Constitutional Law 2 Reviewer

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 1
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
FINALS REVIEWER
RIGHTS-BASED DISCOURSE: NORMS, RIGHTS AND

THE PLACE OF JUDICIAL POWER
The Role of the Judiciary

-
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.
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 & Ex Post Facto Laws

-
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:
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
Function: stand above politics
Function: promote majority rule
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
(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
C)
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
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)
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.
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
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.
Procedural Due Process
- 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
(c. Garcia v Board of

Investment WRT
judicial law-making)
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
Lochner v NY
Purpose: health of
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
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
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)
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.
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
(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
SCRUTINY test
Right: Freedom of
Contract
versus
Government
Interest: Public
Health
RATIONAL BASIS
a.k.a. MINIMUM
SCRUTINY test
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

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
Agustin v Edu
Purpose: public
road safety
Means: early
warning device
requirement
a.
land, it never had a share in

profits so it's only logical that
Nazario shoulders the burden of
the tax
No lawful subject or lawful

purpose.
(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.
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
6.
7.
8.
9.
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)
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;
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

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. Regulatory taking
1.
Aesthetic
2.
3.
4.
5.
(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)
B. E minent Domain Taking

1.
2.
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
6.
7.
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)
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
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
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
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)
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
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
CPD
Contentbased
Protected
Speech
Political,
Artistic,
Commercial
-
KINDS
Speech/ Conduct
Pure
Speech
TMP
Contentneutral
Unprotected
Speech
Defamation
(Libel)
NYT, Rosenbloom
1) PROTECTED SPEECH
Public
Property
No
PermitFreedom
Park
Obscenity
Miller
Permit:
TMP
Regulation
Fighting
Words
Cohen
a.
OBrien
Speech
Plus
Private
Property
Pruneyard
Public
forum
Not
public
forum
Prior R estraint: official govtal restrictions on the press in advance of
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
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.
-
(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)
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
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

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?
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:
f.
(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.
Use of Private Property as a F orum for Others Speech
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]
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)
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)
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

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
2)
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)
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.
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.
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.
OVERVIEW
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)
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
-
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
B. Free Exercise Clause

-
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)

-
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
4.
5.
6.
7.
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
8.
9.
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)
ACADEMIC FREEDOM
-
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.
Section 5(2): Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher

learning.
C. Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices
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
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.
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.
1973 C ART 15
Section 8 (2) All institutions of higher learning shall enjoy academic freedom.
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
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:
(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
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
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
B. Involuntary Servitude
-
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.
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).
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)
C. Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt

-
PROVISION: Art 3 Sec 20: No person shall be imprisoned for debt or nonpayment of a poll tax.
o
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.
(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
D. Right Against Self-Incrimination

-
PROVISION: Art 3 Sec 17: No person shall be compelled to be a witness

against himself.
o
o
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)
SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION

A. Who are entitled to Constitutional Protection
E. Unlawful Searches and Seizure

-
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)
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

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
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)
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
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
(-)
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
Anti
Religious choice is private
choice
But why use Catholic money to
pay for poor peoples condoms?
Pro
Reproductive choice is private
choice
Duty to help poor exercise
reproductive choice
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:
(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.
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.
Sec. 5. DNA Testing Order. - If the court finds that the requirements in Section 4 hereof have been
complied with, the court shall -
(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
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.
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
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.
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

acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside the protection
of law.
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
(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.

Constitutional Law 2 Reviewer

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

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 Role of the Judiciary

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

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:

NOT examples of self-executing:

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 2

Bill of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Laws

Bill of attainder substitution of legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt

Characteristics: (1) singling out a definite class (b) imposition of a burden on

Function: stand above politics

Function: promote majority rule

ANTI-POPULIST CRITIQUE OF DEMOCRACY

POPULIST CRITIQUE OF CONSTITUTIONALISM: Inflation of constitutional law, its

(1) ACTUAL OR JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY existence of present or possible

NOT an example of actual controversy: Mere apprehension that Secretary of

GR Ripeness: Question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest

XPNS: (1) criminal cases (2) jurisdiction of lower court assailed

Liberality doctrine.Court can overrule when there is an extraordinary

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 3

matter resolution of issues, he will no longer be affected because he is in

Doctrine of mere voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct

Examples of taxpayers suit:

NOT examples of taxpayers suit

Logical Nexus- requisites: logical link

character of funds or other assets (public)

disregard of constitutional or statutory provision

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 4

may undermine adverseness requisite of judicial review. Organization may

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

Origins in protection for property (economic)

Current law: focus on privacy and identity (liberty)

Intrinsic validity of law that interferes w/ rights of a person to his property

Most essential, insistent, illimitable of powers, extending as it does to all the

Procedural Due Process

In the hierarchy of civil liberties, rights of free expression and of assembly

The recognition of the inferior position occupied by property is a recognition of

CHIEF ELEMENTS: right to contract, to choose ones employment, to labor

Writ of Amparo: remedy available to any person whose right to life,

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 5

No right is absolute; proper regulation as valid exercise of police power to

i.e. classification of property

Art 13 on social justice, policy against nuclear arms, abolition of death

sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected

FERRER ll LIM ll BLOCK A-2014 6

bakers & consumers

(c. Garcia v Board of

B. OLD SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

Protection for property interests WRT property rights in hierarchy of BOR

unduly oppressive for individuals

spiritual, physical, aesthetic, and monetary

NDC and AGRIX v

ground for legislative interference.

Dissent (Holmes).some of these

Right to contract one's affairs is a

(a) no specific class or section of