1

ARTICLE III BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 1: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

DUE Process
Equal Protection
1. Bill of Rights: Protection against abuse of Power

Governments and social institutions exist for the defense and protection of freedom.
Government needs to balance their power and the freedom of the governed
Totality of governmental power:
o Police power
Most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs
Power of the state to prohibit all that is harmful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society.
Used to justify public health and public safety measures
Public morals
Laws are made for the promotion of the general welfare of the people
o Power of eminent domain
o Power of taxation
Restrictions found in the Bill of Rights are directed against the State. They do not govern the relations between private individuals.
However, almost all the protections against the state found in the Bill of Rights have been made applicable as civil law to relations
between private persons through Article 32 of Civil code.


2. Life, Liberty, or Property
Life
o Everyone including aliens, corporations as far as their property is concerned
o Not just protection to be alive or protection of ones limb against physical harm.
o Right to life is also the right to a good life
o Protection of the unborn, policy against nuclear weapons, abolition of death penalty
Liberty
o Right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude
o Free to use his faculties in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue
any vocation, etc.
o Freedom to do right and never wrong ever guided by reason and the upright and honorable conscience of the individual
o Petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual
Property
o Ones employment, profession, trade, or calling is protected property.
o Companys trade secrets

Hierarchy of Rights
Primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized
Property and property rights can be lost through prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible.
Superiority of rights of free expression and of assembly 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 would suffice to validate a law which restricts or impairs
property rights. On the other hand, a constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion, namely
existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.
Property is also a basic right. Property has an intimate relation with life and liberty.
o Shylock You take my life, when you do take the means whereby I live

1. PBMEO v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. The Company is the one guilty of unfair labor practice.
Human rights supreme to property rights. While the bill of rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over
property rights is recognized. Because these freedoms are delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in our society
and the threat of sanctions may deter their exercise almost as potently as the actual application of sanctions.
Property and property rights are prescriptible but human rights are not.
2

Freedom of assembly and expression occupy a preferred position. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of
assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions; and such
priority gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions.
Civil liberties are more superior than property rights.
o a mere reasonable relation between the means employed by the law and its purpose that law is neither arbitrary nor
discriminatory nor oppressive would suffice to validate a law which restricts or impairs property rights. On the other hand, a
valid infringement of human rights requires a more strict criteria, namely, existence of a grave and immediate danger of a
substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.

Due Process: In General

2. Tupas v. CA
Facts:
Appeal made was late.
Decision was made April 3, 1989
motion for reconsideration was filed on April 17, 1989, 14 days later
order of denial of the motion May 3, 1989 and was received by the counsel on May 9, 1989
Instead of filing the petition for review with the Court of Appeals within the remainder of the 15-day reglementary period
(May 10, 1989), the petitioner did so only on May 23, 1989 or 14 days later.
The law requires that if motion for reconsideration is denied, petitioner should file petition for review with the Court of
Appeals within the remaining period to file a petition for review. Hence, it may be necessary to file a motion with the Court
of Appeals for extension of time to file such petition for review.

Issue:
W/N petitioner can file a petition for certiorari because they were denied due process.

Decision:
DENIED. They have forfeited the right to appeal, the petitioners cannot claim that they were denied due process.

Ratio:
Counsel did not even ask for extension of period. Petitioner cannot say that counsel is inept because of the credentials of
his old counsel.
Rules of procedure are intended to ensure the orderly administration of justice and the protection of substantive rights in
judicial and extrajudicial proceedings. It is a mistake to suppose that substantive law and adjective law are contradictory to
each other or, as has often been suggested, that enforcement of procedural rules should never be permitted if it will result
in prejudice to the substantive rights of the litigants. Policy of the court is to give effect to both kinds of law, as
complementing each other in the just and speedy resolution of the dispute between the parties.
Observance of both substantive and procedural rights is equally guaranteed by due process, whatever the source of such
rights, be it the Constitution itself or only a statute or a rule of court.
Petitioners argument that they should not be prejudiced by the mistakes of their counsel because they are laymen and
not familiar with the intricacies of the law is not acceptable.

Procedural Due Process
Was understood to relate chiefly to the mode of procedure which government agencies must follow.
Procedural due process
o There shall be a law
o Law shall be reasonable in its operation
o It shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed
o That t shall be applicable to all citizens of a state or to all of a class
Due process of law contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, affecting ones person or property.
What is due process of law depends on circumstances. It varies with the subject matter and the necessities of the situation.
Requirements of due process
1

1. There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it.
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the property which is the subject of the
proceedings
3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
Due process is not always a judicial process. Frequently, legal controversies have to be decided not by courts but by administrative
bodies. And administrative bodies are not always bound by the finer points of judicial due process, though bound, too, they are by the
due process clause.

1
Banco Espanol Filipino vs. Palanca
3

Cardinal primary requirements in administrative proceedings
2

1. Right to a hearing, which includes the right to present ones case and submit evidence in support thereof;
2. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
3. The decision must have something to support itself;
4. Evidence must be substantial;
5. Decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the
parties affected;
6. Tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and
not simply accept the views of the subordinate;
7. The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding
can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.
Heart of due process is the need for Notice and an Opportunity to be heard.
Procedural due process helps achieve two purposes:
o Contributes to accuracy and thus minimizes errors in deprivations
o Gives the person who is subject to deprivation a sense of rational participation
Fairness is not violated when officer is not the same person who decides the case
There is violation of due process when the officer who reviews a case is the same person whose decision is on appeal.
While notice and hearing are required in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, they are not prerequisites in the promulgation of general
rules.
Fixing rates, being a quasi-judicial process, requires hearing.
3

When a student commits a serious breach of discipline or fails to maintain the required academic standards of the school, the student
forfeits his rights and courts are not at liberty to reverse the discretion of university authorities in this matter.
4

Procedure which educational institutions must follow
o May be summary
o Cross-examination is not an essential part
1. Students must be informed in writing of the nature and the 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;
5. The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear
and decide the case.


3. Banco Espaol Filipino v. Palanca
Failure of the clerk to mail the notice is not such an irregularity as amounts to a denial of due process of law;
(1) Due process of law implies that there must be a court or tribunal clothed with power to hear and determine the matter before it,
(2) that jurisdiction shall have been lawfully acquired,
(3) that the defendant shall have an opportunity to be heard,
(4) and that judgment shall be rendered upon lawful hearing.
Notification is a requirement in foreclosure. Publication is necessary.
What is required is the Order of Court to the clerk to mail the notification.
4. Ang Tibay v. CIR
Ang Tibay, has filed an opposition both to the motion for reconsideration by the Solicitor-General in behalf of the respondent Court of Industrial
Relations and to the motion for new trial of the respondent National Labor Union, Inc.

It was ruled that it is necessary to pass upon the motion for a new trial of the respondent National Labor Union, Inc., but in the case of the motion for
reconsideration, it is not necessary.

In examining the entire record of the proceedings had before the CIR in this case, it was found no substantial evidence to indicate
that the exclusion of the 89 laborers was due to their union affiliation or activity.

The CIR is a special court whose functions are specifically stated in the law of its creation. It is more an administrative board than a
part of the integrated judicial system of the nation. It not only exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the determination of
disputes between employers and employees but its functions are far more comprehensive and extensive. It has jurisdiction over the
entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle any question, matter controversy or dispute arising between, and/or
affecting, employers and employees or laborers, and landlords and tenants or farm-laborers, and regulate the relations between
them, subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of law creating it.

The fact, however, that the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) may be said to be free from the rigidity of certain procedural
requirements does not mean that it can, in justiciable cases coming before it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and

2
Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial Relations
3
PHILCOMSTAT vs. Alcuaz
4
ADMU v.CA
4

essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character. Administrative proceedings are not
exempt from basic and fundamental procedural principles, such as the right to due process in investigations and hearings.
There cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in administrative proceedings are:
1. Right to a hearing, which includes the right to present ones case and submit evidence in support thereof;
2. Tribunal must consider evidence presented;
3. Decision must have something to support itself;
4. Evidence must be substantial. "Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion."
5. Decision must be based on evidence adduced, or at least contained in the records and disclosed to the parties;
6. Independent consideration of evidence, and not rely on the recommendation of a subordinate; and
7. The decision must state the facts and the law in such a way that the parties can know the issues involved and the reasons for the decision
rendered.
5. People v. Nazario
Facts:
Petitioner was charged with violation of certain municipal ordinances of Quezon province because he refuses to pay
municipal taxes which he says are unconstitutional.
Ambiguous and uncertain because ordinance states OWNER or MANAGER and hes a mere lessee.

Issue:
a. W/N the law is unconstitutional for being ambiguous and uncertain.
b. W/N the law is ex post facto

Decision:
a. Law is not unconstitutional.
b. Law is not ex post facto.

Ratio:
A statute may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess as its meaning and differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects:
6. It violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the
conduct to avoid;
7. it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the
government muscle.

Doctrine relevant to Consti2:
that ambiguous statutes may violate due process clause because it fails to give the people fair notice of the conduct to
avoid
6. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
Facts:
Joseph Estrada assails RA 7080 An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder because it is alleged that it violates
his fundamental rights to due process and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him for:
8. Being vague
9. Dispenses the reasonable doubt standard in criminal prosecutions
10. Abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already punishable under the RPC
Petitioner bewails the failure of the legislature to provide for the statutory definition of the terms combination and
series in the key phrase a combination or series of overt or criminal acts
Issues:
a) W/N Plunder Law is unconstitutional for being vague
b) The Plunder Law requires less evidence for proving plunder and therefore violates the rights of the accused to
due process
c) W/N Plunder is a malum prohibitum

Decision:
a) No.
b) No.
c) No. Malum in se.

