VII.

Bill of Rights

(1)

By lawful order of the court

Probable cause in Sec. 2, Art. III should

F. Privacy of communications

be followed for the court to allow

correspondence

intrusion. Particularity of description is

ARTICLE III.

needed for written correspondence,

Section 3.

but if the intrusion is done through

wire-taps and the like, there is no need

1.The privacy of communication

and

correspondence

inviolable

except

shall

upon

be

lawful

order of the court, or when public

safety

or

order

requires

otherwise, as prescribed by law.

2.Any

evidence

obtained

in

section shall be inadmissible for

any purpose in any proceeding.
Private

and

OF

whose

communication

intercepted,

and

the

is

to

be

offense

or

offenses sought to be prevented, and

can be specified.
(2) When public safety or public order
requires

otherwise,

as

may

be

provided by law. Intrusion has to be

public

based upon a non-judicial government

officials assessment that public safety

communications
REQUISITES

identity of the person or persons

the period of the authorization given

violation of this or the preceding

1.

to describe the content. However,

EXISTENCE

OF

PRIVACY RIGHT
(1) Subjective: A person has exhibited
an actual expectation of privacy; and

and order demands such intrusion,

limited to the provisions of law. To hold
otherwise would be to opt for a
government of men, and not of laws.
Public order and safety is defined as

(2) Objective: The expectation be one

the security of human lives, liberty

that society is prepared to recognize

and property against the activities of

as reasonable. [Pollo v. Constantino-

invaders, insurrectionist and rebels.

David (2011) citing the Concurring

[1971

Opinion of Justice Harlan in Katz v. US

Session of November 25, 1972]

(1967)]
2. Intrusion, when allowed

Constitutional

FORMS
COVERED

OF

Convention,

CORRESPONDENCE

(1) letters

(2)

(3)

Habeas Data A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC

telephone calls (4) telegrams,

January 22, 2008 THE RULE ON THE

and the like [Bernas]

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA SECTION 1.

TESTS

messages

OF

REASONABLE

EXPECTATION

OF

PRIVACY:

(1)

Whether

his

conduct,

an

by

individual

has

exhibited

an

expectation of privacy; (2) Whether

such

expectation

is

one

that

society recognizes as reasonable.

[Ople v. Torres (1998)] N.B. The
Court in KMU v. Director-General
held that Ople v. Torres is not an
authority on the right to privacy,
essentially on the ground that the
privacy discussion in Ople is obiter
dictum.

[See

KMU

v.

Director-

General (2006)] Nevertheless, the

Ople testhas been reapplied by
cases such as Sabio v. Gordon
(2006) and is essentially the same
as the test in Pollo v. ConstantinoDavid, infra.

(1)

expectation
actual,
privacy);
that

(i.e.

and

society

expectation

(2)

(i.e.

subjective

demonstrated

personal

expectation

data is a remedy available to any

person whose right to privacy in
life, liberty or security is violated or
threatened by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual
or entity engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data or
informatio n regarding the person,
family, home and correspondence
of the aggrieved party. SEC. 2. Who
May File. - Any aggrieved party
may file a petition for the writ of
habeas data. However, in cases of
extralegal

killings

and

enforced

disappearances, the petition may

be filed by: (a) Any member of the
immediate family of the aggrieved
party, namely: the spouse, children
and parents; or (b) Any ascendant,

A legitimate expectation of privacy

requires.

Habeas Data. - The writ of habeas

an

of

objective

descendant or collateral relative of

the

aggrieved

party

within

the

fourth civil degree of consanguinity

or

affinity,

mentioned

in
in

default of
the

those

preceding

an

expectation

paragraph; or SEC. 3. Where to File.

would

recognize).

