test. The drug testing shall employ, among others, two (2) testing methods, the screening test which will determine the positive result as well as the type of the drug used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a positive screening test. Drug test certificates issued by accredited drug testing centers shall be valid for a one-year period from the date of issue which may be used for other purposes. The following shall be subjected to undergo drug testing: (a) Applicants for driver's license (issuance/renewal)- MANDATORY (b) Applicants for firearm's license & for permit to carry firearms outside of residence. -MANDATORY

Constitutional Law 2 Reviewer

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Constitutional Law 2 Reviewer

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 1

RIGHTS-BASED DISCOURSE: NORMS, RIGHTS AND THE PLACE OF JUDICIAL POWER

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 FINALS REVIEWER

The Role of the Judiciary

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 2

Bill of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Laws

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 3

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 4

Procedural Due Process

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 5

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 6

(c. Garcia v Board of Investment WRT judicial law-making)

Right: Freedom of Contract versus Government Interest: Public Health

B. OLD SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

RATIONAL BASIS a.k.a. MINIMUM SCRUTINY test

Lochner v NY Purpose: health of

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 7

No lawful subject or lawful purpose.

RATIONAL BASIS a.k.a. MINIMUM SCRUTINY test

C. NEW SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 8

D. PROTECTED INTERESTS IN PROPERTY

I. Mere Regulation (DP) vs Taking of Property (ED)

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 9

B. E minent Domain Taking

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 10

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 11

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 12

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 13

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 14

Prior R estraint: official govtal restrictions on the press in advance of

Contentbased Protected Speech

Contentneutral Unprotected Speech

Political, Artistic, Commercial KINDS

Not public forum

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 15

d. Assembly and Petition

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 16

Use of Private Property as a F orum for Others Speech

e. F ree Speech and Suffrage

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 17

a. Defamatory Speech (L ibel)

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 18

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 19 c. Obscenity

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 20

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 21

B. Free Exercise Clause

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 22

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 23

C. Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 24

PROTECTED INTEREST IN LIBERTY

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 25

C. Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt

D. Right Against Self-Incrimination

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 26

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 27

SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION

E. Unlawful Searches and Seizure

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 28

RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE

B. Who are subject to Constitutional Prohibitions