Ratio:
A law is always presumed to be constitutional.
Plunder law contains comprehensible standards and well-defined parameters which would enable the accused to
determine the nature of his violation
The void for vagueness doctrine does not necessarily mean that when general terms were used or terms were not defined,
the statute is void.
Panganiban, concurring
To this date, SC has not declared any penal law unconstitutional on the ground of ambiguity.
5

Kapunan, dissenting
The void for vagueness doctrine is rooted in the basic concept of fairness as well as the due process clause of the
Constitution. Statutes must be clear and definite. Constitution guarantees both substantive and procedural due process as
well as the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
Overbreadth doctrine applies generally to statutes that infringe upon freedom of speech
Void for vagueness doctrine applies to criminal laws, not merely those that regulate speech or other fundamental
constitutional rights.
Lack of mens rea is a substantive due process requirement under the Constitution, and this is a limitation on police
power.
Ynares-Santiago, dissenting
A statute is vague or overbroad, in violation of the due process clause, where its language does not convey sufficiently
definite warning to the average person as to the prohibited conduct.
Sandoval-Guttierez, dissenting
The acts enumerated under Sec 4. Of the Plunder Law are only means and not essential elements of plunder. It results to
the reduction of the burden of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

7. PHILCOMSTAT v. ALCUAZ
Facts:
Philcomstat was not under the jurisdiction, control, and regulation of NTC. However, in 1987, petitioner was placed under
NTCs control.
Philcomstat applied for the requisite certificate of public convenience and was approved several times for 6 months each
NTC (Alcuaz) ordered the provisional reduction of the rates which may be charged by petitioner for certain specified lines
of its service by 15%

Issue:
W/N the order by NTC is void for being unconstitutional

Decision:
Yes. VOID for violating the due process clause.

Ratio:
The order is only applicable to PHILCOMSTAT; rates are meant to apply to all enterprises of a given kind.
PHILCOMSTAT is entitled to cross-examine the report made by NTC
Though Alcuaz argues that the rate is temporary, PHILCOMSTAT still has the statutory procedural requirements of notice
and hearing.

8. Gi alias Chia v. CA
Facts:
1958 Secretary of Justice rendered that the Filomino Chia is a Filipino Citizen
1980 Minister of Justice cancelled the earlier decision and set aside the citizenship of Chia, Sr. on the ground that it was
founded on fraud and misrepresentation
1981 Charge for deportation was filed with the Immigration against Lao Gi and family
1981 Amended charge was made alleging that said respondents refused to register as aliens having been required to do
so and continued to refuse to register as such.
1982 CID set a deportation case against respondents for hearing and gave respondents three days to move for
reconsideration of the order directing them to register as aliens and to oppose the motion for their arrest.
They filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied and they were ordered to register as aliens within 2days from
notice.
Oct. 5 1982 - Deportation hearing was scheduled but on the same day, respondents filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition.
1985 petition was dismissed by the RTC
1987 their appeal to CA was dismissed. Motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

Issue:
W/N CID Commissioners order for deportation/registration as aliens is valid.

Decision:
Invalid.

Ratio:
While the Immigration Commissioner has the power to require an alien to register, such requirement must be based on a
positive finding that the person who is so required is an alien; where the very citizenship of the petitioners is in issue, there
must be prior determination that they are aliens before they can be directed to register.
6

Although a deportation proceeding does not partake of the nature of a criminal action, the constitutional right of a person
to due process shall not be denied; the rules on criminal procedure in the Rules of Court are applicable to deportation
proceedings
The charge against an alien must specify the acts or omissions complained of which must be stated in ordinary and concise
language to enable a person of common understanding to know on what ground he is intended to be deported and enable
the CID to pronounce a proper judgment.

9. Misamis Oriental Assoc. v. DOF
Facts:
Prior to the issuance of NIRC, copra was classified as agricultural food product under National Internal Revenue code, and
therefore, exempt from VAT at all stages
NIRC classified copra as agricultural non-food product and declared it exempt from VAT only if the sale is made by the
primary producer

Issue:
11. W/N copra is an agricultural food or non-food product
12. W/N petitioner was denied due process because it was not heard before ruling was made
13. W/N it is discriminatory and violative of the equal protection clause
14. W/N it is counter-productive because traders and dealers would be forced to buy copra from coconut farmers.
Decision:
15. NIRC is correct, they are the one charged with the enforcement of the law and their opinion, in the absence of
any showing that it is plainly wrong, is entitled to great weight.
16. No, what NIRC did was just to interpret the law.
17. No, Constitution does not forbid the differential treatment of persons so long as there is a reasonable basis for
classifying them differently.
Ratio:
Legislative rule is in the nature of subordinate legislation, designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the
details thereof. In the same way that laws must have the benefit of public hearing. On the other hand, interpretative rules
are designed to provide guidelines to the law which the administrative agency is in charge of enforcing.
18. Whether rule is within the delegated authority
19. Whether it is reasonable
20. Whether it was issued pursuant to proper procedure
Nobody eats copra for food
10. Radio Communications v. NTC
FACTS:
PLDT filed an application with respondent for the approval of rates for Digital Transmission Services.
Respondent issued a notice of hearing and petitioners were not able to receive any notice and they werent included in the
list of affected parties.

HELD:
As to the required notice, it is impossible for the respondent to give personal notice to all parties affected, not all of them
being known to it. More than that, there is no dispute that the notice of hearing was published. Petitioners have timely
opportunity to oppose the petition in question so that the lack of notice is cured. Under the circumstances, respondent
can be deemed to have substantially complied with the requirements. In any event, the provisional nature of the authority
and the fact that the primary application shall be given a full hearing are the safeguards against its abuse.

11. ADMU v. Capulong
Private schools have the right to establish rules and regulations for the admission, discipline and promotion of the students. This
right extends as well as to parents are under social and moral if not legal obligation, individually and collectively to assist and cooperate
with schools.
The provisions in the bills on the rights of students to participate on the policy making on the admission of the students might run
counter to rights of private schools on their right to establish rules and regulations for admission, discipline and promotion of students.
Such rules are incident to the very object of incorporation and indispensable to the successful management of the school. The rule may
include those governing student disciplines. The standard rules governing university students in relation to the students discipline maybe
regarded as vital that may lead to smooth and efficient operation of the institution but to its very survival.
Respondent students may not use the argument that since they were not accorded the opportunity to see and examine the written
statements which became the basis of petitioners' February 14, 1991 order, they were denied procedural due process. Granting that they
were denied such opportunity, the same may not be said to detract from the observance of due process, for disciplinary cases involving
students need not necessarily include the right to cross examination. An administrative proceeding conducted to investigate students'
participation in a hazing activity need not be clothed with the attributes of a judicial proceeding. A closer examination of the March 2,
1991 hearing which characterized the rules on the investigation as being summary in nature and that respondent students have no right
to examine affiants-neophytes, reveals that this is but a reiteration of our previous ruling in Alcuaz.
academic freedom" cited in the case of Sweezy v. New Hampshire,
37
thus: (1) who may teach: (2) what may be taught; (3) how it
shall be taught; and (4) who may be admitted to study.
7

12. Medenilla v. Civil Service Commission
FACTS:
Petitioner Ardeliza Medenilla was a contractual employee of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) occupying
the position of Public Relations Officer II.
In 1987, Medenilla was detailed as Technical Assistant in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Manpower
Management.
Pursuant to Executive Order No. 124 dated January 30, 1987, a reorganization ensued within the DPWH and all the positions
therein were abolished. A revised staffing pattern together with the guidelines on the selection and placement of personnel
was issued.
Included in the revised staffing pattern is the contested position of Supervising Human Resource Development Officer.
On January 2, 1989, the petitioner was appointed to the disputed position.
The protestants alleged that since they are next-in-rank employees, one of them should have been appointed to the said
position.
Thus, on February 28, 1990, the Commission promulgated the assailed resolution, the dispositive portion of which reads:
o WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Commission resolved to disapprove the promotional appointment
of Ardeliza Medenilla to the position of Supervising Human Manpower Development Officer. Accordingly, the
appointing authority may choose from among protestants Amparo Dellosa, Marita Burdeos and Rosalinda Juria who
to promote to the said position. The Civil Service Field Office is directed to implement this resolution accordingly."
(Rollo, p. 31)
The petitioner on March 23, 1990 filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution. On May 30, 1990 a supplement to the
Motion for Reconsideration was also filed. However, prior thereto, the Commission on May 23, 1990 denied the petitioner's
motion for reconsideration. The pertinent portions of the denial are:

ISSUES:
petitioner contends that she was not notified by the Civil Service Commission of the existence of the appeal before it. The
resolutions, therefore, were allegedly issued in violation of the petitioner's constitutionally guaranteed due process of law.
petitioner alleges that the Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in disapproving her appointment

DECISIONS:
No
Yes

RATIO
"Due process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces
judgment upon the question of life, liberty, and property in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or
otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of the light in the
matter involved."
The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. The presence of a party is not always the cornerstone of due
process. What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence thereof and lack of opportunity
to be heard.
In the case at bar, any defect was cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration.
The preference given to permanent employees assumes that employees working in a Department for longer periods have
gained not only superior skills but also greater dedication to the public service. This is not always true and the law, moreover,
does not preclude the infusion of new blood, younger dynamism, or necessary talents into the government service. If, after
considering all the current employees, the Department Secretary cannot find among them the person he needs to revive a
moribund office or to upgrade second rate performance, there is nothing in the Civil Service Law to prevent him from reaching
out to other Departments or to the private sector provided all his acts are bona fide for the best interest of the public service
and the person chosen has the needed qualifications. In the present case, there is no indication that the petitioner was chosen
for any other reason except to bring in a talented person with the necessary eligibilities and qualifications for important
assignments in the Department.

