Law II Case Doctrines

CASE DOCTRINE I. Rights-Based Discourse Norms, Rights and the Place of Judicial Power A. General Art. VIII, 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. Art. VIII, 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. Art. VIII, 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. Art. VIII, 5(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. Garcia v. BOI Right to Information; Access to public records; exceptionTrade and industrial secrets Bataan Petrochemical Corp. decided to transfer its proposed refinery operations to Batangas. BOI approved despite objections of local government officials. SC reversed BOIs decision. Pursuant to Art. VIII, 1, it is the duty of the court to address the controversy. It may substitute its discretion and judgment to that of BOI and the investors. Dissent: The court should not delve on matters beyond its competence. The SC affirmed the standing of minors, represented by their parents, to challenge the validity of logging concessions on the basis of the concept of intergenerational responsibility for and right to a balanced and healthful ecology guaranteed by Art. II, 16. Does not involve a political question but an issue of enforcing a right vis--vis policy formulated. Nevertheless, political question is no longer insurmountable in view of Art. VIII, 1(2). In Kilosbayan v. Guingona, Jr., the SC affirmed the right of petitioners to challenge the validity of the lotto contract of the PCSO with the Phil. Gaming Mgt., Corp. on the argument that the case was of transcendental importance. This case reverses this decision on the ground that the petitioner had no substantial interest in the contract being challenged. Justice Felicianos guide in determining cases of transcendental importance: a) the character of the funds involved b) presence of a disregard of law prohibiting an agency from doing certain actions c) lack of party w/ a more direct & specific interest d) wide impact or application A partys standing in court is a procedural technicality which may be set aside by the Court in view of the importance of the issues involved. Thus, where the issues raised by petitioners are of paramount public interest or of transcendental importance, the Court may brush aside the procedural barrier. Senates concurrence in WTO -
Oposa v. Factoran
Kilosbayan v. Morato
Taada v. Angara
Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page 1 of 39
Judicial power is not impaired because rules of procedure under TRIPS are not incongruent to our own system.
Santiago v. Bautista
Parent of 6th grader is appealing the Committee on the Rating of Students for Honors awarding of 3rd honors to his son "Judicial Power" the authority to determine the rights of persons or property by arbitrating between adversaries in specific controversies at the instance of a party thereto; the authority exercised by that department of government which is charged with the declaration of what the law is and its construction so far as it is written law; the authority or power vested in the judges or in the courts; the authority vested in some court, officer, or persons to hear and determine when the rights of persons or property or the propriety of doing an act is the subject matter of adjudication; the power belonging to or emanating from a judge as such; the power conferred upon a public officer, involving the exercise of judgment and discretion in the determination of questions of right in specific cases affecting the interest of persons or property, as distinguished from ministerial power or authority to carry out the mandates of judicial power or the law; the power exercised by courts in hearing and determining cases before them, or some matter incidental thereto, and of which they have jurisdiction; the power of a court to decide and pronounce a judgment; the power which adjudicates upon and protects the right and interests of individual citizens, and to that end construes and applies the law. "Judicial power" implies the construction of laws and the adjudication of legal rights. It includes the power to hear and determine but not everyone who may hear and determine has judicial power. The term "judicial power" does not necessarily include the power to hear and determine a matter that is not in the nature of a suit or action between the parties.' Freedom of associationThe right to associate is not absolute RA 1700 which declared the Communist Party of the Philippines a clear and present danger to Philippine security, and thus prohibited membership in such organization, was contended to be a bill of attainder. Although the law mentions the CPP in particular, its purpose is not to define a crime but only to lay a basis or to justify the legislative determination that membership in such organization is a crime because of the clear and present danger to national security. Fernando, dissenting. A taint of invalidity is seen even in the title of the Act, which state the specific name of an organization and create a presumption of guilt. Ang Chio Kho was previously convicted of various crimes but was given conditional pardon, the condition being he will leave the Philippines and never return Under a different name, he arrived at MIA en route to Honolulu about 7 years later. He was convinced by some friends to stay longer and sought an extension of his stay from Immigration. His identity was discovered and he was recommitted to prison.
People v. Ferrer
Director of Prisons v. Ang Chio Kho
The CA, in affirming the TCs denial of Ang Chio Khos petition for writ of habeas corpus, recommended that he be allowed to leave the country, SolGen asked the SC to delete that recommendation
The Chief Executive himself can determine if the conditions of a pardon were violated, a prerogative w/c the Courts may not interfere with, however erroneous the finding may be. It is not for any occupant of any court to play the role of adviser to the President as this will constitute an infringement on the separation of powers. Ex Post Facto Laws Art. III, 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
B. Case or Controversy Requirements: Elements Standing Muskrat v. US Under the US Consti the exercise of judicial power is limited to cases and controversies. A case or controversy, in order that the judicial power of the US may be exercise thereon, implies the existence of present or possible adverse parties whose contentions are submitted to the court for adjudication. In this action, the US is made defendant but it has no adverse interest against them thus, there is no justiciable case or controversy. PACU v. Secretary PACU did not show any injury that they suffered or will be suffering through the implementation of the law. In fact, PACU members have successfully operated schools even in the presence of the Act. Where the petitioning private schools are actually operating by virtue of permits issued to them by the Secretary of Education under Act No. 2706, who is not shown to have threatened to revoke their permits, there is no justiciable controversy that would authorize the courts to pass upon the constitutionality of said Act. The status of petitioner, as a planter with a rice land of substantial proportion, entitled him to a chance to sell to the Government the rice; it (the Govt) now seeks to buy abroad and, as a taxpayer affected by the purchase of the commodity effected with public funds mainly raised by taxation, gives said petitioner sufficient interest to file the instant petition seeking to restrain the allegedly unlawful disbursement of public funds to import rice from abroad. A suit filed a taxpayer questioning the validity of an Executive Order creating a trust, the funds of which came from donations and contributions and not from taxation, fails to satisfy the elemental requisite for a taxpayer's suit. The person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. It goes without saying that if Act No. 4221 really violates the Constitution, the People of the Philippines, in whose name the present action is brought, has a substantial interest in having it set aside. Of greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute. Hence, the well-settled rule that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws. In ruling on standing, it is both appropriate and necessary to look to the substantive issues to determine whether there is a logical nexus between the status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated. Such inquiries into the nexus between the status asserted by the litigant and the claim he presents are essential to assure that he is a proper and appropriate party to invoke federal judicial power. 2 Aspects of Logical Nexus: 1. The taxpayer must establish a logical link between the status and the type of legislature enactment attacked 2. The taxpayer must establish a nexus between the status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged. Petitioner did no allege that the challenged skiing development would affect the club or its members in their activities or that they used Mineral King, but maintained that the project would adversely change the areas aesthetics and ecology. A person has standing to seek judicial review only if he can show that he himself has suffered or will suffer injury, whether economic or otherwise. Appellees pleadings sufficiently alleged that they were adversely affected or aggrieved to withstand a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of standing to sue.
Gonzales v. Hechanova
Gonzales v. Marcos
People v. Vera
Flast v. Cohen
Sierra Club v. Morton
US v. SCRAP
Steffel v. Thompson
Petitioner handed out bills in a Shopping Center protesting American involvement in Vietnam & left when the authorities threatened to arrest them. They again handbilled and left but a companion decided to stay and was arrested. (Freedom of expression issue: distribution w/in a private property) There is an actual controversy even though Steffel had not been arrested yet or even if there was no complaint filed against him yet. Steffel would be arrested if he continued handbilling. In these circumstances, it isnt necessary that petitioner first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge a statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights.
Francisco v. HREP
Locus standi or legal standing or has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. Difference bet rule on real-party-interest and rule on standing: former is a concept of civil procedure while the latter has constitutional underpinnings. Standing restrictions require a partial consideration of the merits, as well as broader policy concerns relating to the proper role of the judiciary in certain areas. When suing as a citizen: interest of the petitioners must be direct and personal; he must show that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the enforcement of any govtal act; party should appear to have been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of. As a taxpayer: where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is a waste of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law, a party is allowed to sue. He should prove that he has sufficient interest and that he would sustain direct injury as a result. As a legislator: he is allowed to sue to question the validity of any official action which he claims infringes his prerogatives as a legislator. As an association: while an association has legal personality to represent its members, the mere invocation by the IBP or any member of the legal profession of the duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing more, although true, does not suffice to clothe it with legal standing bec its interest is too general. However, the Court chooses to relax the rules on standing bec of advanced constitutional issues raised in the petitions. In the case of class suits: persons intervening must be sufficiently numerous to fully protect the interests of all concerned to enable the court to deal properly with all interests involved in the suit bec a judgment in a class suit , whether favorable or not, is binding on all members of the class WON they were before the court. In the case of transcendental importance: J. Felicianos instructive determinants: a. The character of the funds or other assets involved in the case b. The presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the govt c. The lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in raising the questions being raised
Sanlakas v. Exec Sec
Standing as a legislator: To the extent the powers of Congress are impaired, so is the power of each member thereof, since his office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution. An act of the Executive which injures the institution of Congress causes a derivative but nonetheless substantial injury, which can be questioned by a member of Congress. In such a case, any member of Congress can have a resort to the courts. Petitioners should not feel discriminated against just because in Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections, a member of the Philippine Bar, now Delegate Ramon Gonzales, was allowed to prosecute his action for prohibition instituted by him as a taxpayer. Petitioners have no cause for legitimate resentment as such suit could be distinguished from the present. Petitioner Gonzales in accordance with the controlling doctrine had the good sense to wait before the submission to the electorate of certain proposed amendments to the Constitution. It was only then that the matter was ripe for adjudication. Prior to that stage the judiciary had to keep its hands off. The statutes in question had been enacted in 1879 and that no one ever had been prosecuted thereunder x x x and that the information against them had been dismissed after the State Supreme Court had sustained the legislation in 1940 on an appeal from a demurrer to the information. The appeals are dismissed, because the records in these cases do not present controversies justifying the adjudication of a constitutional issue. Respondents claim that w/o detailed info on the CIAs expenditures he cannot properly follow legislative or executive action and thereby fulfill his obligations as a voter is a generalized grievance insufficient under Frothingham or Flast to show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of such action. Because petitioner will complete law school at the end of the term for which he has register regardless of any decision this Court might reach on the merits, the Court cannot consider the substantive constitutional issues, and the case is moot because of the simple fact the petitioner is in his final term and the schools fixed policy to permit him to complete the term.
Ripeness Tan v. Macapagal
Poe v. Ullman
US v. Richardson
Mootness De Funis v. Odegaard