- The petition may be filed with the

[Pollo v. Constantino-David (2011)]

Regional

3. Writ of Habeas Data

petitioner or respondent resides, or

Trial

Court

where

the

that which has jurisdiction over the

place

where

or

the data or information is gathered,

information is gathered, collected

collected or stored. The writ of

or stored, at the option of the

habeas data shall be enforceable

petitioner. The petition may also be

anywhere in the Philippines. Sec. 5.

filed with the Supreme Court or the

Docket Fees. - No docket and other

Court

the

lawful fees shall be required from

Sandiganbayan when the action

an indigent petitioner. The petition

concerns

of

of the indigent shall be docked and

government offices. SEC. 4. Where

acted upon immediately, without

Returnable; Enforceable. - When

prejudice

the writ is issued by a Regional Trial

submission of proof of indigency

Court or any judge thereof, it shall

not later than fifteen (15) days

be returnable before such court or

from the filing of the petition. SEC.

judge. When issued by the Court of

6. Petition. - A verified written

Appeals or the Sandiganbayan or

petition for a writ of habeas data

any of its justices, it may be

should contain: (a) The personal

returnable before such court or any

circumstances of the petitioner and

justice thereof, or to any Regional

the respondent; (b) The manner

Trial Court of the place where the

the right to privacy is violated or

petitioner or respondent resides, or

threatened and how it affects the

that which has jurisdiction over the

right to life, liberty or security of

place

the

of

the

data

Appeals
public

where

or

data

the

files

data

or

to

aggrieved

subsequent

party;

(c)

The

information is gathered, collected

actions and recourses taken by the

or stored. When issued by the

petitioner to secure the data or

Supreme

its

information; (d) The location of the

returnable

files, registers or databases, the

before such Court or any justice

government office, and the person

thereof, or before the Court of

in

Appeals or the Sandiganbayan or

control of the data or information, if

any

any

known; (e) The reliefs prayed for,

Regional Trial Court of the place

which may include the updating,

where the petitioner or respondent

rectification,

resides,

destruction

justices,

of

Court
it

its

or

or

may

be

justices,

that

any

or

of

to

which

has

jurisdiction over the place where

charge,

in possession

of

or

in

suppression

or

the

or

database

information or files kept by the

respondent. In case of threats, the

officer or by a person deputized by

relief may include a prayer for an

the court, justice or judge who shall

order enjoining the act complained

retain a copy on which to make a

of; and (f) Such other relevant

return of service. In case the writ

reliefs as are just and equitable.

cannot be served personally on the

SEC. 7. Issuance of the Writ. - Upon

respondent,

the filing of the petition, the court,

substituted

justice or judge shall immediately

SEC. 10. Return; Contents. - The

order the issuance of the writ if on

respondent

its face it ought to issue. The clerk

written

of court shall issue the writ under

supporting affidavits within five (5)

the seal of the court and cause it to

working days from service of the

be served within three (3) days

writ,

from the issuance; or, in case of

reasonably extended by the Court

urgent necessity, the justice or

for justifiable reasons. The return

judge may issue the writ under his

shall, among other things, contain

or her own hand, and may deputize

the

any officer or person serve it. The

defenses such as national security,

writ shall also set the date and

state

time for summary hearing of the

communications, confidentiality of

petition which shall not be later

the source of information of media

than ten (10) work days from the

and

date of its issuance. SEC. 8. Penalty

respondent

for Refusing to Issue or Serve the

possession or in control of the data

Writ. - A clerk of court who refuses

or

to issue the writ after its allowance,

petition; (i) a disclosure of the data

or a deputized person who refuses

or information about the petitioner,

to

the

serve

the

same,

shall

be

the

rules

service
shall

file

return

which

shall
a

following:

verified

(a)

The

privileged

In

in

charge,

of

be

lawful

(b)

information

with

may

secrets,

nature

apply.

together

period

others;

on

subject

such

case

of

data

of
in
the

or

punished by the court, justice or

information, and the purpose for its

judge

without

collection; (ii) the steps or actions

disciplinary

taken by the respondent to ensure

actions. SEC. 9. How the Writ is

the security and confidentiality of

Served. - The writ shall be served

the data or information; and, (iii)

upon the respondent by a judicial

the currency and accuracy of the

for

prejudice

contempt
to

other

data or information held; and, (c)

complaint; (g) Reply; (h) Motion to

Other allegations relevant to the

declare respondent in default; (i)

resolution of the proceeding. A

Intervention; (j) Memorandum; (k)

general denial of the allegations in

Motion

the petition shall not be allowed.