13. Maceda v. ERB
Petitioner Maceda maintains that this order of proof deprived him of his right to finish his cross-examination of Petron's witnesses and
denied him his right to cross-examine each of the witnesses of Caltex and Shell. He points out that this relaxed procedure resulted in the
denial of due process.We disagree. The Solicitor General has pointed out:. . . The order of testimony both with respect to the examination
of the particular witness and to the general course of the trial is within the discretion of the court and the exercise of this discretion in
permitting to be introduced out of the order prescribed by the rules is not improper (88 C.J.S. 206-207).
Such a relaxed procedure is especially true in administrative bodies, such as the ERB which in matters of rate or price fixing is considered
as exercising a quasi-legislative, not quasi-judicial, function As such administrative agency, it is not bound by the strict or technical rules
of evidence governing court proceedings (Sec. 29, Public Service Act; Dickenson v. United States, 346, U.S. 389, 98 L. ed. 132, 74 S. St.
152). (Emphasis supplied)
In fact, Section 2, Rule I of the Rules of Practice and Procedure Governing Hearings Before the ERB provides that
These Rules shall govern pleadings, practice and procedure before the Energy Regulatory Board in all matters of inquiry, study, hearing,
investigation and/or any other proceedings within the jurisdiction of the Board. However, in the broader interest of justice, the Board
8

may, in any particular matter, except itself from these rules and apply such suitable procedure as shall promote the objectives of the
Order.

14. Feeder v. CA
FACTS:
The M/T "ULU WAI" foreign vessel of Honduran registry, owned and operated by Feeder International Shipping Lines of
Singapore, left Singapore on May 6, 1986 carrying 1,100 metric tons of gas oil and 1,000 metric tons of fuel oil consigned to Far
East Synergy Corporation of Zamboanga, Philippines.
On May 14, 1986, the vessel anchored at the vicinity of Guiuanon Island in Iloilo without notifying the Iloilo customs authorities.
The presence of the vessel only came to the knowledge of the Iloilo authorities by information of the civilian informer in the
area. Acting on said information, the Acting District Collector of Iloilo dispatched a Customs team on May 19, 1986 to verify the
report.
The Customs team found out that the vessel did not have on board the required ship and shipping documents, except for a
clearance from the port authorities of Singapore clearing the vessel for "Zamboanga."
In view thereof, the vessel and its cargo were held and a Warrant of Seizure and Detention over the same was issued after due
investigation. The petitioner then filed its Motion to Dismiss and to Quash the Warrants of Seizure and Detention which the
District Collector denied in his Order dated December 12, 1986.

RATIO:
It is quite clear that seizure and forfeiture proceedings under the tariff and customs laws are not criminal in nature as they do
not result in the conviction of the offender nor in the imposition of the penalty provided for in Section 3601 of the Code. As can
be gleaned from Section 2533 of the code, seizure proceedings, such as those instituted in this case, are purely civil and
administrative in character, the main purpose of which is to enforce the administrative fines or forfeiture incident to unlawful
importation of goods or their deliberate possession. The penalty in seizure cases is distinct and separate from the criminal
liability that might be imposed against the indicted importer or possessor and both kinds of penalties may be imposed.
In the case at bar, the decision of the Collector of Customs, as in other seizure proceedings, concerns the res rather than
the persona. The proceeding is a probe on contraband or illegally imported goods. These merchandise violated the revenue law
of the country, and as such, have been prevented from being assimilated in lawful commerce until corresponding duties are
paid thereon and the penalties imposed and satisfied either in the form of fine or of forfeiture in favor of the government who
will dispose of them in accordance with law. The importer or possessor is treated differently. The fact that the administrative
penalty be falls on him is an inconsequential incidence to criminal liability. By the same token, the probable guilt cannot be
negated simply because he was not held administratively liable. The Collector's final declaration that the articles are not subject
to forfeiture does not detract his findings that untaxed goods were transported in respondents' car and seized from their
possession by agents of the law. Whether criminal liability lurks on the strength of the provision of the Tariff and Customs Code
adduced in the information can only be determined in a separate criminal action. Respondents' exoneration in the
administrative cases cannot deprive the State of its right to prosecute. But under our penal laws, criminal responsibility, if any,
must be proven not by preponderance of evidence but by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

15. CIR v. CA
FACTS:
The quonset was constructed by the American Liberation Forces in 1944. It was purchased in 1946 by Gregoria Francisco,
who died in 1976. It stands on a lot owned by the Philippine Ports Authority and faces the municipal wharf. By virtue of
Proclamation No. 83 issued by President Elpidio Quirino, said land was declared for the exclusive use of port facilities.
On 10 January 1989, the Philippine Ports Authority (Port of Zamboanga) issued to Tan Gin San, surviving spouse of
Gregoria Francisco, a permit to occupy the lot where the building stands for a period of one (1) year, to expire on 31
December 1989. The permittee was using the quonset for the storage of copra.
On 8 May 1989, Respondent Mayor, through respondent Municipal Action Officer, notified Tan Gin San by mail to remove
or relocate its quonset building, citing Zoning Ordinance No. 147 of the municipality; noting its antiquated and dilapidated
structure; and. stressing the "clean-up campaign on illegal squatters and unsanitary surroundings along Strong Boulevard."
This was followed by another letter of 19 May 1989 of the same tenor.
Since the notifications remained unheeded by petitioner, Respondent Mayor ordered the demolition on 24 May 1989.
Aggrieved, petitioner sought a Writ of Prohibition with Injunction and Damages before the Regional Trial Court of Basilan,
Branch

ISSUE:
whether or not Respondent Mayor could summarily, without judicial process, order the demolition of petitioner's quonset
building.

HELD:
Petitioner was in lawful possession of the lot and quonset building by virtue of a permit from the Philippine Ports Authority
(Port of Zamboanga) when demolition was effected. It was not squatting on public land. Its property was not of trifling
value. It was entitled to an impartial hearing before a tribunal authorized to decide whether the quonset building did
constitute a nuisance in law. There was no compelling necessity for precipitate action. It follows then that respondent
public officials of the Municipality of Isabela, Basilan, transcended their authority in abating summarily petitioner's
9

quonset building. They had deprived petitioner of its property without due process of law. The fact that petitioner filed a
suit for prohibition and was subsequently heard thereon will not cure the defect, as opined by the Court of Appeals, the
demolition having been a fait accompli prior to hearing and the authority to demolish without a judicial order being a
prejudicial issue.
For the precipitate demolition, therefore, petitioner should be entitled to just compensation, the amount of which is for
the Trial Court to determine. We are not inclined to grant petitioner damages, however, as it simply ignored the demand
to remove or relocate its quonset building.

RATIO:
Respondents can not seek cover under the general welfare clause authorizing the abatement of nuisances without judicial
proceedings. That tenet applies to a nuisance per se or one which affects the immediate safety of persons and property
and may be summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity (Monteverde v. Generoso, 52 Phil. 123 [1982]). The
storage of copra in the quonset building is a legitimate business. By its nature, it can not be said to be injurious to rights of
property, of health or of comfort of the community. If it be a nuisance per accidens it may be so proven in a hearing
conducted for that purpose. It is not per se a nuisance warranting its summary abatement without judicial intervention.
The provincial governor, district engineer or district health officer is not authorized to destroy private property consisting
of dams and fishponds summarily and without any judicial proceedings whatever under the pretense that such private
property constitutes a nuisance. A dam or a fishery constructed in navigable rivers is not a nuisance per se. A dam or
fishpond may be a nuisance per accidens where it endangers or impairs the health or depreciates property by causing
water to become stagnant. (Monteverde v. Generoso, supra).

16. Aris v. NLRC
On 11 April 1988, private respondents, who were employees of petitioner, aggrieved by management's failure to attend to their
complaints concerning their working surroundings which had become detrimental and hazardous, requested for a grievance conference.
As none was arranged, and believing that their appeal would be fruitless, they grouped together after the end of their work that day with
other employees and marched directly to the management's office to protest its long silence and inaction on their complaints.
On 12 April 1988, the management issued a memorandum to each of the private respondents, who were identified by the petitioner's
supervisors as the most active participants in the rally requiring them to explain why they should not be terminated from the service for
their conduct. Despite their explanation, private respondents were dismissed for violation of company rules and regulations, more
specifically of the provisions on security and public order and on inciting or participating in illegal strikes or concerted actions.
Private respondents lost no time in filing a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner and Mr. Gavino Bayan with the regional office
of the NLRC at the National Capital Region, Manila, which was docketed therein as NLRC-NCR-00-0401630-88.
After due trial, Labor Arbiter Felipe Garduque III handed down on 22 June 1989 a decision' the dispositive portion of which reads:
On 19 July 1989, complainants (herein private respondents) filed a Motion For Issuance of a Writ of Execution
2
pursuant to the above-quoted Section 12
of R.A. No. 6715.
On 21 July 1989, petitioner filed its Appeal.
3

On 26 July 1989, the complainants, except Flor Rayos del Sol, filed a Partial Appeal.
4

On 10 August 1989, complainant Flor Rayos del Sol filed a Partial Appeal.
5

On 29 August 1989, petitioner filed an Opposition
6
to the motion for execution alleging that Section 12 of R.A. No. 6715 on execution pending appeal
cannot be applied retroactively to cases pending at the time of its effectivity because it does not expressly provide that it shall be given retroactive
effect
7
and to give retroactive effect to Section 12 thereof to pending cases would not only result in the imposition of an additional obligation on
petitioner but would also dilute its right to appeal since it would be burdened with the consequences of reinstatement without the benefit of a final
judgment. In their Reply
8
filed on 1 September 1989, complainants argued that R.A. No. 6715 is not sought to be given retroactive effect in this case since
the decision to be executed pursuant to it was rendered after the effectivity of the Act. The said law took effect on 21 March 1989, while the decision was
rendered on 22 June 1989.
Petitioner submitted a Rejoinder to the Reply on 5 September 1989.
DOCTRINE:
Execution pending appeal is interlinked with the right to appeal. One cannot be divorced from the other. The latter may be availed of by
the losing party or a party who is not satisfied with a judgment, while the former may be applied for by the prevailing party during the
pendency of the appeal. The right to appeal, however, is not a constitutional, natural or inherent right. It is a statutory privilege of
statutory origin
18
and, therefore, available only if granted or provided by statute. The law may then validly provide limitations or
qualifications thereto or relief to the prevailing party in the event an appeal is interposed by the losing party. Execution pending appeal is
one such relief long recognized in this jurisdiction. The Revised Rules of Court allows execution pending appeal and the grant thereof is
left to the discretion of the court upon good reasons to be stated in a special order.