II. Due Process Clause Art. III, 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty of property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. A. Procedural Due Process Banco Espaol-Filipino v. Palanca Procedural due process has its application in judicial proceedings, civil or criminal. It requires judgment to be rendered after lawful hearing, and judge must clearly explain its factual and legal bases. CIVIL DUE PROCESS REQUISITES a) An impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it. b) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant and over the property subject matter of the proceeding c) The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard d) Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing and must clearly explain its factual and legal bases. ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS REQUISITES a) Right to hearing includes right to present own case and submit evidence in support thereof b) Tribunal must consider the evidence presented. c) Decision rendered must have a basis d) Evidence which supports the finding or conclusion is substantial e) Decision must be based on evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. f) Tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy g) The tribunal should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that he parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decision rendered. While respondents may fix a temporary rate pending final determination of the application of petitioner, such rate-fixing order, temporary though it may be, is not exempt from the statutory procedural requirements of notice and hearing, as well as the requirement of reasonableness. Assuming that such power is vested in NTC, it may not exercise the same in an arbitrary and confiscatory manner. Categorizing such an order as temporary in nature does not perforce entail the applicability of a different rule of statutory procedure than would otherwise be applied to any other order on the same matter unless otherwise provided by the applicable law. No denial of due process where all requirements of administrative due process were met by the school and the student given the opportunity to be heard.Juan Ramon himself appeared before the Board of Discipline. He admitted the slapping incident, then begged to be excused so he could catch the boat for Bacolod City. Juan Ramon, therefore, was given notice of the proceedings; he actually appeared to present his side; the investigating board acted fairly and objectively; and all requisites of administrative due process were met. It is beyond dispute that a student once admitted by the school is considered enrolled for one semester. It is provided in Paragraph 137 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, that when a college student registers in a school, it is understood that he is enrolling for the entire semester. Likewise, it is provided in the Manual that the "written contracts" required for college teachers are for "one semester." It is thus evident that after the close of the first semester, the PSBA-QC no longer has any existing contract either with the students or with the intervening teachers. Such being the case, the charge of denial of due process is untenable. The minimum standards laid down by the Court to meet the
Ang Tibay v. CIR
PHILCOMSAT v. Alcuaz
Ateneo de Manila v. CA
Alcuaz v. PSBA
Non v. Judge Dames
demands of procedural due process are: (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them; (2) they shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired: (3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them; (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case Contracts between school and students not ordinary; It is impressed with public interest. A school cannot refuse to enroll a student on the simple ground that his contract expires every end of a semester. While the University Council can ratify the acts of the Faculty on admission requirements, this must be done within a reasonable time. Sir Roque: You cannot admit the UPCM on a probationary status and allow the students to graduate and then say that the students were not qualified to be admitted to begin with. W/N a State that terminates public assistance payments to a particular recipient w/o affording him the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to termination denies the recipient procedural due process HELD: Yes. Welfare benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them and procedural due process is applicable to their termination Pre-termination Evidentiary Hearing Requisites 1) Recipient must be provided w/ timely and adequate notice detailing the reason for termination, and an effective opportunity to defend his own arguments and evidence orally before the decision maker 2) Recipient must be allowed to retain an attorney if he so desires 3) Decision maker should state the reasons for his determination and indicate the evidence he relied on, no need to file full opinion 4) Decision maker must be impartial W/N an administrative hearing conducted prior to suspension that excludes consideration of the motorists fault or liability for the accident violates procedural due process. HELD: Yes. Before the State may deprive an individual of his license and registration, it must provide a procedure for determining the question whether there is a reasonable possibility of a judgment being rendered against him as a result of the accident. University rules do not require the attendance in BOR meetings of individuals whose cases are included as items on the agenda of the Board. In any event, it is gross error to equate due process in the instant case with the sending of notice of the March 29, 1993 BOR meeting to respondent. University rules do not require the attendance in BOR meetings of individuals whose cases are included as items on the agenda of the Board. This is not exclusive of students whose disciplinary cases have been appealed to the Board of Regents as the final review body. At no time did respondent complain of lack of notice given to him to attend any of the regular and special BOR meetings where his case was up for deliberation. DBP cannot rightfully contend that it was deprived of due process. It was given the opportunity to be heard and to present is evidence. A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application. In such
Reyes v. CA
Goldberg v. Kelly
Bell v. Burson
UP v. Hon. Ligot-Telan
DBP v. NLRC Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
instance, the statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two (2) respects it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid; and, it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle. But the doctrine does not apply as against legislations that are merely couched in imprecise language but which nonetheless specify a standard though defectively phrased; or to those that are apparently ambiguous yet fairly applicable to certain types of activities. The first may be "saved" by proper construction, while no challenge may be mounted as against the second whenever directed against such activities. With more reason, the doctrine cannot be invoked where the assailed statute is clear and free from ambiguity, as in this case. B. Old Substantive Due Process Calder v. Bull The Court rejected an attack on a Connecticut legislative act setting aside a probate court decree which had refused to approve a will. The legislation required a new hearing; and at that second hearing, the will was approved. The challenge to the legislative act came from the heirs who would have taken the property if the will had been ineffective. The Court rejected their claim that the ex post facto clause barred the Connecticut act: that clause was construed as being limited to criminal legislation. The general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment, and this includes the right to purchase and sell labor, except as controlled by the State in the legitimate exercise of its police power. There is no reasonable ground, on the score of health, for interfering with the liberty of the person or the right of free contract, by determining the hours of labor, in the occupation of a baker. It is not a legitimate exercise of the police power of the State, but an unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract. The manager of La Compana General de Tabacos de Filipinas refused to pay Macaria Fajardo her regular wages corresponding to her 60-day pregnancy leave, despite her demands. Prosecuting attorney filed a complaint. W/N Art. 3071 is a reasonable and lawful exercise of police power. HELD: No. Art. 3071 is unconstitutional because it violates the right to contract ones affairs w/c is a part of liberty of the individual that is protected by the due process of law clause of the constitution. Private property cannot simply be taken by law from one person and given to another without compensation and any known public purpose. This is plain arbitrariness and is not permitted under the Constitution. While it is true that the police power is superior to the impairment clause, the principle will apply only where the contract is so related to the public welfare that it will be considered congenitally susceptible to change by the legislature in the interest of the greater number. VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE: An accused is denied the right to be informed of the charge against him and to DUE PROCESS where the statute itself is couched in such INDEFINITE LANGUAGE that its not possible for men of ordinary intelligence to determine therefrom what acts/omissions are punished. Ordinance No. 640 penalized anyone who sold admission tickets to any movie or other public exhibitions requiring children bet. 7-12 y/0 to pay in full. Petitioners attack its constitutionality on the grounds that it is ultra vires and an invalid exercise of police power. HELD: Ordinance No. 640 invades the personal and property rights of petitioners for being unreasonable and an undue
Lochner v. New York
People v. Pomar
NDC and AGRIX v. Phil. Veterans
People v. Nazario
Balacuit v. CFI
Agustin v. EDU
restraint of trade. It is unconstitutional and therefore, null and void. LOI No. 229 requiring the installation of early warning devices to vehicles is not repugnant to the due process clause. Justice Laurel identified POLICE POWER with state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare.
C. New Substantive Due Process Olmstead v. US
Skinner v. Oklahoma Griswold v. Connecticut Eisenstadt v. Baird Roe v. Wade
W/N the use in evidence of private telephone conversations, intercepted by mean of wiretapping violated the 4th and 5th amendment. HELD: No. The principle of liberal construction applied to the Amendment to effect its purpose in the interest of liberty, will not justify enlarging it beyond the possible practical meaning of persons, houses, papers, and effects, or so applying searches and seizures as to forbid hearing or sight. W/N the operation of vasectomy could be performed on petitioner without detriment to his general health. Held: State violated the equal protection clause. Law forbidding use of contraceptives unconstitutionally intrudes up on the right of marital privacy, which is guaranteed by the penumbra of rights embodied in the Constitution. The statute, by providing dissimilar treatment or married and unmarried persons who were similarly situated, violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment Pre-natal right is not within the states interest. The interest of the state kicks in only upon birth. State criminal abortion laws violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, w/c protects against state action the right to privacy, including a womans qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Sir Roque: Privacy entails decisions regarding ones body and a decision to be married. The primary consideration is on the right of the mother. Certain decisions can be made by only pregnant women themselves. W/N the Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. HELD: NO. An anti-sodomy law was validated on the basis of a) historical indifference towards homosexuality, and b) immorality. Overturned Bowers. Liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex. At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Bowers continuance as precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons. May a person successfully petition for a change of name and sex appearing in the birth certificate to reflect the result of a sex reassignment surgery? HELD: NO. The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of identification. A change of name is a privilege, not a right. Rather than avoiding confusion, changing petitioners first name for his declared purpose may only create grave complications in the civil registry and the public interest. Student Activities Drug Testing Policy is a reasonable means of furthering the School Districts important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren. a. Reasonableness in public school context, a search may be reasonable when supported by special needs beyond the normal need for law enforcement. b. Students affected by this Policy have a limited expectation of privacy. c. The invasion of students privacy is not significant, given the minimally intrusive nature of the sample collection and the limited uses to which the test results are put.
Bowers v. Hardwick
Lawrence v. Texas
Silverio v. Republic
Board of Education v. Earls
Ople v. Torres
Duncan Assoc. v. Glaxo Welcome White Light Corporation v. City of Manila
The Policy effectively serves the SDs interest in protecting its students safety and health AO 308, adoption of a national computerized identification reference system intrudes on our citizenrys protected zone of privacy. Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law, still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation because facially it violates the right to privacy. The essence of privacy is the "right to be let alone. Policy of pharmaceutical companies prohibiting marriage of employee to competitor is constitutional, valid exercise of management prerogative. Manila ordinance prohibiting wash up rates and short time admission by motels held as an unconstitutional exercise of police power. TEST OF A VALID ORDINANCE (Substantive Requirements): 1. Must not contravene the constitution or any statute 2. Must not be unfair or oppressive 3. Must not be partial or discriminatory 4. Must not prohibit but may regulate trade 5. Must be general and consistent with public policy 6. Must not be unreasonable
d.