interlocutory

SEC. 11. Contempt. - The court,

relief orders; and (l) Petition for

justice or judge may punish with

certiorari, mandamus or prohibition

imprisonment or fine a respondent

against

who commits contempt by making

SEC. 14. Return; Filing. - In case the

a false return, or refusing to make

respondent fails to file a return, the

court, justice or judge shall proceed

return;

otherwise

or

any

person

disobeys

or

who

resist

to

for

reconsideration
orders

any

hear

or

interim

interlocutory

the

petition

of

ex

order.

parte,

lawful process or order of the court.

granting the petitioner such relief

SEC. 12. When Defenses May be

as the petition may warrant unless

Heard in Chambers. - A hearing in

the court in its discretion requires

chambers may be conducted where

the petitioner to submit evidence.

the

the

SEC. 15. Summary Hearing. - The

defense that the release of the

hearing on the petition shall be

data or information in question

summary.

shall compromise national security

justice or judge may call for a

or state secrets, or when the data

preliminary conference to simplify

or information cannot be divulged

the

to the public due to its nature or

possibility of obtaining stipulations

privileged

13.

and admissions from the parties.

Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. -

SEC. 16. Judgment. - The court

The

shall render judgment within ten

respondent

invokes

character.

following

Sec.

pleadings

and

However,

issues

determine

to dismiss; (b) Motion for extension

petition is submitted for decision. If

of time to file return, opposition,

the allegations in the petition are

affidavit, position paper and other

proven by substantial evidence, the

pleadings; (c) Dilatory motion for

court

postponement; (d) Motion for a bill

complained

of particulars; (e) Counterclaim or

deletion,

cross-claim;

rectification of the erroneous data

Third-party

the

enjoin
of,

or

time

the

(10)

shall

from

court,

motions are prohibited: (a) Motion

(f)

days

and

the

the

the

act

order

the

destruction,

or

or information and grant other

order to the Supreme Court under

relevant reliefs as may be just and

Rule 45. The appeal may raise

equitable; otherwise, the privilege

questions of fact or law or both.

of the writ shall be denied. Upon its

finality,

the

judgment

shall

be

enforced by the sheriff or any

lawful

officers

as

may

be

designated by the court, justice or

judge within five (5) working days.
SEC. 17. Return of Service. - The
officer

who

executed

the

final

judgment shall, within three (3)

days from its enforcement, make a
verified return to the court. The
return shall contain a full statement
of the proceedings under the writ
and a complete inventory of the
database

or

information,

or

documents and articles inspected,

updated, rectified, or deleted, with
copies served on the petitioner and
the respondent. The officer shall
state

in

judgment

the
was

return

how

enforced

the
and

complied with by the respondent,

as well as all objections of the
parties regarding the manner and
regularity of the service of the writ.
SEC.

18.

Hearing

on

Officers

Return. - The court shall set the

return for hearing with due notice
to the parties and act accordingly.
SEC. 19. Appeal. - Any party may
appeal from the final judgment or

The period of appeal shall be five

(5) working days from the date of
notice of the judgment or final
order. The appeal shall be given
the same priority as in habeas
corpus and amparo cases. SEC. 20.
Institution of Separate Actions. The filing of a petition for the writ
of habeas data shall not preclude
the filing of separate criminal, civil
or administrative actions. SEC. 21.
Consolidation. - When a criminal
action is filed subsequent to the
filing of a petition for the writ, the
latter shall be consolidated with
the

criminal

action.

When

criminal action and a separate civil

action are filed subsequent to a
petition for a writ of habeas data,
the petition shall be consolidated
with

the

criminal

action.

After

consolidation, the procedure under

this Rule shall continue to govern
the disposition of the reliefs in the
petition. SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of
a Criminal Action. - When a criminal
action has been commenced, no
separate petition for the writ shall
be filed. The relief under the writ
shall be available to an aggrieved

party by motion in the criminal

the right to privacy in life, liberty or

case. The procedure under this

security of the victim.

Rule shall govern the disposition of

the reliefs available under the writ
23.

What is the writ of habeas

Substantive Rights. - This Rule shall

data? Habeas Data (1) Remedy (2)

not diminish, increase or modify

Available to any person (3) Whose

substantive

24.

right to life, liberty, and security (4)

Suppletory Application of the Rules

has been violated or is threatened

of Court. - The Rules of Court shall

with violation (5) By an unlawful

apply suppletorily insofar as it is

act or omission (6) of a public

not inconsistent with this Rule.

official or employee, or of a private

SEC. 25. Effectivity. - This Rule shall

individual or entity (7) Engaged in

take effect on February 2, 2008,

the gathering, collecting or storing

following its publication in three (3)

of data or information regarding

newspapers of general circulation.

the

of

habeas

The

writ

data.

rights.

of

habeas

SEC.