17. Telan v. CA
FACTS:
1977: PEDRO rented a 750 sq m lot from Luciano Sia. He set up an eatery and vulcanizing shop. His cousins, ROBERTO, VICENTE
and VIRGINIA followed suit by setting up their own businesses.
1984: His cousins executed a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage with Sia over the lot shared by PEDRO and wife. Pedro
received a Notice to Vacate from DPB and a demand letter from his cousin ordering the same
1986: Roberto was able to secure a TCT under his name. with this new TCT, they filed a complaint against PEDRO.
o PEDRO and wife hired an attorney to defend them
o 1988: Lower court awarded possession of property to COUSINS
o Pedro and wife wanted to appeal but lawyer did not agree but they asked another person to sign the appeal for them
10

Pedro and wife met ERNESTO PALMA in the eatery who pretended to be a lawyer
1989: CA dismissed case because PEDRO and wife was NOT ABLE to file an appeal within the period required.
1990: PEDRO and wife found out about the dismissal.
PEDRO and wife couldnt find the fake lawyer and filed a case against him.
Sept 1990: judge of lower court issued a WRIT of DEMOLITION
Oct 1990: writ for certiorari filed by PEDRO with Urgent Prayer for TRO
TRO was issued
ISSUE:
W/N the representation of the petitioner by a fake lawyer amounts to a deprivation of his right to counsel and hence a lack of
due process
HELD:
YES. They lost their right to appeal when they lost their counsel
RATIO:
In criminal cases, the right of an accused person to be assisted by a member of the bar is immutable. Xxx. There is no reason
why the rule in criminal cases has to be different in civil cases. The preeminent right to due process of law applies not only to
life and liberty but also to property. There can be no fair hearing unless a party, who is in danger of losing his house in which
he and his family live and in which he has established a modest means of livelihood, is given the right to be heard by himself
and counsel.
The right to counsel is absolute and may be invoked at all times.
a client is generally bound by the action of his counsel in the management of a litigation even by the attorneys mistake or
negligence in procedural technique. But how can be there negligence by the counsel in the case at bar when the lawyer,
turned out to be a fake? The affidavit of the petitioner, the sworn Petition, the Certifications of the Bar Confidants Office and
the IBP, and the submitted records of criminal case against fake lawyer more than sufficiently establishes the existence of the
fake lawyer.

18. CIR v. CA
FACTS:
1987: Fortune was paying taxes for Champion Hope and More cigarettes as local brands.
1993: Bill was enacted and became effective on July 03 1993 increasing the tax rate of locally manufactured cigarettes at
55%
o July 1 1993: Commissioner Vinzons-Chato wrote a Revenue Memorandum Circular stating that Fortune Tobaccos
are foreign brands for the purpose of determining the ad valorem tax.
o July 19 1993: FORTUNE requested for a review, reconsideration, and recall. Request was denied.
o July 30, 1993: CIR assessed the ad valorem tax deficiency to Php 9 Mil.
o August, Fortune filed a petition for review with the CTA
o CTA upheld the position of Fortune because the Memo was defective, invalid and unenforceable because the
brands in question were not currently classified.
ISSUE:
W/N the Memo issued was only to interpret the law.
HELD:
No.
RATIO:
When an administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance
for it gives no real consequence more than the law itself has already prescribed. When, upon the other hand, the
administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the
implementation of the law but substantially adds or increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to
accord at least to those directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before that new
issuance is given the force and effect of law.
Since the brand names of the imported cigarettes were changed to local ones, and they are considered as local brands, the
law passed wouldnt have any effect on the Fortune Tobacco brands. The Memo was made to include these brands within
the scope of the amendatory law and subject them to an increased tax rate. In so doing, the BIR not simply interpreted the
law; verily, t legislated under its quasi-legislative power. The due observance of the requirements of notice, of hearing,
and of publication should not have been ignored.
Separate Opinion, Bellosillo
Compared the memo to another memo issued to cocofed which was made to interpret the law.
The issuance of the memo, the Commissioner of BIR was exercising her quasi-judicial or administrative, adjudicatory
power, consequently, prior notice and hearing are required.
Dissenting Opinion, Hermosisima
Only legislative regulations and not interpretative rulings must have the benefit of a public hearing

19. Stronghold Insurance v. CA
FACTS:
11

Urtesuela was hired by Pan Asia as captain for 12 months. The required surety bond was P 50K submitted by Pan Asian and
Stronghold Insurance to answer for the liabilities of the employer to POEA. 3 months later, Urtesuelas services were
terminated.
Urtesuela filed a complaint against Pan Asian with the POEA for breach of contract.
POEA rendered a decision in favor of Urtesuela for the amount of 6K for his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
contract and cash value of his unused vaca leave, plus attorneys fees and costs. No appeal was made by Pan Asia and
Stronghold
Urtusela filed a complaint with the Insurance Commission against Stronghold on the basis of the surety bond and prayed
for the value thereof plus attorneys fees and litigation costs.
Stronghold asks for reversal of the CA decision. It submits that the decision of the POEA is not binding upon it because it
was not impleaded in the complaint; it was not notified thereof nor did it participate in the hearing; and it was not
specifically directed to pay the damages awarded to the complainant.
ISSUE:
W/N there was a lack of due process for Stronghold Insurance
HELD:
No.
RATIO:
Stronghold agreed to answer for whatever decision might be rendered against the principal, whether or not the surety was
impleaded in the complaint and had the opportunity to defend itself. Petitioner agreed to answer for all liabilities that
may be adjudged or imposed by the POEA against the principal.
The right to be head is as often waived as it is invoked, and validly as long as the party is given an opportunity to be heard
on his behalf.
Due process is not violated where a person is not heard because he has chosen, for whatever reason, not to be heard. It
should be obvious that if he opts to be silent where he has a right to speak, he cannot later be heard to complain the he
was unduly silenced.

20. Macayayong v. Ople
FACTS:
Macayayong was dismissed after 2 notices were sent to him requesting him to report to work as his service was badly
needed. He did not report.
He was dismissed because of abandonment of post
ISSUE:
W/N Macayayongs summary dismissal is in violation of the due process of law.
HELD:
No.
RATIO:
Petitioner was given ample opportunity to be heard and to present his case.
21. Conti v. NLRC
FACTS:
CONTI worked as cashier in Corfarm. CRUZ was warehouseman. Both of them were promoted to Head of Commissary and
Store Supervisor. In their contract, it was stipulated that their employment shall be coterminous with the effectivity of the
contract executed with MERALCO re:management of commissary.
The contract expired. However, Corfarm continued to operate the Meralco commissary despite of the non-renewal of the
contract.
Several days after expiration, petitioners received a memo terminating their services based on:
o Expiration of employment contracts
o On-going evaluation of their past performances because of certain anomalous transactions.
Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal to NLRC and their dismissal was rendered to be illegally done and an
order of reinstatement was made.
o This decision was reversed and they dismissed Conti and Cruzs appeal for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
W/N NLRC gravely abused its discretion in
1. reversing the labor arbiters decision finding petitioners dismissal to have been illegal for lack of due notice and
hearing
2. in ignoring the documents and testimony contained in the record which support the labor arbiters decision
finding the petitioners without fault on the alleged acts attributed to them
HELD:
YES.
RATIO:
They were dismissed without a written notice. They did not receive the memo and the memo did not specify the particular
acts or omissions of petitioners.
The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute essential elements of due process in the dismissal of employees.
12

In order that willful disobedience by the employee may constitute a just cause for termination the orders, regulations, or
instructions of the employer or his representative must be:
1. reasonable and lawful
2. sufficiently known to the employee
3. in connection with the duties which the employee has been engaged to discharge

22. Joson v. Executive Secretary
FACTS:
Joson was the governor of Nueva Ecija. During a meeting regarding a proposed 150 Million Peso loan, he allegedly barged
into the hall, kicking the door and chairs in the hall, uttering threatening words, with armed men. the meeting was
cancelled due to that and to lack of quorum.
The employees present there filed a complaint praying for the suspension or removal of Joson; for an emergency audit of
the provincial treasury of Nueva Ecija; and for the review of the proposed loan
Josons three motions of extension to file his answer was approved. His last extension, the DILG informed him that failure
to submit answer will be considered a waiver and that the plaintiff shall be allowed to present his evidence ex parte.
o Three months later, DILG issued an order placing the petitioner in default and to have waived his right to present
evidence.
He filed several motions for reconsideration, etc. however denied. The motion to lift Default Order and to Admit anwer Ad
Cautelam was granted.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Conduct Formal Investigation. The petition was denied because DILG says that the
submission of position papers substantially complies with the requirements of procedural due process in administrative
proceedings.
DILG ordered that he be suspended for 6 months without pay.
ISSUES:
I. W/N Letter-complaint failed to conform with the formal requirements
II. W/N the DILG secretary has jurisdiction over the case.
III. W/N DILG erred in declaring him in default for filing a motion to dismiss
IV. W/N DILG erred in recommending to the Disciplining Authority his preventive suspension
V. W/N the finding of Executive Secretary that petitioner is guilty as charged is valid.
HELD:
I. No. verification is a formal, not jurisdictional requisite
II. Yes. The procedural lapse of the Office of the President in non complying with requiring the petitioner for an answer
is not fatal.
III. No. he was given more than enough time. He filed his answer 7 months later!
IV. No. all the requisites for the imposition of preventive suspension had been complied with. Petitioners failure to file
his answer despite several opportunities given him was construed as a waiver of his right to file answer and present
evidence!
V. No. the denial of petitioners Motion to Conduct Formal Investigation is erroneous. The petitioners right to a formal
investigation denied him procedural due process.
RATIO:
An erring elective official has rights akin to the constitutional rights of an accused. The local elective official has the:
1. the right to appear and defend himself in person or by counsel;
2. right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him;
3. right to compulsory attendance of the witness and the production of documentary evidence.
Rules on removal and suspension of elective officials are more stringent. The procedure requiring position papers in lieu of
a hearing in administrative cases is expressly allowed with respect to appointive officials but not to those elected.
When an elective official is suspended or removed, the people are deprived of the services of the man they had elected.
Implicit in the right of suffrage is that the people are entitled to the services of the elective official of their choice.
Suspension and removal are thus imposed only after the elective official is accorded his rights and the evidence against
him strongly dictates their imposition.

