CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
(Personal Notes of Elixir C. Langanlangan under Atty.
Calingin)
CASES ASSIGNED FOR FINALS
SILVERIO V. COURT OF APPEALS
 Violation of the conditions of bail and issuance of
warrant is a valid restriction of his right to travel.
 In this case, the accused went abroad many times
which lead to the failure of his arraignment.
DEL ROSARIO V. PASCUA
 Found guilty for violation of the rules requiring
permission for travel abroad and for failure to
disclose her intended foreign trip.
SPARK V. QUEZON CITY
 Strict Scrutiny Test for restriction of Right to
Travel: (a) Compelling State Interest; and (b)
Least Restrictive Means. Which must be
narrowly drawn to avoid conflict with
constitutional rights.
ESTRADA V. ESCRITOR
 Declaration of Pledging of Faithfulness in a
congregation of Jehovah’s Witness.
 Such cohabitation is not considered grossly
immoral based on the freedom of religion.
VALMORES V. ACHACOSO (MSU – COLLEGE OF
MEDICINE CASE)
 Making respondents to choose between
honoring his religious obligations and finishing
his education is a patent infringement of his
religious freedom
 One’s religious obligations take precedence over
his academic responsibilities.
 Educational institutions are bound to safeguard
the religious freedom. Our schools carry the
responsibility to restrict its own academic
liberties, should they collide with
constitutionally preferred rights.
EBRALINAG V. DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS OF CEBU
 Compulsory flag salute is a violation of
constitutional right to freedom of religion.
 It does not pose any imminent danger. Further,
refusal to salute the flag doesn’t mean there are
not patriotic, for patriotism can be learned in a
lot of ways.
ISLAMIC DA’WAH COUNCIL V. OFFICE OF THE
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 Designating to the government the issuance of
halal certificates is a violation of fundamental
rights of religions.
 It is considered an encroachment on the
religious freedoms of Muslims since halal foods
should undergo certain rituals before declared to
be halal.
AGLIPAY V. RUIZ
 This case ruled that the stamps produced in this
Eucharistic Event does not favor such religion.
 Such stamps were for the purpose of promoting
the Philippines to attract more tourists.
RE: LETTER OF TONY VALENCIANO ON HOLDING
RITUALS
 Said masses held in the second floor of the Hall
of Justice is not a violation or encroachment on
the constitutional provision on the separation of
Church and State.
 It was an accommodation, since any religion can
avail the use of such. Further, it is in recognition
on the inherent right of people to have some
form of belief system.
AUSTRIA V. NLRC
 Relationship of the church as an employer and
the Minister as an employee, is purely
SECULAR in nature because it has no relation
with the practice of faith, worship, and
doctrines of the church. Thus, such affairs are
governed by Labor Laws.
 Seventh-Day Adventist Church is assailed in
this case.
UCCP V. BUCC
 The determination of the validity of
disaffiliation is not purely an ecclesiastical
affair. For it is not a concern of doctrine, creed,
or any religious matters.
 Thus, they could be subject to the jurisdiction
of the SEC.
 BUCCI can be separated from UCCP, for they
possess the freedom to determine its steps.
GERMAN V. BARANGAN
  A restriction imposed on the use of streets
within the security jurisdiction of Malacanang
is allowed under the fundament law, in the
interest of national security.
 Petitioners are not denied of their freedom of
belief or choice of their religion, but only in the
manner by which they had attempted to
translate the same into action.
SORIANO V. LAGUARDIA
 Negative utterances which came out in a
televised bible exposition program does not
automatically accord them the character of a
religious disclosure.
CHAVEZ V. GONZALEZ (GARCI TAPES)
 Not every violation of a law will justify the
straitjacketing the exercise of freedom of
speech and of the press.
 The press statements should be turned down
as they constitute impermissible forms of prior
restraint on the right of free speech and of the
press.
DCWD V. ARANJUEZ
 A fun run event wherein some of the members
of employee unions wore a sports attire with
inscriptions. The assailed violation was alleged
to be done during office hours.
 Those who enter in the governments service
are subjected to a different degree of limitation
on their freedom to speak their mind.
 But a regulation on a constitutional right is not
a denial thereof.
ABS-CBN V. COMELEC
 An absolute ban on exit polls by the COMELEC
cannot be justified, for there are no law that
supports it.
 Such absolute ban clearly violates the freedom
of expression and of the press.
 There are other valid and reasonable ways and
means to achieve the COMELEC’s end of
avoiding or minimizing the disorder and
confusion (with the results).
POLLO V. DAVID
 A search conducted on an office computer and
copying the files thereof was considered lawful
and did not violate a constitutional right.
 A balancing test under which, the
governmental interests are weighed against
the employee’s reasonable expectation of
privacy.
KMP V. ERMITA
 The rallies conducted by the petitioners in
support of the BP 880 and on the Policy of
Calibrated Preemptive Response, was
dispersed. BP 880 requires a permit before a
rally can be conducted.
 Petitioners assailed BP 880 as unconstitutional
for being a violation on the constitutional