D. Protected Interests in Property Mere Regulation under the Due Process Clause v. Taking of Property via the Power of Eminent Domain Churchill v. Rafferty Unsightly advertisements or signs, signboards, or billboards which are offensive to the sight, are not disassociated from the general welfare of the public. It interferes with the proper enjoyment of outdoor life by the general public. This justifies their suppression or regulation to the extent that they interfere with the right of the public. US v. Toribio The legislative determination of what is a proper exercise of its police power is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the courts Laws which interfere w/ life, liberty or property satisfy substantive due process when there is: 1. Lawful object interests of the public in general require the intervention of the State, and 2. Lawful means means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive on individuals A Municipal Ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive if it operates to permanently deprive appellants of the right to use their own property; it then oversteps the bounds of police power without just compensation. The State, under guise of police power, may not 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. Due process of law simply states that it is part of the sporting idea of fair play to hear the other side before an opinion is formed or a decision is made by those who sit in judgment. Exceptions to Due Process The conclusive presumption, bars the admission of contrary evidence as long as such presumption is based on human experience or there is a rational connection between the fact proved and the fact ultimately presumed therefrom. There are instances when the need for expeditious action will justify omission of these requisites, as in the summary abatement of a nuisance per se, like a mad dog on the loose, which may be killed on sight because of the immediate danger it poses to the safety and lives of the people. Pornographic materials, contaminated meat and narcotic drugs are inherently pernicious and may be summarily destroyed. The passport of a person sought for a criminal offense
People v. Fajardo
Ynot v. IAC
US v. Causby
Republic v. PLDT
Republic v. Castellvi
Bel-Air Association v. IAC
Ortigas v. Feati
may be cancelled without hearing, to compel his return to the country he has fled. Filthy restaurants may be summarily padlocked in the interest of the public health and bawdy houses to protect the public morals. Flights of aircraft over private land which are so low and frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land are as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it. Where the Republic may not compel the PLDT to celebrate a contract with it, the Republic may, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, require the telephone company to permit interconnection of the government telephone system and that of the PLDT, as the needs of the government service may require, subject to the payment of just compensation to be determined by the court. Requisites for taking under Power of Eminent Domain a. The expropriator must enter a private property b. Entry must be for more than a momentary period c. Entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority d. Property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected e. Utilization of the property must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property Unlike the power of eminent domain, police power is exercised without provisions for just compensation. When any property is condemned or seized by competent authority in the interest of health, safety or security, the owner thereof shall not be entitled to compensation, unless he can show that such condemnation or seizure is unjustified. The Police power is superior to contractual stipulations between parties on the use of lands sold by subdivisions even if said conditions are annotated on the Torrens Title.
In every contract, there is an implied reservation that it is subject to the police power of the State. EPZA v. Dulay Determination of Just Compensation is Judicial Function: The PDs merely serve as a guide or a factor for the courts in determining amount of just compensation. The courts have the power and authority to determine just compensation, independent of what the decrees state, and thus may appoint commissioners to help in determining just compensation. NPC v. CA To determine due compensation for lands appropriated by the Government, the basis should be the price or value at the time it was taken from the owner and appropriated by the Government. The nature of the land at the time of the taking by the Government is the principal criterion for awarding compensation to the landowner. Takings under Eminent Domain v. Takings under the Social Justice Clause De Knecht v. Bautista Choice of Property to be Expropriated is Subject to Judicial Review as to Reasonableness: The RP can take private property upon payment of just compensation. However, private property to be taken cannot be chosen arbitrarily and capriciously, as the landowner is entitled to due process. The DPH originally established the extension in Cuneta Ave., and it is assumed that they made extensive studies regarding it. The change from Cuneta Ave. to Fernando Rein-Del Pan Sts. Cannot be justified on the ground of social impact, as the properties to be affected along Cuneta Avenue are mostly motels. Republic v. De Knecht Expropriation of lands by the government may be undertaken not only be voluntary negotiation with the land owners, but also by taking appropriate court action or by legislation. BP 340 superseded the final and executor decision of the SC in De Knecht v. Bautista. Manotok v. NHA Tambunting Estate and Estero Sunog-Apog expropriation; PDs
dispense w/ due process in exercise of Eminent Domain, unconstitutional. Hearing: What the due process clause requires is that the landowner must be given reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present his claim or defense. Although due process does not always necessarily demand that a proceeding be had 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. Although there are exceptional situations when in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, the requirement does not need judicial process, when it is alleged that the landowners right to due process of law has been violated in the taking of his property, the courts can probe and check on the alleged violation. Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Police power is the inherent and plenary power of the State which Association, Inc. v. Mayor of Manila enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society. Art. III, 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. Art. III, 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. Association of Small Landowners v. Agrarian reform is an exercise of the police power of the State Secretary of Agrarian Reform through eminent domain as it is a means to regulate private property. Sumulong v. Guerrero Scope of Judicial Review in Expropriation Proceedings: In this case the Court held that socialized housing falls under the scope of public use, and is therefore a valid basis for expropriation. However, pursuant to EPZA v. Dulay, just compensation is not met in these PDs, remanded to lower court. City Government v. Judge Ericta An ordinance of QC requiring memorial park operators to set aside at least 6% of their cemetery for charity burial of deceased persons is not a valid exercise of police power, and one that constitute taking of property without just compensation. Luz Farms v. Secretary CARL in including private agricultural lands, devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising in the definition of commercial farms is invalid. Cariday v. CA Court ruled in favor of Forbes Park. Dissent The real purpose of Forbes Park is to maintain the high value of the properties in their area. If the purpose is against overcrowding, how is the employment of a battalion of household help not overcrowding? The Senior Citizens Act (the new one) gave tax deductions instead of tax credits (peso-per-peso claim from the government) vis--vis the 20% discount given to senior citizens. Therefore, under this new system, the business establishment also shares the burden from the discounts. An ordinance banned the use of aerial spraying for bananas. The association filed suit challenging the validity of the law. The means is not proportionately reasonable since the ordinance gave them only 3 months to shift to ground spraying (w/c takes 3 years) thus their interests will be prejudiced. The parties did not agree on the effects of this practice thus wasnt use as a basis for the decision. The ordinance bans all chemicals & substances thus there is no reasonable distinction made on the hazards or benefits of the method. The 30-meter buffer zone required for plantations doesnt qualify the size of land. Sir Roque: Issue number 1 Is it a valid exercise of police power (no) Issue number 2 The time frame is confiscatory. Buffer zone requirement is a substantial taking of the property.
Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. DSWD
Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association v. City of Davao
III. Equal Protection Clause Art. III, 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. Art. II, 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. Art. II, 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development Art. XII, 14.2. The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law. Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. v. Treasurer An ordinance was declared void because it taxes only centrifugal of Ormoc City sugar produced and exported by the Ormoc Sugar Company and none other, such that if a new sugar central is established in Ormoc, it would not be subject to the ordinance Dumlao v. COMELEC Disqualification from running in the same elective office, from which he retired, of a retired elective provincial/municipal official who has received payment of retirement benefits and who shall have been 65 y/o at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected is valid. People v. Cayat Requisites of Valid Classification: a. It must rest on substantial distinctions; b. It must be germane to the purpose of the law; c. It must not be limited to existing conditions only; d. It must apply equally to all members of the same class. Ichong v. Hernandez Definition of Equal Protection of the Laws Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. Similar subjects, in other words, should not be treated differently so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against others. The guarantee means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances. GR: A legislative act may not validly classify the citizens of the State on the basis of their origin, race or parentage. EXP: The Court upheld the Retail Trade Nationalization Law despite the objection that it violated the EP clause, because there exist real and actual, positive and fundamental differences between an alien and a national. Employees should be given equal pay for work of equal value. Where jurisprudence regarded an illegitimate child as taking after the citizenship of its mother, it did so for the benefit the child. It was to ensure a Filipino nationality for the illegitimate child of an alien father in line with the assumption that the mother had custody, would exercise parental authority and had the duty to support her illegitimate child. It was to help the child, not to prejudice or discriminate against him. The fact of the matter perhaps the most significant consideration is that the 1935 Constitution, the fundamental law prevailing on the day, month and year of birth of respondent FPJ, can never be more explicit than it is. Providing neither conditions nor distinctions, the Constitution states that among the citizens of the Philippines are those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines. There utterly is no cogent justification to prescribe conditions or distinctions where there clearly are none provided. An American with Japanese descent was convicted for staying in a militarized area covered in the Exlclusion Order in 1944. The Exclusion Order was issued in view of the war and the disloyalty
International School Alliance v. Quisumbing Tecson v. COMELEC
Korematsu v. US
Plessy v. Ferguson
Univ. of California v. Bakke
Gratz v. Bollinger/Grutter v. Bollinger
of these people to the United States . The Court ruled that there was an overriding state interest against espionage and against sabotage. They are being detained not because they are Japanese but because there was a strong military objective of minimizing the aiding and abetting of the enemies. Dissent The exclusion order should not have extended the war powers. [insert quotable quote] Sir Roque: Only 2 years ago, it was only then when the Court reversed the ruling in this case not because it was reversed per se but because of a belated realization that the exclusion should not have been done. Plessy v. Ferguson Plessy was 7/8 Caucasian and 1/8 Black but he was asked to transfer to a separate train coach for blacks and when he refused to do so, he was even led out to a train. The Court was not prepared to view against Plessy because, according to them, commingling of white and blacks will only happen if the sentiment of people will be favorable to it. Legislature will not permit the eradication of social instincts. Equality before the Law does not eradicate distinctions based on skin color. Dissent Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The medical school had a special admission policy which gave members of minorities and disadvantaged sectors are given plus points in their admissions in order to promote diversity. Students applying in the regular track are judged purely based on GPA. Bakke is alleging that there is reverse-discrimination against Caucasians. Not all race-based classifications are unconstitutional. The schools policy was not an affirmative action move but was supposed to provide diversity in the medical profession in order to produce professionals willing to treat ethnic minorities or marginalized people. Affirmative action per se was not struck down in this case. Any classification based on race is suspect but the court recognizes that not all race-based distinctions are unconstitutional especially if there is an overriding state interest (in the exercise of polic power). But the court did not see any relation between the purpose of the University to the admission of more members of the minority/disadvantaged sectors. Sir Roque: The University should not have stated their diversity theory. They should have said that minorities are more deprived of being admitted to or obtaining med-graduate school education. 1. Gratz v. Bollinger 2 applications were rejected because the College of Lit, Sci, and Arts adopted an affirmative action policy. Points were given to each student and members of disadvantage sectors or minority groups get to have +20 points. Thus, a huge number of Caucasians were disqualified. The University argued that they had a different policy from UCal-Davis because they didnt have an individualized system (quota-system) thus there was no automatic acceptance. This was invalidated because 2. Grutter v. Bollinger The admissions policy is similar to the LSA only that there was no automatic plus points. The purpose of the law school was to diversity the studentry and the legal profession. The key is diversity and not mathematical advantage. There was no racebased preference but it promoted diversity which they deem important in the law profession.