23. Marcos v. Sandiganbayan
Marcos filed a motion to quash on the following grounds:
1. The informations are fatally defective for failure to adequately inform the accused of the charge against her in
violation of due process granted by the constitution
2. The informations state no offense
3. the court has no jurisdiction over the cases because the accused are protected by immunity from suit.
Sandiganbayan denied Motion even before scheduled hearing because informations actually state a valid accusation.
ISSUE:
W/N Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners motion to quash the informations
filed after she had pleaded thereto.
HELD:
Yes.
RATIO:
13

Petitioners motion to quash is grounded on no offense charged, extinction of the offense or penalty and jeopardy.
From a denial of motion to quash, the appropriate remedy is for petitioner to go to trial on the merits, and if an
adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law.

24. Pefianco v. Moral
25. Roxas v. CA
26. Summary Dismissal Board v. Torcita
27. Secretary of Justice v. Lantion
FACTS:
An extradition request was given by the US government to the Department of Justice of the Philippines for the extradition
of Mark Jimenez for accusation of several crimes in the US. This was in accordance to the Extradition Treaty of the
Philippines and US. Upon the receipt of such request, the DOJ arranged for a panel of lawyers to evaluate and assess such
request.
Jimenez requested for a copy of the said extradition papers so that he could have ample time to comment on the said
accusations and he also requested for the abeyance of the proceedings. This was denied by petitioner, saying that the US
requested that there be no unauthorized disclosure of the papers, that it is too premature for Jimenez to be furnished the
papers, and also, that the DOJ doesnt have authority to hold abeyance proceedings in an extradition request since in a
treaty, there must be expeditious action upon a receipt of an extradition request.
This prompted Jimenez to file with the trial court a writ of mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari and the court issued a
temporary restraining order against petitioner. Hence, this case at bar.
HELD:
An individuals right to due process is not dispensable even in extradition proceedings. It may not be mentioned in the
extradition treaty nor in the statute implementing it, nonetheless, this does not mean that it should be foregone. A
persons right to due process the procedural aspect may only be foregone in the following circumstances:
(1) In proceeding where there is an urgent need for immediate action, like the summary abatement of a nuisance per se
(Article 704, Civil Code), the preventive suspension of a public servant facing administrative charges (Section 63, Local
Government Code, B.P. Blg. 337), the padlocking of filthy restaurants or theaters showing obscene movies or like
establishments which are immediate threats to public health and decency, and the cancellation of a passport of a person
sought for criminal prosecution;
(2) Where there is tentativeness of administrative action, that is, where the respondent is not precluded from enjoying the
right to notice and hearing at a later time without prejudice to the person affected, such as the summary distrait and levy of the
property of a delinquent taxpayer, and the replacement of a temporary appointee; and
(3) Where the twin rights have previously been offered but the right to exercise them had not been claimed.

Using the abovementioned conditions, not one is satisfied by the extradition proceedings. Furthermore, it may be absent
in the statute and treaty, but it constitutionally guaranteed. The constitution not only guarantees ones right to due
process but also the right to information regarding public concern.

28. US v. Puruganan
29. Lazaro v. CA
30. Agabon v. NLRC
Substantive Due Process
31. US v. Toribio
32. Agabon v. NLRC
33. Churchill v. Rafferty
34. People v. Fajardo
35. Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operator v. City of Manila
36. Ynot v. Intermediate Court of Appeals
37. Balacuit v. CFI
38. National Development Corporation and New Agrix v. Philippine Vet. Bank
39. Maranaw Hotel v. NLRC
40. Magtajas v. Pryce Properties
41. Bennis v. Michigan
42. Cruzan v. Dir. Missoura
43. JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. v. CA
44. Corona v. United Harbor
45. Kelly v. Johnson
46. Chavez v. Romulo
Equal Protection of the Law
- Should also apply in the application of the laws
- Pass laws to promote equality and reduce and eliminate inequality before the law

14

47. People v. Cayat
o Liquor ban to non Christians
Equal Protection of the Law does not prohibit classification as long as:
1. Classification must rest on substantial distinctions
2. Which must be germane to the purpose of the law
3. Must not be limited to existing conditions
4. Must apply to members of the same class
48. Ichong v. Hernandez
o Constitutional laws on aliens with retail business
o Legislative intent is to protect filipinos
49. Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho
50. Dumlao v. COMELEC
51. Goesart v. Cleary
52. Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City
53. Sison, Jr. v. PAGCOR
54. Republic v. Sandiganbayan
55. Himagan v. People
56. Almonte v. Vasquez
57. Telebap v. COMELEC
58. Tiu v. CA
59. Aguinaldo v. COMELEC
60. De Guzman v. COMELEC
61. People v. Mercado
62. People v. Jalosjos
63. People v. Piedra
64. International School v. Quisimbing
65. Central Bank Employee Association v. BSP
Section 2: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

General Rule: there should be a warrant!
1. Probable cause
2. Issued by a judge only exception is by immigration
3. Personal examination under oath; basis of issuance : personal knowledge of affiant/complainant; searching
questions; search warrant: Face to face and attach documents and record; Arrest: outside NCR: MCTR = similar to
search warrant; RTC/MTC/NCR - prosecutors
4. Particular description person, place, or thing
To avoid abuse in execution of warrant; they should not be allowed to decide on ANYTHING
a) Not very specific or technical circumstances which ordinarily allow
b) Description expresses a conclusion of facts not a conclusion of law (ex. Things related to murder shall be
seized not allowed)
c) Things which bear a direct relation/relevant things/relevant cases
GENERAL WARRANT not specific to an offense, person, place =INVALID
If business is 100% illegal, more lenient
Ex. Smuggling business: description need not distinguish
If business is 50% illegal 50% legal: description must be specific as to the documents related to illegal activity
Documents not validly described = invalidly seized
John Doe OK as long as specific description
Search 10 days
Arrest until person is caught but 10 days police report
** House always needs warrant before search!
*Exception: Warrantless Search and Seizure
Search going beyond what is in plain view
- Consti definition: applies to a situation where there is a reasonable exprectation of privacy
Instances when warrantless search and seizure is valid:
ALWAYS WITH PROBABLE CAUSE!
If in case we cannot classify, PC + Exigent Circumstances
1. Waiver of warrant
15

Right is known to person
Right exists and willingly consented
Wants to cooperate
2. Incidental search to a lawful arrest
Relevant to the commission of a crime
Things within reach or immediate control
Fruit , evidence, proof of crime
3. Moving vehicles/movable
Need to act immediately if it is within their complete control, there is a need for a warrant
4. Seizure of evidence in plain view
Means open to your senses: plain touch, plain smell, plain sight, etc.
1. Evidence is illegal or prohibited
2. Plain view
3. Discovery is inadvertent
4. Must be in the right position to get the plain view
5. Customs/border searches
Immigration (airport)
Customs officers
Enforcement of customs laws
6. Others
Checkpoints
o Form of detention and search
o Visual only; roll down window. If goes beyond, there must be PC
o Established under abnormal situations
o Opening of bag there should be PC
But people usually waive right because nobody complains. Legally though you can argue not to allow it
Saturation Rights
Area zoning
Masked search and arrested per se is not unconstitutional only by way they are implemented
Stop and Frisk
Policeman sees suspicious individual acting suspiciously may stop and frisk
Patting only outer garments
If beyond patting, there must be PROBABLE CAUSE
War
Probable cause + exigent circumstances need to act immediately
Requisites of a valid warrant


66. People v. Veloso
67. Alvarez v. CFI
68. Stonehill v. Diokno
69. Central Bank v. Morfe
70. Blache and Co. v. Ruiz
71. Placer v. Villanueva
72. Burgos,Sr. v. Chief of Staff AFP
73. Corro v. Lising
74. Soliven v. Makasiar
75. Salazar v. Achacoso
76. Board of Comm (CID) v. De la Rosa
77. Sim, Sr. v. Judge Felix
78. Silva v. Pres. Judge of RTC of Negros Oriental
79. Allado v. Diokno
80. Ortiz v. Palayapayon
81. People v. Martiniez
82. Webb v. de Leon
83. People v. Woolcock
84. Tambasen v. People
85. Columbia Pictures v. CA
86. 20
th
Century Fox Film v. CA
87. Ho v. People
88. Gozos v. Tac-an
89. Flores v. Sumaljag
90. People v. CA
16