freedom of speech.
 It was ruled the BP 880 is constitutional, it
merely regulates the use of public places as to
time, place, and manner of assemblies.
DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC
 Such tarpaulins were not made in relation of
religious speech but made based on freedom of
speech.
 It is an opinion of the petitioners and not from
the church itself.
 Such expression is not a campaign material.
JACINTO V. COURT OF APPEALS
 Public school teachers who incurred
unauthorized absences in connection with the
conduct of mass actions.
 Workers in the public sector do not enjoy the
right to strike, the Constitution itself qualifies
its exercise with the proviso – “in accordance
with the law”.
AYER PRODUCTIONS V. CAPULONG AND ENRILE
 Freedom of speech also includes the freedom
to film and produce motion pictures.
 Enrile invoked that his right to privacy was
being violated for being in the film.
 The right to privacy of a public figure is
necessarily narrower than that of an ordinary
citizen. He hasn’t retired yet from the service.
He still sits in very public place, the Senate,
 Such film must be historically truthful. And
Enrile played a huge part during the EDSA
Revolution.
LOPEZ V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
 There is nothing defamatory in the phrase
“CADIZ FOREVER. BADING AND SAGAY
NEVER”.
 There is nothing in the phrase which will either
discredit, dishonor, or put him into contempt.
  Said respondent did not specify any actionable
wrong, a particular act or omission that would
defame him or cause an alleged injury.
 Simply worded as it is, it is considered as a
mere epithet or personal reaction on private
respondent’s performance of official duty and
not purposely designed to malign or
besmirched his reputation.
MARI V. GONZALEZ
 A rape case was filed against the respondent.
Petitioners always fail to attend the trials to
present their evidences against the
respondent.
 The constitutional right to a speedy disposition
of trial by the accused was violated.
 The accused was already deprived of his
liberty for 2 occasions already.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SANDIGANBAYAN
 It tooke 15 years for the information againsts
the respondents to be filed. Suche length was
considered to be oppressive and vexatious
against the constitutional guaranty on speedy
disposition of cases.
 This case refers to ghost deliveries in relation
to misappropriation and Anti-Graft &
Corruption.
 Such case went into different modifications
and investigations throughout the years.
OLBES V. BUEMIO
 The petitioners assailed that his right to a
speedy disposition of trial was violated.
 There was a total of 253 days of delay as a
violation of the 80-day period set in the Speedy
Trial Act.
 The court ruled that such right was not
violated due to the attendant circumstance.
Extraneous factors should also be considered
such as the Typhoon Chedeng that occurred.
LEVISTE V. COURT OF APPEALS
 Petitioner applied for bail claiming the absence
of any risk of flight, his old age and ailment.
However, he failed to show any proof
regarding his ailment.
 He assailed that the CA commited a grave
abuse for denying bail since he is not
disqualified based on the 3rd Paragraph,
Section 5 of the Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.
 It shall be noted that the accused was already
convicted in the RTC. Thus, presumption of
innocence has already ceases.
 His bail is already considered as a matter of
discretion by the court.
ENRILE V. SANDIGANBAYAN
 Enrile was charged with Plunder. Before
arraignment, he applied for bail, assailing it as
a matter of right.
 He argued that he is not a flight risk due to his
health condition. He also argued that his guilt
is not strong.
 Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse
which thereby defeated the purpose of bail.
BANGAYAN V. BANGAYAN
 Bigamy case regarding Benjamin Bangayan
which questions that an appeal would lead to
double jeopardy since the dismissal of the RTC
is equivalent to acquittal. Thus, barred the
filing of appeal.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ALEJANDRO
 2 counts of rape were filed, in which was
acquitted by the Regional Trial Court. On the
same day, the RTC recalled such decision.
 Said mistake was dues to the mashed-up
documents during the writing of the assailed
decision. It was actually found that the victim
testified for the case.
 In appeal, it was found that the RTC’s decision
violated his right against double jeopardy.
 Finality-of-acquittal doctrine.
IBANEZ V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
 Petitioner’s right to counsel was not violated
due to the failure to attend of the counsel de
officio for only 1 instance.
 What forfeited his bail bond was HIS failure to
appear.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RAPEZA
 Rapeza is an illiterate in which his Miranda
Rights was violated. He was not informed of his
constitutional rights during the conduct of
custodial investigations.
 It failed to prove that his rights were clearly
explained and understood by him.
 Thus, his alleged confession is inadmissible as
evidence.
  It was not made in the presence of a counsel  It is not considered as an impairment of
and it was clearly not voluntary. obligations and contract beacause a cheque is
 Thus, Rapeza was acquitted. not a contract.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SERZO REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ROSEMOORE