Bradwell v. Illinois
Goesart v. Cleary
Geduldig v. Aiello
Mississippi Univ. School for Women v. Hogan
Michael M. v. Superior Court
Sir Roque: The Undergrad of UMichigan abolished the automatic addition of 20-points and now adopts the law school standards. Race alone should not be a basis of distinction. Diversity can be achieved if additional benefits is bestowed on minority groups. Bush argued against the UMichigan policy as a form of reversed discrimination. Police power cant be invoked because these cases merely talk about admission to state universities. There was less reliance on academic freedom. A Vermont-native turned Illinois-resident applied to become a member of the bar. She possessed all requisite applications but she was not admitted to the practice because she was female. A married woman can neither bind herself to contracts between attorneys and their clients. Their timidity and coyness precludes them from properly discharging the duties of a lawyer. Concurring It is Gods command for females to remain discharging the functions of a wife and a mother. This involved a policy against women bartenders except wives or daughters of male owners of licensed liquor establishments. The state had a reason behind the distinction due primarily to the oversight that male owners can offer. The fact that women may now have achieved the virtues that men have long claimed as their prerogatives and now indulge in vices that men have long, does not preclude the states form drawing a sharp line between the sexes The Constitution does not require legislatures to reflect sociological insight, or shifting social standards, any more than it requires them to keep abreast of the latest scientific standards. Dissent there was sexual discrimination between male owners and female owners. Aiello challenges a employment disability program because it denied medical bills claims for normal delivery. The court ruled in favor of the State since the compelling interest of maintaining of a self-sustaining funding program for the greater number of people outweighed the individual claims of women who underwent normal delivery Dissent: the law discriminates between sexes since it excludes temporary disabilities unique to females and those unique to males Hogan was denied admission to the nursing program of MUW because they maintain a single-sex admissions policy, believed to be better than a co-ed system. Hogan challenges such policy on the basis of discrimination between sexes, that it furthers a notion of the nursing profession being for females only, and basically because it is inconvenient for him to travel to the nearest co-ed school. The court ruled in favor of Hogan by invalidating the purpose of MUW w/c is to provide a sound environment for the education of women in the field of nursing. The court disproved the studies presented by MUW that the presence of males affected the performance of the females and the teaching styles. 2 state analysis of the court: State interest and reasonable means Dissent: The court invalidated a program of the state w/c provides choice for women. This is the only all-girls school in the state and there are other co-ed schools out there where Hogan could have applied. Michael was caught by the authorities for violating a law which prohibits illegal sex committed w/ a girl below 18 y/o. The law was made in order to deter young individuals from teenage sex in order to lessen the burdens of unwanted teenage pregnancies. It primarily holds only males liable for violations of said law because girls are the ones who get pregnant and shares the most burden of the consequences of the act. The relevant issue is WON the law is drawn as precisely as it might have been but WON the line chosen by the lawmakers is within constitutional limitations. A gender-neutral statute would
Personnel Administrator v. Feeney
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Fragante v. City and County of Honolulu
frustrate the States interest. Gender-based classifications are not inherently suspect so as to be subject to the Strict scrutiny test but will be upheld if they bear a fair and substantial relationship to legitimate state ends. Minimum rationality test applies. Dissent: The law merely addresses half of the issue of the consequences of an act that may be consensually committed by 2 individuals. Personnel Admin v. Feeney Feeney challenges a policy of the state w/c prefers veterans in civil service positions as it allegedly results in the discrimination against women applicants who have otherwise scored high in the admissions tests. The policy of the state here is to distinguish between veterans and non-veterans. Clearly there are more male non-veterans that are affected by this statute, so why fret? Feeney failed to show that a purpose to discriminate was embedded in the minds of the lawmakers. When a distinction drawn by a statute is not a pretext for gender discrimination and the law does not reflect a purpose to discriminate then it is constitutional Dissent: the lawmakers couldnt have unseen the possible disproportionate impact of the law on females. In the field of civil service, women have always been considered only for lowgrade clerical and secretarial jobs Sir Roque: a) Is there an important state interest A California statute prohibits the running of laundry establishments w/o a permit from the board of supervisors, unless these establishments are in brick/stone buildings. It also requires a permit for the erection of scaffoldings on the roof of buildings. Yick Wo and Wo Lee were arrested and detained because their laundries were in a building made of wood). The contention of these Chinese people is that the law is void on its face, if not, then it becomes void because of the way that it is executed, particularly referring to the fact that the requests of the owners of 80 non-Chinese laundry establishments in wooden building were allowed and those owned by Chinese werent. The court struck down the law since it does not provide a sufficient standard to guide the board of supervisors as they deny or grant consent to these establishments. Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, 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 between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still w/in the prohibition of the Constitution. this action or non-action may proceed from enmity or prejudice, from partisan zeal or animosity, from favoritism and other improper influences and motives easy of concealment and difficult to be detected and exposed, it becomes unnecessary to suggest or to comment upon the injustice capable of being brought under cover of such power, for that becomes apparent to every one who gives to the subject a moments consideration. A Filipino challenges his disqualification for a clerkship post in the City and County of Honolulu as being discrimination based on race when in fact he had aced the exams for civil service. The County contends that Fragante was rejected for the position because he had a pronounced Filipino accent w/c would be detrimental in view of his job specifications. Disparate treatment theory an employer is alleged to have treated a person less favorably than others because of the persons race; elements a) identifiable national origin, b) qualified for a job for w/c the employer was seeking applicants, c) that he was rejected despite his qualifications, d) position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants
Board of Directors v. Rotary Club
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale
Goodridge v. Dept of Public Health
from persons of complainants qualifications. The purpose of the state in choosing the other 2 qualified applicants over him is that his accent bars efficient social service because the job specifications of the position requires intensive communication w/ disgruntled clients. The interviewers as well as the lower court found it hard to understand him. The court found no hint of a mixed motive on the part of the State in disqualifying him. Rotary Intl terminated Rotary Club of Duartes membership because it admitted women in their roster. Court: The Unruh Act does not violate EPC. The relationship among the members does not warrant protection. It also does not violate the right of expressive association of Rotary Club as they failed to demonstrate that the admission of women will affect their expressive activities. Dales appointment as Assistant Scout Master because of his sexual orientation. BSA maintains that homosexuality is against its expressive association rights and that homosexuals go against the Boy Scout Oath to keep themselves morally straight. Director of Health denied the application of homosexual couples for marriage licenses. Applied the rational basis & struck down the law allowing only heterosexuals couples to get marriage licenses because the rationale of the law is to create an optimum environment for child-rearing.
IV. Freedom of Expression Art. III, 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. A. Protected Speech Prior Restraint Near v. Minnesota When prior restraint is allowed: 1. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right 2. Actual obstruction to the governments recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops 3. Obscene publications 4. Incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government New York Times v. US Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to the Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutionality, giving the government a heavy burden to show justification for the imposition of such restraint Freedman v. Maryland Maryland Statute violated the constitutional guaranty of freedom of expression because under the statute 1. Upon the censors disapproval of the film, the exhibitor must assume the burden of instituting judicial proceedings and of persuading the courts that the film is protected expression, 2. Once the censor has acted against a film, exhibition is prohibited pending judicial review, however protracted, and 3. No assurance of prompt judicial determination is afforded. Pharmaceutical and Health Association of DOH issued RIRR to the Milk Code prohibiting ads on milk the Philippines v. DOH Secretary substitutes Milk Code has a provision on an Inter-Agency Committee w/c filters advertisements Puno, CJ, Concurring. The advertising and promotion of breast milk substitutes properly falls within the ambit of the term commercial speechthat is, speech that proposes an economic transaction. This is a separate category of speech which is not accorded the same level of protection as that given to other constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression but is nonetheless entitled to protection. Airing of Hello Garci tapes subject to warnings The warnings were content-based prior restraint & they sent a chilling effect to the media PRIOR RESTRAINT refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination. Freedom from prior restraint is largely freedom from government censorship of publications, whatever the form of censorship, and regardless of whether it is wielded by the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the government. Thus, it precludes governmental acts that required approval of a proposal to publish; licensing or permits as prerequisites to publication including the payment of license taxes for the privilege to publish; and even injunctions against publication. Even the closure of the business and printing offices of certain newspapers, resulting in the discontinuation of their printing and publication, are deemed as previous restraint or censorship. Any law or official that requires some form of permission to be had before publication can be made, commits an infringement of the constitutional right, and remedy can be had at the courts. 3 Tests on Restraints on Freedom of Speech and Expression: (a) the dangerous tendency doctrine which permits limitations on speech once a rational connection has been established between the
Chavez v. Gonzales
speech restrained and the danger contemplated; (b) the balancing of interests tests, used as a standard when courts need to balance conflicting social values and individual interests, and requires a conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation of type of situation; and (c) the clear and present danger rule which rests on the premise that speech may be restrained because there is substantial danger that the speech will likely lead to an evil the government has a right to prevent. This rule requires that the evil consequences sought to be prevented must be substantive, "extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high." Philippine jurisprudence, even as early as the period under the 1935 Constitution, has recognized four aspects of freedom of the press. These are (1) freedom from prior restraint; (2) freedom from punishment subsequent to publication; (3) freedom of access to information; and (4) freedom of circulation A distinction has to be made whether the restraint is (1) a content-neutral regulation, i.e., merely concerned with the incidents of the speech, or one that merely controls the time, place or manner, and under well defined standards; or (2) a content-based restraint or censorship, i.e., the restriction is based on the subject matter of the utterance or speech. When the prior restraint partakes of a content-neutral regulation, it is subjected to an intermediate review. A content-based regulation, however, bears a heavy presumption of invalidity and is measured against the clear and present danger rule. The latter will pass constitutional muster only if justified by a compelling reason, and the restrictions imposed are neither overbroad nor vague. When the speech restraints take the form of a content-neutral regulation, only a substantial governmental interest is required for its validity. Because regulations of this type are not designed to suppress any particular message, they are not subject to the strictest form of judicial scrutiny but an intermediate approachsomewhere between the mere rationality that is required of any other law and the compelling interest standard applied to content-based restrictions. The test is called intermediate because the Court will not merely rubberstamp the validity of a law but also require that the restrictions be narrowly-tailored to promote an important or significant governmental interest that is unrelated to the suppression of expression. The intermediate approach has been formulated in this manner: A governmental regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government, if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incident restriction on alleged [freedom of speech & expression] is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. On the other hand, a governmental action that restricts freedom of speech or of the press based on content is given the strictest scrutiny in light of its inherent and invasive impact. Only when the challenged act has overcome the clear and present danger rule will it pass constitutional muster, with the government having the burden of overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality. Unless the government can overthrow this presumption, the contentbased restraint will be struck down. With respect to content-based restrictions, the government must also