91. Kho v. Makalintal
92. Paper Industries v. Asuncion
93. Malalaon v. CA
Particularity of Description

94. Yousef Al-Ghoul v. CA
95. Uy v. BIR
Warrantless Searches and Seizures


When is a search a search
96. Valmonte v. General de Villa
97. Guazon v. De Villa
98. People v. Saycon
99. People v. CFI
100. Roan v. Gonzales
101. Nolasco v. Pano
102. Papa v. Mago
103. People v. Lo Ho Wing
104. People v. Malmstedt
105. Posadas v. CA
106. Bagalihog v. Fernandez
107. People v. Cuachon
108. People v. De Gracia
109. People v. De Lara
110. Aniag v. Comelec
111. People v. Barros
112. People v. Tabar
113. Veronia School Distric v. ACTON
114. Manlavi v. Gacott
115. People v. Lengsiri
116. UniLab v. Isip
117. Malacat v. CA
118. People v. Encinada
119. Mustang Lumber v. CA
120. People v. Gatward
121. People v. Lacerna
122. People v. Aruta
123. People v. Cuenco
124. People v. Doria
125. People v. Sevilla
126. People v. Che Chun Ting
127. People v. Valdez
128. People v. Johnson
129. Del Rosario v. People
130. People v. Estrada
Searches and Seizures of whatever nature and for whatever purpose

131. Material Distributors v. Natividad
132. Oklahoma Press v. Walling
133. Camara v. Municipal Court
Warrantless Arrests

134. Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago
135. People v. Aminnudin
136. People v. dela Cruz
137. People v. Burgos
138. Umil v. Ramos
139. People v. Sucro
140. Go v. CA
141. People v. Briones
17

142. People v. Mengote
143. People v. Simon
144. People v. Rabang
145. People v. Lopez
146. Velasco v. CA
147. People v. Seguino
148. People v. Nazareno
149. People v. Mahusay
150. People v. Alvario
151. Larranaga v. CA
152. People v. Jayson
153. People v. Aruta (same as 122)
154. Larranaga v. CA
155. People v. Olivarez
156. Cadua v. CA
157. People v. Elamparo
158. People v. Cubcubin
159. People v. Compacion
160. Posadas v. Ombudsman
161. People v. Buluran
162. People v. Rodriguez
163. People v. Acol
Section 3.
(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the
court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.

Section 2 applies only to tangible things
Section 3 applies to intangible things
o Phone msg
o Letter
o Communication and correspondence
Judge will have to comply with warrant requirements PC, Personal, particular descript.
Par 2. exclusionary rule
Any Evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Why do we have this rule?
Because of deterrence.
Before the rule: arrest lang yan.. admissible naman yung evidence eh.
Applies when there is deliberate violations of constitutional rights
Whether or not evidence is incriminating this is still applicable. Kahit shabu pa!
Ex.,
1. Police officer found list of stolen goods owned by criminal who was illegally arrested and goes there = inadmissible evidence
2. If a policeman illegally arrests you and was able to interview you after the illegal arrest and you tell them that you hid the stolen
goods in the locker, but somebody else saw you hide it in the locker and told the policeman 2 testimonies = valid source
independent of a tainted source that will not make evidence inadmissible
3. Idessa hid baby and was illegally arrested. Baby was found by someone who did not now or if it is inevitable that the baby will be
found, VALID
4. If warrant of arrest is issued against idessa, then later on lawyer finds that the signature is fake. Therefore, warrant is invalid = illegal
arrest
Question: since arrest was illegal, will evidence be inadmissible?
US Supreme Court: since police acted in good faith, Admissible
US Supreme Court: Not all unreasonable arrest, search and seizure will lead to inadmissible evidence
Phil SC: no jurisprudence like this yet.

Inadmissible evidence will not be returned to owner if:
1. Inadmissible evidence is illegal it will be confiscated and disposed of
2. Inadmissible evidence even if legal is needed for prosecution of the case

Exclusionary Rule

164. Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA
18

165. Zulueta v. CA
166. Ramirez v. CA
167. Ople v. Torres
168. People v. Marti
169. People v. Aruta (again)
170. Gaanan v. IAC

Section 4.

No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Freedom of Speech and Press
Not an absolute rights!!
Freedom of speech led the Philippines to a revolution
Right of Assembly and Petition

Prohibited:
1. Prior Restraint
2. Subsequent Punishment
Unprotected Speech: (subsequent punishment is allowed)
1. Seditious Speech
2. Libelous Speech
3. Obscene
Prior Restraint = CENSORSHIP
- Official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination
- Presumed to be constitutionally invalid
Restrictions:
1. Content-based = Censorship = apply the C&PD test
2. Content-neutral about when, where, how, time place, manner
OK! Apply the OBrien Test

171. Near v. Minnesota Law is invalid
Issue: statute authorizing the state to obtain injunction against any news or magazine after finding by a court that such has
become a public nuisance Saturday Press found to be a nuisance
o Prohibition of Prior Restrain is NOT ABSOLUTE
Exceptions: war, decency, publication of inciting documents
172. Freedman v. Maryland Law is invalid
Freedman showed a film without getting a license as required by law.
o Requirement of a license is not necessarily unconstitutional, however proper process should be followed, in this case, the
procedural scheme does not satisfy the criteria because:
1. The exhibitor must assume the burden of instituting judicial proceedings
2. Approval depends on the censor
Safeguard:
1.
2. Censor must decide within a reasonable period
3. Must be prompt final judicial decision
173. New York Times Co. v. US invalid injunction
New York Times started publication of excerpts from a classified Pentagon Study.
Nixon said that continued publication will pose a threat. SC denied injuction
o It was only the right of but the central purpose of free press is to scrutinize government
174. Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance EVAT is a valid law
Removing the press from the exemption while maintaining others is NOT discriminatory
What the Constitution prohibits are laws that prohibit the press or target groups for which in any way discriminate the press on the
basis of the content of the publication
VAT is not a license tax! Revenue tax kasi eto
175. Alexander v. US Valid forfeiture
Criminal case for violation of Obscenity and Racketeering petitioner argues that the shut down of his business is excessive and that
there is a future restrain of his freedom of expression
SC: the forfeiture was due to the crime and will not hamper him from opening future businesses to express his activities.. he just
cannot use the proceeds of the crime
176. INC v. CA invalid ban; INC can still air their show
19

INC has a TV show which shoes their doctrines and sometimes criticizes other religions.
o There should be no prior restraint on the exercise of free speech UNLESS Such exercise possess clear and present danger
of a substantive evil.
Subsequent Punishment
- Not allowed unless:
1. Dangerous Tendency Test checks the content; requires that there is a rational connection between the speech and the evil
2. Clear and Present Danger Test - checks the content and context; proximity and degree; W/N the words were clear to present
danger
i. Relative seriousness
ii. Value
iii. Moderate controls
iv. intent
3. Balancing of Interest Test only when dangerous tendency test and clear and present danger test cannot apply.
- weigh the circumstances and to apprise the substantiality of reasons
- individual vs. government : weighing of interests
* Clear and Present Danger Test and Balancing of Interest Test is more favored.
Difference related to the degree of proximity of the apprehended danger which justified the restriction upon speech
Dangerous Tendency Test Clear and Present Danger
Permitted the application of restrictions once a rational connection
between the speech restrained and the danger apprehended the
tendency of one to create the other was shown.
Required the government to defer application of restrictions until the
apprehended danger was more visible, until its realization was
imminent and nigh at hand.
More permissive of speech
Factors to be considered in restricting individuals freedom and the social importance and the value of the freedom so restricted:
(a) The social value and importance of the specific aspect of the particular freedom restricted by legislation
(b) The specific trust of the restriction, i.e. whether the restriction is direct or indirect, whether or not the persons affected are few;
(c) The value and importance of the public interest sought to be secured by the legislation the nature and gravity of the evil that is to be
prevented
(d) whether the specific restriction is reasonably appropriate and necessary for the protection of such public interest
(e) whether the necessary safeguarding of the public interest involved may be achieved by some other measure less restrictive of the
protected freedom.
177. People v. Perez Valid Subsequent punishment; perez was sentenced to imprisonment
Perez had a heated argument regarding General Wood, which resulted to Perez shouting a number of times seditious words like
The Filipinos like myself, must use bolos for cutting off Woods head for having recommended a bad thing for the Filipinos for he
has killed our independence
Court decided that Perez uttered seditious words and shall be punished.
Doctrine: criticism is allowed no matter how severe as long as the speech is not seditious. When the intention and effect of the act
is seditious, the constitutional guaranties of freedom of speech and press and of assembly and petition must yield to punitive
measures designed to maintain the prestige of constituted authority, the supremacy of the Consti and the laws, and the existence of
the State.
178. Dennis v. US- law is valid, there is a clear and present danger
Smith Act a law making it a crime for any person willfully and knowingly conspiring:
(1) To organize as a Communist Party, group that advocates destruction of US govt by force and violence; and
(2) Knowingly advocating necessity of overthrowing the government
Clear and present danger test was applied
It was during the cold war and there was substantial interest to be protected.
Overthrow of the government by force and violence is substantial interest to limit speech; the words cant mean that before
government acts it must wait until putsch is about to execute, the plans have been laid and signal is awaited
179. Gonzales v. COMELEC the law is valid, freedom of speech is not absolute.
RA 4880 prohibits too early nominations of candidates and limiting the period for election campaign or partisan political activity;
o They seek to prohibit early campaigning to:
Avoid huge expenditures on the part of the candidates
Avoid violence and even deaths
Avoid corruption of the electorate
Freedom of expression is not absolute.
o Clear and present danger evil consequence of the comment is extremely serious and degree of imminence is high.
o Dangerous tendency rule words uttered create a tendency which the state has a right to prevent
o Assembly means the right to meet peaceably for constitution in respect to public affairs. It is not limited nor denied except
upon a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent.
180. Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans, Jr. invalid closure of Eastern Broadcasting as it clearly violated the Constitutional rights
o the case is actually moot but court said that it could still set a decision for guidelines of lower courts.
o Eastern Broadcasting is a radio station originally for news reporting but changed its programs gearing towards public affairs
o The station is closed down without proper due process because allegedly, they are inciting people to commit acts of sedition.
20