MINING
 Respondent assailed that the court did not give
him enough time to get his own counsel.
 For many times, he appeared without counsel
and was actually provided with a counsel de
officio.
 Yet, the respondent would not cooperate with
the assigned counsel.
 It was pretty obvious that he was purposely
delaying his own case to the prejudice of the
victim.
 A license is not a contract. Thus, impairment
clause is to no avail.
 It can be revoked by the police power of the
government for it is not a property right.
 A proclamation which revoked the license is
not a bill of attainder for it does not declare
guilt or impose punishment.
 Not an ex-post facto law. Not penal or criminal
in nature.

SALVADOR V. MAPA NAVIA V. PARDICO

 Such issuances for the identification of behest
loans does not fall within the ambit of an ex-
post facto law for it is not penal in nature.
NASI V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
 Charged with Illegal Recruitment as based o RA
8042.
 Appeal modified it as a crime under the Labor
Code, which later on published.
 If based on RA8042, there will be no violation
of an ex-post facto law.
 As a rule, a crime should be punished on the
law which is in effect during it commission.
GOLDENWAY V. EQUITABLE PCI BANK
 Theft of wires and post lamps within the
subdivision.
 Wife applied for a Petition of Writ of Amparo
 The court ruled on the negative since it failed
to comply with the elements that will show the
participation of the Government.
SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE V. MANALO
 Writ of Amparo was applicable in this case. It
fails to be under Extralegal killings or Enforce
Disappearances.
 Only substantial evidence is required.
 Right to security was violated by the military
themselves.

 The law creating a shorter redemption period

for juridical persons are considered as an
impairment of obligations and contracts.
 Said law did not divest their right to redeem
foreclosed properties, it only modified the time
period (From 1 year to 8 months).
 Non-impairment

RECUERDO V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

 Assailed in this case was that BP 22 is a Bill of

Attainder.

LOZANO V. MARTINEZ

 It was assailed in this case that BP 22 is a

violation of non-payment of debt.
 It was not a violation because the gravamen of
BP 22 is the issuance of worthless checks and
not the non-payment of debts.