show the type of harm the speech sought to be restrained would bring about especially the gravity and the imminence of the threatened harm otherwise the prior restraint will be invalid. Prior restraint on speech based on its content cannot be justified by hypothetical fears, "but only by showing a substantive and imminent evil that has taken the life of a reality already on ground." As formulated, "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree." The regulation which restricts the speech content must also serve an important or substantial government interest, which is unrelated to the suppression of free expression. Also, the incidental restriction on speech must be no greater than what is essential to the furtherance of that interest. A restriction that is so broad that it encompasses more than what is required to satisfy the governmental interest will be invalidated. The regulation, therefore, must be reasonable and narrowly drawn to fit the regulatory purpose, with the least restrictive means undertaken. KBP et al requested for live TV Coverage, the case being a matter of public interest The right of the accused outweighed the right to information & the liberty of the press Live TV coverage may be prohibited since the right of the accused must prevail over the right of the public to information and freedom of the press. Criticism, no matter how severe, on the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary, is within the range of liberty of speech, unless the intention and effect be seditious. CONTENT-BASED RESTRICTIONS Dangerous Tendency Test It is sufficient if the natural tendency and the probable effect of the utterance ere to bring about the substantive evil that the legislative body seeks to prevent. GRAVE-BUT-IMPROBABLE DANGER TEST: It asks whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such an invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger. Petitioners, leaders of the Communist Party in this country, were indicted in a federal district court under 3 of the Smith Act for willfully and knowingly conspiring 1) To organize as the Communist Party a group of persons to teach and advocate the overthrow and destruction of the Government of the US by force and violence, and 2) Knowingly and willfully to advocate and teach the duty and necessity of overthrowing and destroying the Govt of the US by force and violence. An attempt to overthrow the Govt by force is a sufficient evil for Congress to prevent. It is the existence of the conspiracy which creates the danger. All are indispensable to the uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate in the free marketplace of ideas Arbitrary closure of a radio station is an unconstitutional prior restraint. Freedom of expression and radio broadcasts The following guidelines must be observed: 1. The cardinal primary requirements in administrative proceedings as laid down in Ang Tibay v. CIR should be
Request for Live Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases against Former Pres. Estrada
Subsequent Punishment People v. Perez
Dennis v. US
Abrams v. US Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans
2.
3. Speech Plus: Symbolic Speech US v. OBrien
followed before a broadcast station may be closed; Though all forms of communication are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of expression, the freedom of television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom accorded to newspapers and print media. The government has a right to be protected against broadcasts which incite listeners to violently overthrow it
Tinker v. Des Moines School District
When speech and non-speech elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the non-speech element can justify incidental limitations on free speech. [Also applied in SWS v. COMELEC] A governmental regulation is sufficiently justified if: a. It is within the constitutional power of the government b. It furthers an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of free expression c. The incidental restriction on alleged freedom is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest Wearing black armbands in protest of Vietnam war, 3 public school pupils suspended from school. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Assembly and Petition Primicias v. Fugoso
Navarro v. Villegas
PBM Employees v. PBM
Dusit Hotel v. NLRC
JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing
CONTENT-NEUTRAL RESTRICTIONS: Freedom of Assembly The rights to freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble and petition the govt for redress of grievance are fundamental personal rights of the people guaranteed by the constitutions of democratic countries. City or town mayors are not conferred the power to refuse to grant the permit, but only the discretion in issuing the permit to determine or specify the streets or public places where the parade may pass or the meeting may be held. Petitioners are questioning the Mayors approval of petition to conduct a rally in Plaza Miranda w/ condition that the venue be transferred to the sunken gardens of Manila. SC Affirmed Mayor. The right to assembly and petition prevails over economic rights Although the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position. The superiority of these freedoms over property rights is underscored by the fact that a mere reasonable or rational relation between the means employed by the law and its object or purpose-that the law is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory nor oppressive-would suffice to validate a law which restricts or impairs property rights. But a constitutional or valid infringement of human rights require a more stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent. The act of the Union was not merely an expression of their grievance or displeasure but, indeed, a calibrated and calculated act designed to inflict serious damage to the Hotels finances or its reputation. Thus, we hold that the Unions concerted violation of the Hotels Grooming Standards which resulted in the temporary cessation and disruption of the Hotels operations is an unprotected act and should be considered as an illegal strike. Guidelines for issuance of permits (now BP 880): 1. Any group which applies must do so within a sufficient time so the authority can have time to act; 2. If a disagreement arises over a denial of a permit, the applicant can question the denial in the lower court, which can try questions of fact and law; and
3.
Appeal can be made to the SC on an expedited procedure
The sole justification for a limitation on the exercise of this right, so fundamental to the maintenance of democratic institutions, is the danger, of a character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health, or any other legitimate public interest. CONTENT-NEUTRAL RESTRICTIONS: Freedom of Assembly The Court held here that freedom of speech and freedom to peaceable assemble is entitled to be accorded utmost deference and respect, and cannot be limited or denied unless there is showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent. For the constitutional right to be invoked, riotous conduct, injury to property, and acts of vandalism must be avoided. Furthermore, absent any clear and present danger of a substantive evil, peaceable assembly in public places like streets or parks cannot be denied, unless there is showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil. The CPR, insofar as it would purport to differ from or be in lieu of maximum tolerance, is NULL and VOID CPR serves no valid purpose if it means the same thing as maximum tolerance and is illegal if it means something else. Accordingly, what is to be followed is and should be mandated by the law itself, namely maximum tolerance According to SolGen Nachura, he is aware of only ONE declared freedom park Fuente Osmea in Cebu City. Without such alternative forum, to deny the permit would in effect be to deny the right. CPR has no place in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom.
Bayan v. Ermita
Malabanan v. Ramento
Permissible Limitations on Student Demonstrations within School Premises Students enjoy the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly within the school School authorities may require that a permit be secured before any assembly may be held within the school School official cannot deny a permit except when there is a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that it has a right to prevent. The permit granted may impose conditions as to the time and place of the assembly in order to avoid the disruption of normal school activities The students responsible may be punished for violating the terms of the permit if such violation results in the commission of acts that would constitute a substantive evil, i.e., material and substantial disruption of academic and non-academic activities The penalty imposed must be proportionate to the offense committed. [The clear and present danger] rule requires that the danger created must not only be clear and present but also traceable to the ideas expressed [Balancing of Interest test] The test applied when two legitimate values not involving national security crimes compete. When a particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public order, and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional and partial abridgement of speech, the duty of the courts is to determine which of the two conflicting interests demands greater protection. The court must undertake the delicate and difficult task of weighing the circumstances and appraising the substantiality of the reasons advanced in support of the regulation of the free enjoyment of rights Example of Constitutional Prior Restraint Law which prohibits, except during the prescribed election period, the making of speeches, announcements or commentaries for or against the election of any candidate for office. Example of Unconstitutional Prior Restraint COMELEC prohibition against radio commentators or newspaper columnists from commenting on the issues involved in a scheduled plebiscite Example of Constitutional Prior Restraint Prohibition on any person making use of the media to sell or to give free of charge print space or air time for campaign or other political purposes except to the COMELEC. Ratio: Police power of the State to regulate media for purpose of ensuring equal opportunity, time and space for political campaigns. Example of Unconstitutional Prior Restraint COMELEC resolution prohibiting the posting of decals and stickers in mobile units like cars and other moving vehicles True, the government has a stake in protecting the fundamental right to vote by providing voting places that are safe and accessible. It has the duty to secure the secrecy of the ballot and to preserve the sanctity and the integrity of the electoral process. However, in order to justify a restriction of the people's freedoms of speech and of the press, the state's responsibility of ensuring orderly voting must far outweigh them. These freedoms have additional importance, because exit polls generate important research data which may be used to study influencing factors and trends in voting behavior. An absolute
Free Speech and Suffrage Gonzales v. COMELEC
Sanidad v. COMELEC
National Press Club v. COMELEC
Adiong v. COMELEC ABS-CBN v. COMELEC
prohibition would thus be unreasonably restrictive, because it effectively prevents the use of exit poll data not only for election-day projections, but also for long-term research. Use of Private Property as a Forum for Others Speech Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins Mall owners have opened their establishment for public use, therefore, they are stopped from using the defense of right o own private property. B. Unprotected Speech Defamatory Speech Policarpio v. Manila Times Pub. Co., Inc. PCAC Raps L. Policarpio on Fraud Libel; Publication containing derogatory information; Requirements for publication to enjoy immunity.To enjoy immunity, a publication containing derogatory information must be not only true, but, also, fair, and it must be made in good faith and without any comments or remarks Pertains to qualifiedly privileged communication (fair and true reporting of an official proceeding; legal moral or social duty): the burden is shifted on the prosecution to prove malice-in-fact, which the defense can overcome by proving the truth of the defamatory statement and good motive. An action for libel would lie arising from a publication in a weekly magazine of the plaintiffs photograph as being responsible for the hoax of the year, even though the publisher made a correction of their mistake immediately upon discovery thereof. Dissenting. For liability in damages to arise from an alleged libelous publication, without offending press freedom, there is need to prove that the publication was made with actual malicethat is, with the knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. An elected official brought sought claiming libel by an advertisement in the petitioners newspaper. HELD: A State cannot award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves actual malicethat the statement was made w/ knowledge of its falsity or w/ reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. The evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support award of damages to respondent since it was proved that the ad actually related to respondent. Radio station broadcast reports not mentioning petitioners name but using terms as smut literature racket and girlie-book peddlers. HELD: No damages because malice was not proved by private person because subject matter is of public interest. In the absence of actual malice, the news media is given a privilege to report and comment upon the official actions of public servants in full detail, w/o sparing from public view the reputation or privacy of an individual involved in or affected by any official action. PUBLIC FIGURE a 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, his affairs, and his character, has become a public personage. A public figure cannot successfully allege privacy. TC issued a write of prelim. inj. against petitioners ordering them to desist from producing the movie The Four-day Revolution, a docudrama of EDSA I. on the ground that it violated the right to privacy of Juan Ponce Enrile who was featured in the documentary. HELD: 1) Freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of film and produce motion pictures and to exhibit them. The fact that such film prod. Is a commercial activity is not a disqualification for availing of freedom of speech and expression. 2) The right to privacy cannot be involved to resist publication and dissemination of matter of public interest. 3) The intrusion is no more than necessary to keep the film a truthful