Doctrine: - the protection given to TV and radio broadcasts is less in scope than accorded to print media. It is because it is more
accessible especially to the low income masses.
181. Ayers Production PTY. LTD. V. Judge Capulong court ruling invalid. Honasan is a public figure
Ponce Enrile Case Ayer Production wanted to make a film documentary of the Edsa revolution
o There is no unlawful intrusion upon Enrile\s right to privacy
o Subject matter of the film is one of public interest and concern and does not relate to the individual life and certainly not to the
private life of Ponce Enrile
o The court only asked that the film is required to be fairly truthful and historical in the presentation of events.
o Public figure a person who, by his accomplishments, fame, 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. He is a celebrity. It
includes, in shot, anyone who has arrived at a position where the public attention is focused upon him as a person.
182. Kelley v. Johnson regulation is valid.
o There was a regulation on the country policemens hair and it is being attacked as violative of the freedom of expression
o The uniform reflects the desire to make policemen readily visible or to foster the esprit de corps that similarity in the
appearance may inculcate in the force.
A county regulation limiting the length of county policemen's hair held not to violate any right guaranteed respondent policeman by
the Fourteenth Amendment
183. Brandenburg v. Ohio
o The Klu Klux Clan leader was convicted for advocacy on terrorism and doctrines of criminal syndicalism
o Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where
such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
o Mere Advocacy
o the person speaking is not an expert in bombing/terrorism acts
o Imminent Lawless Action test :
Intent
Imminence
likelihood
Speech and the Electoral Process
184. Sanidad v. COMELEC Comelecs prohibition is invalid
o Sanidad was a columnist in a baguio newspaper and seeks to invalidate prohibition of ComElec for writers regarding the
Cordelliera Autonomous Region Plebiscite
o Comelec cannot restrict freedom of expression especially in plebiscites when there is no candidate being favored
185. National Press Club v. COMELEC Comelec Time and Comelec Space is Valid
o Comelec Time/Comelec Space
o Constitution has expressly authorized the Comelec to supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of the franchises or
permits for the operation of media of communication and information
o The prohibition seeks to ensure equal opportunity between the rich and the poor
186. Adiong v. COMELEC Comelecs prohibition is Invalid; no substantial governmental interest justifying the restriction.
o Stickers/Decals
o W/N COMELEC may prohibit the posting of decals and stickers on mobile places, public or private, and limit their location or
publication to the authorized posting areas that it fixes. NO
o The restriction as to where the decals and stickers should be posted is so broad that it encompasses even the citizens private
property which in this case is a privately-owned vehicle
o The prohibition on posting of decals on mobile places whether public or private except in the authorized areas designated by
the COMELEC becomes censorship which cannot be justified by the Constitution.
187. Osmea v. COMELEC- valid pa rin ang Section 11!
o Osmena seeks to reexamine the ruling in the National Press Club v. Comelec regarding section 11 (Comelec space and Comelec
time)
o They are saying that the ban actually prejudiced the poor candidates
o Court said that the Law is still valid.
o The prohibition is justified
o Atty. Medina: CHECK HOW COURT APPLIED the OBRIEN TEST
188. ABS-CBN v. COMELEC comelecs prohibition is invalid.
o Exit Polls are valid
o The freedom of expression is a means of assuring individual self-fulfillment, of attaining the truth, of securing participation by
the people in social and political decision-making, and of maintain the balance between stability and change
o The right to information, when faced with borderline situations which the freedom of a candidate or a party to speak or the
freedom of the electorate to know is invoked against actions allegedly made to assure clean and free elections, the SC shall lean
in favor of freedom.
o An absolute prohibition on exit polls would 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
o Comelecs concern with the possible noncommunicative effect of exit polls- disorder and confusion in the voting centers does
not justify a total ban on them
21

189. SWS v. COMELEC the Fair Election Act lays a prior restraint on freedom of speech, expression, and the press and is INVALID
o There is prior restraint on freedom of speech, expression, and the press by prohibiting the publication of election survey results
affecting candidates within the prescribed periods of fifteen (15) days immediately preceding a national election and seven (7)
days before a local election.
o The prohibition against surveys within the specified period is a prior and unreasonable restraint upon freedom of expression.
Commercial Speech
- Speech which does nothing more than propose a transaction
(1) Must concern lawful activity
(2) Must not be misleading
(3) Is the asserted governmental interest substantial?
190. Rubin v. Coors Brewing the prohibition violates the Constitutions protection of commercial speech.
o There was a ban on putting the alcohol content of the beer in the label.
o Information on the label is considered as commercial speech
Central Hudson Test
The Central Hudson test recognizes the constitutionality of regulations restricting advertising that concerns an illegal product or
service, or which is deceptive. For all other restrictions on commercial speech, however, the Court's test requires that the
government show that the regulation directly advances an important interest and is no more restrictive of speech than necessary.
Regulations affecting commercial speech do not violate the First Amendment if:
1. The regulated speech concerns an illegal activity,
2. The speech is misleading, or
3. The government's interest in restricting the speech is substantial, the regulation in question directly advances the
government's interest, and
4. The regulation is narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest.
191. Cincinnati v. Discovery Network the citys prohibition in the racks for commercial handbills violates the constitution
o Prohibition on news rack dispensing handbills
o City did not give license to Discovery network because it seeks to lessen the number of the news racks. City contends that the
prohibition seeks to increase safety and improve the attractiveness of the city. It also contends that the commercial speech has
only a low value.
o Why prohibit only commercial handbills when the newspaper racks are equally or even more problematic due to their great
number?
o The Court has held that government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place or manner of engaging in protected
speech provided that they are adequately justified "without reference to the content of the regulated speech. The ban in this
case is based on the content!
192. City of Ladue v. Gilleo the citys prohibition is invalid and violates freedom of speech
o Gilleo posted a printed sign with words Say not to War in Persian Gulf, Call Congress now the sign is removed several times
o There is a city ordinance that prohibits signs except those that fall within the exceptions
o Restriction was content neutral BUT not valid because people express through cheap means and there is NO ALTERNATIVE
given
Libel
Atty Medina: Public and malicious imputation of a crime or a vice or defect whether real or imaginary or any act, omission, status tending to
cause dishonor, discredit/contemt of a natural or juricial or the DEAD!
193. Policarpio v. Manila Times the article is Libelous and malicious.
o There was an article in the Manila times regarding Policarpio. Policarpio is a woman official working in unesco charged with
malversation and estafa.
o To enjoy immunity for freedom of speech, a publication containing derogatory information must not only be true, but, also fair,
and it must be made in good faith without comments or remarks.
194. Lopez v. CA-
o There was a wrong picture in a publication of an article relating to a hoax in Babuyan Islands.
o Court said that publication of plaintiffs photograph is actionable.
o Pressure of deadline is not a defense in libelous publication in a weekly magazine
o Retraction published to correct the wrong mitigates the amount of damages
o Dissenting: actual malice should be proven
195. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan New York Times did not violate constitution. Statements were not made with knowing or reckless
disregard for truth.
o Sullivan is the Chief of Police, and there was an ad regarding the criticism by the action of policemen
o Actual malice actual knowledge of falsity, or reckless disregard for the truth
o SC ruled against Sullivan holding that public officials are insulated from libel judgments. The guarantees of freedom of speech
and press prohibit a public official or public figure from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official
conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice, i.e., with knowledge that is was false or with
reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
to require critics of official conduct to guarantee the truth of all their factual assertions on pain of libel judgments
would lead to self-censorship, since would-be critics would be dettered from voicing out their criticisms even such
were believed to be true, or were in fact true, because of doubt
22

196. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc. Metromedia was not guilty of libel. Though Rosenbloom is a private person, his acts greatly
affected the public and the public deserves to know.
o Rosenbloom sold nudist magazines. Police arrested him after collecting material from his newsstands. A radio station reported
this information without using the word alleged
o SC upheld the freedom of the press. SC allowed breathing space for the press to upheld the truth.
197. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
o Gertz is a lawyer who represented a man who shot and killed another. A year later, there was an article that alleged that Gertz
framed the officer at the trial, etc. it claimed that Gertz orchestrated the conviction of the man.
o After reviewing the case history and prior decisions, Powell began with a reminder that "Under the First Amendment there is no
such thing as a false idea ... (it) requires that we protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters."
However, he rejected the idea that the mere public interest of the subject should outweigh any consideration of Gertz's
status as a private or public figure. The latter, he noted, have access to more ways of counteracting allegations about them
than private figures do, and thus they deserved a lower standard to prove libel. He also highly doubted that one could
involuntarily become a public figure
o A new trial was ordered
198. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell creators of parodies of public figures are protected unless the parody includes false statements of
fact made in knowing or reckless disregard of the truth.
o Falwell was a protestant minister and a public figure. The ad was a parody of both Falwell and the Campari ad.
o Parody of a public figure is not libel.
o Reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody to contain factual claims.
199. In Re: Jurado AM Atty. Emil Jurado was found to be guilty of contempt of court and was asked to pay fine of 1000.
o Jurado is a columnist-lawyer in a newspaper and he wrote several articles about the SC justices and justices of Makati labeling
them as the dirty dozen and the magnificent seven saying that they are corrupt judges. He also wrote about a party in the
penthouse of Equitable Bldg and a hongkong trip sponsored by PLDT
o Freedom of expression cannot be used to insult others, destroy their name or reputation or bring them into disrepute this
would not be to act with justice or give everyone his due
o The norm does not require that a journalist guarantee the truth of what he says or publishes. But the norm does prohinit the
reckless disregard of private reputation by publishing or circulating defamatory statements without any bona fide effort to
ascertain the truth thereof.
200. In Re: Jurado
201. Vasquez v. CA Vasquez was acquitted
o Vasquez was interviewed by a reporter and he said that the Brgy. Captain landgrabbed.
o Even if the defamatory statement is false, no liability can attach if it relates to official conduct, unless the public official
concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless
disregard of whether it was false or not
Defamatory allegation - if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or
any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which tends to
blacken the memory of one who is dead.
202. Borjal v. CA Borjal is acquitted. He is not guilty for libel.
o Borjal wrote in several articles about a hero, organizer of events, etc. Francisco Wenceslao, the one who claims that hes
the one being described in the articles is not even sure that hes the one being attacked or defamed.
o In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable although it is not necessary that he be named;
o It is not sufficient that the offended party recognized himself as the one being attacked, but it must be shown that at least a
third person could identify him as the object of the libelous publication.
o Presumption of malice: while, generally, malice can be presumed from defamatory words, the privileged character of a
communication destroys the presumption of malice.
o
203. Vicario v. CA
o Vicario allegedly distributed photocopies of an article regarding a graft charged against a judge in the Inquirer. He is sued by the
judge for libel.
o Elements of libel:
(1) Imputation of discreditable act or condition to another
(2) Publication of the imputation
(3) Identity of the person defamed
(4) Existence of malice
o A persons liability for libel, need not, admittedly, stem from the fact that he was the original publisher of the discreditable act.
204. Pader v. People Pader did not commit libel because of the circumstances affecting the situation.
o Pader appeared at the terrace of the house of Escolangco and uttered putang ina mo Atty. Escolangco. Napakawalanghiya
mo!
o The factual backdrop of the case, the oral defamation was only slight. Trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the parties
were also neighbors; that petitioner was drunk at the time he uttered the defamatory words; and the fact that petitioners
anger was instigated by what Escolangco did when his father died.
o Escolangco, as he was running for a electoral position, should be used to this kind of behavior of people.
23