Lopez v. CA
New York Times v. Sullivan
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia
Ayer Production v. Capulong
Soliven v. Makasiar
historical account. Enrile is a public figure because of his participation as a principal actor in the culminating events of the revolution. 4) There must be no knowing or reckless disregard of truth in depicting the participation of Enrile in ESDA I. Also, there must be no presentation of his private life and no revelation of intimate or embarrassing personal facts. President Aquino filed a complaint for libel against the publisher and columnist of the PhilStar, with regard to a statement in Beltrans forum saying that the President hid under her bed during a coup attempt. HELD: As regards the contention of Beltran that he could not be held liable for libel because of the privileged character of the publication, the Court is not a trier of facts and that such defense is best left to the trial court to appreciate after receiving the evidence of the parties. W/N President can file suit for libel? Yes. There is nothing in our laws that would prevent the Pres. From waiving the privilege of immunity from suit. While indeed, the news item subject of the present case might have ruffled the sensitivities of plaintiff, this Court however believes that the alleged defamatory articles falls within the purview of a qualifiedly privileged matter, and that therefore, it cannot be presumed to be malicious, The onus of proving malice is accordingly shifted to the plaintiff, that is , that he must prove that the defendants were actuated by ill-will in what they caused to be printed and published, with a design to carelessly or wantonly injure the plaintiff. Exceptions to Subsequent Restraint Criticism of official conduct is given the widest latitude. The people have a right to scrutinize and comment or condemn the conduct of their chosen representatives in the government. As long as their comments are made in GOOD FAITH and WITH JUSTIFIABLE ENDS, they are insulated from prosecution or damage suits for defamation even if such views are found to be inaccurate or erroneous. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts.
US v. Bustos
Fighting Words Offensive Words Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
Cohen v. California
Chaplinsky was denouncing all religion as a racket. Right of free speech is not absolute at all times under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include: 1. The Lewd and obscene 2. The profane 3. The libelous 4. The insulting or fighting words FIGHTING WORDS those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Fuck the Draft jacket. Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the 1st and 14th Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense. 2 statutes (California & California) prohibiting the mailing of obscene materials were challenged for violating the freedom of expression Definition of obscene material that w/c deals w/ sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest Prurient interest shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion Test of obscenity whether to the average person, applying
Obscenity Roth v. US
Miller v. California
Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak
Pita v. CA
Reno v. ACLU
Ashcroft v. ACLU
contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest Test of Obscenity: 1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. 2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable law. 3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Gonzales was the producer of the movie Kapit sa Patalim w/c the Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Televisions classified as fit For Adults Only. HELD: The power of the Board is limited to the classification of films. For freedom of expression is the rule and restrictions the exception. Censorship is allowable only under the clearest proof of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to public safety, morals, health or any other legit public interest. 1) There should be no doubt what is feared may be traced to the expression complained of. 2) Also, there must be reasonable apprehension about its imminence. It does not suffice that the danger is only probable. Example of Valid Subsequent Restraints Obscenity. The determination of what is obscene is a judicial function. Pitas Pinoy Playboy Mags were seized & disposed off by the Anti-smut team of Bagatsing for being obscene. The determination of obscenity must not be left to the local government units or law enforcers. Procedure for seizure of allegedly obscene materials a. apply for a search warrant, the burden to show the existence of grave & imminent danger that would justify adverse action lies on the authorities b. there must be an objective and convincing proof of the existence of such clear & present danger. c. must be resolved on a case-to-case basis d. there must be a finding of a probable cause e. a case must e filed based on Art. 201 f. there must be a system of appeals Defenses possible: a. Art 32, NCC b. Art 129 & Art 130, RPC Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act w/c penalizes the knowing transmission and knowing display of obscene materials to persons under 18 in the internet. The CDA was struck down for being overbroad as it prohibits transmission of messages even to consenting adults, that the safeguards in the law are too burdensome for companies and thus burdens them, and that it is a content-based regulation w/c doesnt survive strict scrutiny. Sir: Miller operates on the usage of the public mailing system, using taxpayers money. This would mean that the platform intended to be a source of unrestricted information w/c doesnt cost taxpayers money to maintain, the Court would lean towards freedom of expression. Congress, after the Reno case, enacted the COPA w/c narrowed down the CDA into messages for commercial purposes and harmful to minors, as well as to the World Wide Web only. The Miller test was applied, particularly the application of community standards. COPA wasnt overbroad as it limits the scope as compared to CDA.
V. Church and State: The Wall of Separation Art. II, 6. The separation of church and State shall be inviolable. Art. III, 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil and political rights. Art. VI, 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 or religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or 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. A. Establishment Clause Aglipay v. Ruiz W/N postage stamps depicting Philippines as the site of a significant religious event (which promote a Catholic event) is constitutional. HELD: Yes, benefit to religious sect incidental to promotion of Philippines as a tourist destination. W/N Barangay resolutions regarding barrio fiesta honoring a patron saint is constitutional. HELD: Yes, Traditions w/c used to be purely religious but have now acquired secular character are permissible. W/N financial aid subsidizing parochial schools is constitutional. HELD: No, it creates excessive government entanglement because program will require continuous monitoring of schools to ensure they meet the requirement that only secular programs are subsidized. LEMON TEST: For State financial subsidy for parochial schools to be allowable, government aid MUST 1) have a secular legislative purpose; 2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; 3) not require excessive entanglement with recipient institutions. W/N lending program of books to students in parochial schools is constitutional. HELD: Yes, benefit redounds to students and parents not to any particular sect. The [non-establishment] clause prohibits excessive government entanglement with, endorsement or disapproval of religion W/N display of crche and menorah in public building is constitutional. HELD: No for crche: prominent setting sends unmistakable message that govt supports Christianity. Yes for menorah: its setting combined with a Christmas tree has a secular dimension, a recognized tradition W/N crche is constitutional. HELD: Yes, it is displayed in a secular manner, merely depicts the origins of the holiday. The Constitution mandates accommodation and not merely tolerance. Instead of an absolutist approach, court inquires if the law or conduct has a secular purpose. W/N law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in schools is constitutional. HELDL No, State may not require schools to tailor their teaching in accordance with the principles or prohibitions of any religious sects. SC disallowed the reading of a passage from the bible without comment in public schools as contrary to the Non- Establishment clause. W/N bible reading at the opening of school day is constitutional. HELD: No, the exercise is religious in character. May not prefer belief over non-belief. SC disallowed the conducting of an non-denominational prayer before the start of classes in public schools as violative of the NonEstablishment clause. W/N law granting financial support for expansion of educational facilities in parochial schools is constitutional. HELD: Yes, secular purpose facilities to be used for secular activities. Since no constant monitoring there is also no excessive entanglement (unlike Lemon.)
Garces v. Estenzo Lemon v. Kurtzman
Board of Education v. Allen County of Allegheny v. ACLU in relation to Lynch v. Donnely County of Allegheny v. ACLU
Lynch v. Donnely
Epperson v. Arkansas
Abington School District v. Schempp
Engel v. Vitale Tilton v. Richardson
Brother Mike Velarde v. SJS
The Social Justice Society, in a petition for declaratory relief, sought an interpretation of the Constitutional provisions on the Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State in line with the acts of religious leaders endorsing a candidate for an elective office or in urging or requiring the members of his flock to vote for a specified candidate. The Court allowed Oral Arguments on the merits of the case but the suit suffered a TKO as it appeared that it merely asked the Court for an advisory opinion, a rendition of w/c the Court isnt empowered to do.
Newdow v. US Glassroth v. Moore
Martin v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop B. Free Exercise Clause American Bible Society v. City
W/N Pledge of Allegiance containing the word God is constitutional. HELD: No, mandatory recitation in school would tend to discriminate against students who are atheists W/N granite monument of 10 Commandments in front of courthouse is constitutional. HELD: No, display is unmistakably non-secular. Nothing in its setting de-emphasizes its religious nature, engenders in viewers a sense that Christianity is endorsed by the govt. W/N zoning law giving exemption to religious sect is constitutional. HELD: Yes, court may not determine whether architectural features are necessary for a particular religion, e.g. steeple pointing upwards into heaven for Mormons. The power to tax the exercise of the privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment. Those who can tax the exercise of religious practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance. Students, members of the JW, were expelled from a public school as they refused to salute the flag, contrary to RA 1265 and DO 8. They reasoned that this is against their religion, citing a verse in their version of Exodus. There was no compulsion involved in the enforcement of the flag salute. The pledge is completely secular. The flag is not an image, but a symbol of the country, therefore saluting is not a religious ceremony. The implementation of the law and order enforce a nondiscriminatory regulation. The Court said that exempting the JWs due to religious belief will disrupt school discipline & demoralize the greater student population. Conscientious Objectors cannot be compelled to salute the flag. The idea that one may be compelled to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge, during a flag ceremony on pain of being dismissed from one's job or of being expelled from school, is alien to the conscience of the present generation of Filipinos who cut their teeth on the Bill of Rights w/c guarantees their rights to free speech and the free exercise of religious profession and worship. CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST The existence of a grave and present danger of a character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any other legitimate interest, that the state has a right to prevent. The CBA contained a closed-shop policy. Members of the INC were ordered not to join or withdraw membership from labor unions therefore they resigned from the union. The legitimate bargaining unit urged the company to consider the resignation of those INC members as a ground for dismissal/suspension. HELD: They cannot be dismissed, RA 3350 giving exemption to religious sects to closedshop policy is constitutional. INCs show was given an X rating by the Board because their episodes contained direct attacks against other religions. The action of the Board did not survive the Clear & Present Danger test Prior restraint on speech, including religious speech, cannot be justified by hypothetical fears but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent evil which has taken the life of a reality already on ground. For lack of votes, law disqualifying religious leaders from public office is held valid. As per free exercise clause, it is invalid for it requires a religious test for qualification. In the same year, the US Supreme Court declared a similar law to be violative of the free exercise clause. The right to act according to ones belief may be regulated by police power measures (subject to Clear and Present Danger Test). The Security of presidential family and their guests supersedes that of