Obscenity
Kottinger test: whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such
immoral influences and into whose hands a publication or other article charged as being obscene may fall.
- is that which shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency.
- However, it should still be based on the community standard
- Not protected by the Freedom of Speech!!!!!!!
205. Miller v. California obscenity is not protected by the freedom of speech!
o Miller was engaged in large mail-order business of pornographic material. They sent a catalogue depicting men and women in
sexual acts with their genitals exposed.
o The government can outlaw material based on the following standard: "whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
o Miller Test: standards to determine whether or not speech is obscene
(1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required),
must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (sexually arouse men/women . indecency is
different and is allowed but depends on the place.)
(2) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions
[1]
specifically defined by
applicable state law; and
(3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
o Obscene materials are defined as those that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, find, taken as a
whole, appeal to the prurient interest; that depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined
by applicable state law; and that, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
206. Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak the board of review did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in classifying the film as for adults
only the court agrees that the board abused is discretion but there were not enough votes to maintain that it was grave.
o Kapit sa patalim film was classified by the board of review for motion pictures as for adults only
o The test to determine whether a motion picture exceeds the bounds of permissible exercise of free speech and, therefore,
should be censored, is the clear and present danger test.
o There is a difficulty in determining what is obscene.
Test: whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, find, taken as a whole, appeal to
the prurient interest.
The Hicklin Test:
Judging obscenity by the effect of isolated passages upon the most susceptible persons, might well
encompass material legitimately treating with sex, and so it must be rejected as unconstitutionally
restrictive of the freedoms of speech and press. On the other hand, the substituted standard provides
safeguards adequate to withstand the charge of constitutional infirmity.
207. Pita v. CA the court was not convinced that the mayor has shown the required proof to justify a ban and to warrant confiscation
of the literature for which mandatory injunction had been sought.
o Pita published and co-edited Pinoy Playboy magazines. Pita argues that the magazines are for arts sake.
o There was a raid in Recto and their magazines were seized and burnt by the mayor and the policemen.
o The court discussed the different definitions of obscenity.
o It applied the Clear and present danger rule.
o There was a void warrantless seizure.
o Atty Medina: Proper Police Standard should be followed for smut warrant first!!
208. Barnes v. Glen Theater valid prohibition; State wanted to stop nudity. OBrien test requirements have been met.
o Two businesses, Kitty Cat lounge and Glen Theatre, Inc. operated adult entertainment establishments.
o Kitty Cat Lounge exotic dancers
o Glen Theatre selling porno material such as magazines and videos
o There was an Indiana statute prohibiting Indecent behavior. Minimum of Pasties and G-strings.
o In determining the type of protection, the Court turned to the "time, place, or manner" test as implemented in United States v.
O'Brien, the four-pronged "O'Brien Test." The Court found that enacting this sort of legislation was clearly within the
constitutional authority of the state, and that the statute furthered a substantial government interest.
o Public nudity is the evil that the State is seeking to prevent.
209. Federal Communications Corporation v. Pacifica Foundation the government has the power to prohibit broadcast of offensive
words. The words need not be obscene.
o Atty Medina: this case distinguishes obscenity from decency.
o During a mid-afternoon weekly broadcast, a New York radio station aired George Carlin's monologue, "Filthy Words." Carlin
spoke of the words that could not be said on the public airwaves. His list included shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker,
motherfucker, and tits. The station warned listeners that the monologue included "sensitive language which might be regarded
as offensive to some." The FCC received a complaint from a man who stated that he had heard the broadcast while driving with
his young son.
o Because of the pervasive nature of broadcasting, it has less First Amendment protection than other forms of communication.
The F.C.C. was justified in concluding that Carlin's "Filthy Words" broadcast, though not obscene, was indecent, and subject to
restriction.
o The Court held that limited civil sanctions could constitutionally be invoked against a radio broadcast of patently offensive
words dealing with sex and execration. The words need not be obscene to warrant sanctions. Audience, medium, time of day,
24

and method of transmission are relevant factors in determining whether to invoke sanctions. "[W]hen the Commission finds
that a pig has entered the parlor, the exercise of its regulatory power does not depend on proof that the pig is obscene."
210. City of Renton v. Playtime Theater - ordinance is a valid governmental response to the serious problems created by adult theaters
and satisfies the dictates of the First Amendment
o Playtime theatre purchased to theaters in Renton, Washington.
o City of Renton requested an injunction with regard to a city ordinance prohibiting adult theaters to operate near residential
homes.
211. Bethel School District v. Fraser the school has a right to punish for giving a lewd and indecent, but not obscene, speech at a
school assembly.
o Fraser gave a speech in nominating a classmate for a position in the student body. The speech was filled with sexual innuendos,
but not obscenity, prompting disciplinary action from the School.
o He was suspended by the school and prohibited from giving a speech during graduation.
212. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier the school has a right to censor articles that they think are inappropriate for younger
readers of the school.
o the public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to
a lower level of First Amendment protection that independent student expression or newspapers established as forums for
student expression.
Assembly and Petition

213. Navarro v. Villegas mayor did not deny nor absolutely refuse the permit sought by Navarro.
o Navarro requested for permit to hold a rally at the Plaza Miranda. On the same day, mayor wrote a reply denying his request.
The mayor said In greater interest of the community, this office, guided by a lesson gained from the events of the past few
weeks, has temporarily adopted the policy of not issuing any permit for the use of Plaza Miranda for rallies and demonstrations
during weekdays.
o Mayor possesses reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or public places to be used for the assembly in order
to secure convenient use thereof by others and provide adequate and proper policing to minimize the risks of disorder and
maintain public safety and order;
o Right of assembly a right on the part of the citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs.
o right to petition any person or group of persons can apply, without fear of penalty, to the appropriate brach or office of the
government for a redress of grievances.
214. PBM Employees v. PBM the company is guilty of unfair labor practice.
o PBM Employees planned a demonstration against policemen. PBM Company said that those who have work in the first shift
who will join the rally shall be dismissed from work.
o Freedom of assembly and expression occupy a preferred position. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free
expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and
political institutions; and such priority gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions.
215. JBL Reyes v. Mayor Bagatsing prohibition of rally is void.
o JBL Reyes requested for a permit to hold a rally from Luneta to the US Embassy regarding the bases act.
o Absent the clear and present danger, choice of Luneta and US Embassy for a public rally cannot be legally objected to.
o Freedom of access to public parks for staging a peaceful public rally is guaranteed by the Constitution.
216. Malabanan v. Ramento
o Students held rally inside school but not within the area where they were permitted to rally.
o These students were given a 1 year suspension but did not push through. The case is moot because the students have already
enrolled and their suspension only lasted for a few days.
o Authority of school officials over the conduct of their students cannot go so far as to be violative of the right to free speech and
assembly.
o It is understandable for student leaders to let loose extremely critical and vitriolic language against school authorities during a
student rally.
217. BAYAN v. Ermita BP 880 is valid but CPR (Calibrated Preemptive Response was held to be serving no purpose)
o BP 880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the time, place and manner of the
assemblies.
o It also refers to all kinds of public assemblies. The reference to lawful cause does not make it content-based because
assemblies really have to be for lawful causes, otherwise they would not be peaceable and entitled to protection.
o The law is very clear and is nowhere vague in its provisions. public does not have to be difeined.
o Freedom Parks should be established, SC gave the LGUs 30 days to establish freedom parks.
o Maximum tolerance should be followed. CPR, calibrated preemptive response, serves no valid purpose if it is equal to maximum
tolerance. Maximum tolerance means the highest degree of restraint that the military, police and other peace keeping
authorities shall observe during a public assembly or in the dispersal of the same.
o When mayors do not act on applications for a permit and when police demand a permit and rallyists could not produce one and
rally is immediately dispersed. In such a situation, as a necessary consequence and part of maximum tolerance, rallyists who
can show the police an application duly filed on a given date can, after two days from said date, rally in accordance with their
application without the need to show a permit, the grant of permit being then presumed under law, and it will be the burden of
25

the authorities to show that there has been a denial of the application, in which case the rally may be peacefully dispersed
following the procedure of maximum tolerance.