Gerona v. Secretary of Education
Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent
Anucension v. NLU
Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA
Pamil v. Teleron McDaniel v. Paty German v. Barangan
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Commonwealth v. Twitchell
Clay v. US
Estrada v. Escritor
peoples religious freedom to attend a mass at St. Jude in Malacaang. A State statute which forbids any person to solicit money or valuables for any alleged religious cause, unless a certificate therefor shall first have been procured from a designated official, who is required to determine whether such cause is a religious one and who may withhold his approval if he determines that it is not, is a previous restraint upon the free exercise of religion and a deprivation of liberty without due process of law. Parents convicted of involuntary manslaughter for the death of their child after the parents relied on spiritual treatment for a bowel condition. Remanded for new trial. HELD 1) The parents duty to seek medical attention for their child could support a conviction for involuntary manslaughter if the parents wantonly or recklessly violated that duty; 2) The statute providing that spiritual treatment may be enough to prevent a finding of neglect did not bar a prosecution for involuntary manslaughter 3) The parents were entitled to assert an affirmative defense that they reasonably relied on the Atty. Generals opinion about whether the statute provided a defense; 4) The failure to allow the parents to present the affirmative defense was reversible error, even though they had not requested a jury instruction on the subject. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR TEST deployed in granting exemption from mandatory exercises, e.g. military service; flag salute To Apply the Test: 1. Conscientiously opposed to war in any form. 2. Opposition is based upon religious training and belief. 3. Objection is sincere. COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TEST (from a benevolent neutrality stance) Although the morality contemplated by law is secular, benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interests. To Apply the Test: 1. Determine sincerity and centrality of claimed religious belief and practice. 2. Compelling state interest to override religious belief and practice. 3. The means adopted in pursuing its interest is the least restrictive to religious freedom. May the Amish refuse to comply with compulsory education laws? YES. The States interest in universal education is not totally free from a balancing process when it impinges on other fundamental rights, such as those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause and the traditional interest of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children. Men may believe what they cannot prove. Courts may not inquire into the veracity of the subject of belief but only in the sincerity of the belief. Pertains to 2 requirement to conscientious objector test Meaning of religious training and belief: W/N it is sincere and meaningful and occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God. Expands the meaning of religion to cover not just recognized sects but also personal beliefs akin to traditional religion.
C. Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices Wisconsin v. Yoder
US v. Ballard US v. Seeger
VI. Academic Freedom Art. XIV, 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. Art. XIV, 5(2). Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning. Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee THE 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, and 4) who may be admitted to study. Isabelo v. Perpetual Help Academic freedom has never been meant to be an unabridged license. It is a privilege that assumes a correlative duty to exercise it responsibly. UP v. CA Tasaday Hoax perpetrated by Elizalde. UP contents that the Statements of Bailen and Salazar are protected by the mantle of the institutional academic freedom of UP and are therefore privileged communication which cannot give rise to any cause of action for damages. TKO. Intervention must fail due to lack of cause of action. DECS v. San Diego W/N a person who has 3x failed the NMAT is entitled to take it again. While his persistence is noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly misplaced, like a hopeless love. A person cannot insist on being a physician if he will be a menace to his patients. Tablarin v. Gutierrez NMAT is reasonably related to the securing of the ultimate end of legislation and regulation: the protection of the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance in those who would undertake to treat our bodies and minds for disease or trauma.
VII. Protected Interests in Liberty A. Non-Impairment of Obligations of Contracts Art. III, 10. No law impairing the obligations of contracts shall be passed Art. 1306. CC. 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. Home Builders and Loan Assoc. v. Blaisdell Due Great Depression, extension of right to redeem mortgaged property up to 2 years. Constitutional Economic conditions may arise in which a temporary restraint of enforcement of contracts will be consistent with the spirit and purpose of the contract clause, and thus be within the range of the reserved power of the State to protect the vital interest of the community. Allowable Impairment 1) The impairment should only refer to the remedy and not to a substantive right; 2) The protective power of the state, the police power, may only be invoked and justified by an emergency, temporary in nature, and can only be exercised upon reasonable conditions in order that it may not infringe the constitutional provision against impairment of contracts 3) Change made shouldnt be burdened w/ such restrictions as to make the remedy hardly worth pursuing 4) That the laws altering existing contracts will constitute an impairment of the contract clause of the Consti only if they are unreasonable in the light of the circumstances occasioning their enactment. Debt moratorium of 8 years unconstitutional. Purpose of RA 342 was to afford prewar debtors an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves by giving them reasonable time to pay their preexisting war debts to prevent them from being victimized by their creditors but countrys condition has changed for the better, thus purpose of the law is gone. Sublease w/o written consent of owner or lessor is ground for judicial ejectment. The impairment clause is now no longer inviolate. As long as the contract affects public welfare 1 way or another so as to require State interference, police power must be asserted. Sublease of improvements on a parcel of land is sublease of land. Social Justice cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of property owners, who under our Constitution and laws are also entitled o protection. The SJ consecrated in our Consti was no intended to take away rights from a person and give them to another who is not entitled thereto.
Rutter v. Esteban
Juarez v. CA
Caleon v. Agus Devt
B. Involuntary Servitude Art. III, 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. Rubi v. Provincial Board Mangyans were resettled. They contend that they have been subjected to involuntary servitude. Slavery and involuntary servitude, together with their corollary, peonage, all denote a condition of enforced, compulsory service of one to another. It is not involuntary servitude because it will redound to the benefit of the Mangyans not to anybody else. Kaisahan v. Gotamco GR: No involuntary servitude shall exist. EXPN: Return to work order to industries affected with public interest C. Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt Art. III, 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax. Lozano v. Martinez BP 22. Checks are not mere contracts, they are substitutes for money. While debtor cannot be imprisoned for failure to pay his
debt, he can be validly punished in a criminal action if he contracted his debt through fraud. D. Right Against Self-incrimination Art. III., 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. US v. Navarro A481 RPC provided a penalty for a private person who detained another. In relation to this, A483 laid down a higher penalty for 1 who after having detained another, refused to divulge info regarding the detainees whereabouts. Said to be violative of the Self-Incrimination consti guarantee SC: it is. as the person accused, in order to free himself of the higher penalty under A483 must confess to the crime penalized in A481. If he remained silent, he would be convicted under A483. Its the duty of the prosecution to produce evidence to convict 1 of a crime. The accused can t be called to assist in the production of evidence. Neither should his silence lower the bar on the presumption of innocence Villaflor v. Summers The accused can be compelled to show her body for physical investigation to see if she is pregnant by an adulterous relation Beltran v. Samson The privilege [against self-incrimination] covers handwriting in connection with a prosecution for falsification, for this involves the use of the mental process Cabal v. Kapunan At the outset, it is not disputed that the accused in a criminal case may refuse, not only to answer incriminatory questions, but, also, to take the witness stand. Forfeiture under Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act has been held, however, to partake of the nature of a penalty. As a consequence, proceedings for forfeiture of property are deemed criminal or penal. Hence, the exemption of defendants in criminal case from the obligation to be witnesses against themselves is applicable thereto. Imelda Marcos, et al claim that forfeiture proceedings are criminal in nature, thus they must be afforded all the rights of an accused. But SC said such proceedings are actions in rem and therefore civil in nature. W/N a bank can be compelled to disclose the records of accounts of a depositor who is under investigation for unexplained wealth. RA 1405 provides that bank deposits are absolutely confidential but admits of 4 cases when the disclosure is allowed: 1) Upon written permission of the depositor; 2) In cases of impeachment; 3) Upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials; 4) In cases where the money deposited is the subject of the litigation. The petitioners' contention that the questioned investigation would compel them to reveal their defense in the cases now pending against them in the Sandiganbayan is untenable. They know or should know that they cannot be compelled to answer incriminating questions. The case of Chavez v. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA 663, where we held that an accused may refuse at the outset to take the stand on the ground that the questions to be put by the prosecutor will tend to incriminate him is, of course, not applicable to them. They are not facing criminal charges before the Blue Ribbon Committee. Like any ordinary witness, they can invoke the right against self-incrimination only when and as the incriminating question is propounded. The privilege [against self-incrimination] extended to a fact-finding investigation by an ad hoc body. A person can be compelled to testify provided he is given immunity co-extensive with the privilege against self-incrimination Use immunity prohibits use of a witness compelled testimony
Republic v. Sandiganbayan
PNB v. Gancayco
Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
Galman v. Pamaran
Miranda v. Arizona
and its fruits in any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness. On the other hand transactional immunity grants immunity to witness from prosecution for an offense to which his compelled testimony relates. Any person under custody or police investigation has the right to be informed of the following rights: 1. Right to remain silent 2. Right to be reminded that if he waives his right to remain silent, anything he says can and will be used against him 3. Right to counsel before and during interrogation 4. Right to be reminded that if he cannot afford counsel, then one will be provided for him by the state 5. Even if the person consents to answer questions without the assistance of counsel, the moment he asks for a lawyer at any point in the investigation, the interrogation must ceases until an attorney is present 6. If the foregoing protections and warnings are not demonstrated during the trial to have been observed by the prosecution, no evidence obtained as a result of the interrogation can be used against him
E. Unlawful Search and Seizure Mapp v. Ohio Stonehill v. Diokno
All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial. Protection from unreasonable S & S is a personal right and may be invoked or waived by the person directly affected. General Warrants should be eliminated. To uphold the validity of such would be to wipe out completely one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution, for it would place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy, caprice or passion of peace officers. Vis--vis juridical persons
VIII. Scope of Constitutional Protection A. Who are entitled to Constitutional Protection Citizenship and Alienage Board of Commissioners (CID) v. Dela Rosa, et al Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago Yu v. Defensor-Santiago Juridical Persons Central Bank v. Morfe
Deportation Cases Detention pursuant to violation of immigration law is valid, writ of habeas corpus will not lie. But detention for 4 years is unconstitutional (Mejoff v. Dir. of Prisons) Artificial persons are entitled to the guaranty but they may be required to open their books of accounts for examination by the State in the exercise of the police power or the power of taxation. Their premises may not be searched not may their papers and effects be seized except by virtue of a valid warrant.
B. Who are Subject to Constitutional Prohibitions State Action Requirement People v. Marti
Protection from unreasonable S & S as a personal right is directed against the government and its agencies cannot extend over acts committed by private individuals . The constitutional proscription against unlawful S & S therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the govt and its agencies tasked w/ the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed. It the search is made at the behest or initiation of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and w/o the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable S & S cannot be invoked for only the act of private individuals, not law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection against unreasonable S & S cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it w/in the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the govt.

Law II Case Doctrines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law II Case Doctrines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE DOCTRINE I. Rights-Based Discourse Norms, Rights and the Place of Judicial Power A. General Art. VIII, 1.

Director of Prisons v. Ang Chio Kho

Sierra Club v. Morton

Sanlakas v. Exec Sec

Ripeness Tan v. Macapagal

Mootness De Funis v. Odegaard

Ang Tibay v. CIR

Non v. Judge Dames

DBP v. NLRC Estrada v. Sandiganbayan

Lochner v. New York

NDC and AGRIX v. Phil. Veterans

C. New Substantive Due Process Olmstead v. US

Skinner v. Oklahoma Griswold v. Connecticut Eisenstadt v. Baird Roe v. Wade

Board of Education v. Earls

Duncan Assoc. v. Glaxo Welcome White Light Corporation v. City of Manila

Bel-Air Association v. IAC

Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. DSWD

Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association v. City of Davao

International School Alliance v. Quisumbing Tecson v. COMELEC

Univ. of California v. Bakke

Gratz v. Bollinger/Grutter v. Bollinger

Mississippi Univ. School for Women v. Hogan

Michael M. v. Superior Court

Personnel Administrator v. Feeney

Fragante v. City and County of Honolulu

Board of Directors v. Rotary Club

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale

Goodridge v. Dept of Public Health

Subsequent Punishment People v. Perez

Abrams v. US Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans

3. Speech Plus: Symbolic Speech US v. OBrien

Tinker v. Des Moines School District

Assembly and Petition Primicias v. Fugoso

PBM Employees v. PBM

Dusit Hotel v. NLRC

JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing

Appeal can be made to the SC on an expedited procedure

Free Speech and Suffrage Gonzales v. COMELEC

National Press Club v. COMELEC

Adiong v. COMELEC ABS-CBN v. COMELEC

New York Times v. Sullivan

Ayer Production v. Capulong

Fighting Words Offensive Words Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak

Garces v. Estenzo Lemon v. Kurtzman

Abington School District v. Schempp

Engel v. Vitale Tilton v. Richardson

Brother Mike Velarde v. SJS

Newdow v. US Glassroth v. Moore

Gerona v. Secretary of Education

Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent

Pamil v. Teleron McDaniel v. Paty German v. Barangan

C. Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices Wisconsin v. Yoder

Caleon v. Agus Devt

Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

E. Unlawful Search and Seizure Mapp v. Ohio Stonehill v. Diokno

You might also like