SEC.

data

was

conceptualized as a judicial remedy

enforcing the right to privacy, most
especially the right to informational
privacy of individuals.

The writ

operates to protect a persons right

to control information regarding
himself,

particularly

in

the

instances where such information

is being collected through unlawful
means in order to achieve unlawful
ends.

Needless

to

state,

an

indispensable requirement before

the privilege of the writ may be
extended is the showing, at least
by

substantial

evidence,

of

an

actual or threatened violation of

person,

family,

home

and

correspondence of the aggrieved

party. What rule governs petitions
for and the issuance of a writ of
habeas data? A.M. No. 08 The Rule
on

the

Writ

of

Habeas

Data

(116SC ), which was approved by

the SC on 22 January 2008. That
Rule shall not diminish, increase or
modify substantive rights. What is
the SCs basis in issuing the R
[ Constitution , Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5] ] .
ule? When does the Rule take
effect? The Rule takes effect on 2
February

2008,

following

its

publication in three (3) newspapers

of general circulation. Who may file
a petition for the issuance of a writ
of habeas data? (1) The aggrieved

party. (2)

However, in cases of

extralegal

killings

enforced

freedom of speech, of expression, or of

disappearances, the petition may

the press, or the right of the people

be filed by (a) Any member of the

peaceably to assemble and petition

immediate family of the aggrieved

the

party, namely: the spouse, children

grievances. [Art. III, Sec. 4] No person

and parents; or (b) Any ascendant,

shall be detained solely by reason of

descendant or collateral relative of

his political beliefs and aspirations.

the

[Art. III, Sec. 18(1)]

aggrieved

and

No law shall be passed abridging the

party

within

the

fourth civil degree of consanguinity

or

affinity,

in

default of

those

government

for

redress

of

Components

preceding

Speech, expression, and press include:

paragraph. Where can the petition

(1) Written or spoken words (recorded

be filed? (1) Regional Trial Court (a)

or not) (2) Symbolic speech (e.g.

where the petitioner respondent

wearing

armbands

resides, (b) or or that which has

protest)

Violation

jurisdiction not later than 15 days

Grooming Standards by labor union

from the filing of the petition. Yes.

members constitutes illegal strike and

It

thereforean

mentioned

can

in

be

the

done

when

the

as
of

symbol
the

unprotected

of

Hotels

speech.

of

[NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF Dusit Hotel Nikko

having the hearing in open court,

Chapter v. CA (2008)] (3) Movies

can it be done in chambers? the

Scope of Protected Freedoms Any and

defense that the release of the

all modes of protection are embraced

data or information in question

in the guaranty. It is reinforced by Sec.

shall compromise national security

18(1), Art. 3.

respondent

invokes

Instead

or state secrets , or when the data

or information cannot be divulged

a) Prior restraint (censorship)

PRIOR
RESTRAINT

to the public due to its nature or

(CENSORSHIP)

privileged character.

Censorship

G. Freedom of Expression
1. Concept and scope

exercise
expression

Concept
conditions

of

freedom

upon

the

the
of
prior

approval of the government.

The censor serves therefore as
the political, moral, social and

artistic arbiter for the people,

prohibiting the posting of decals

usually applying only his own

and stickers in mobile units like

subjective

in

cars and other moving vehicles

determining what is good and

[Adiong v. COMELEC (1992)] (4)

what isnot. General rules: (1)

Search, padlocking and sealing

Any system of prior restraints of

of

expression comes to the Court

publishers

bearing a heavy presumption

military authorities [Burgos v.

against

constitutionality,

Chief of Staff, supra] (5) An

giving the government a heavy

announcement of a public figure

burden to show justification for

to prohibit the media to issue a

the imposition of such restraint.

specific

kind

[New

[Chavez

v.

standards

its

York

v.

United

States

the

offices

of

(We

newspaper
Forum)

of

by

statement

Gonzales

(2006)]

(1971)] (2)There need not be

Examples of Constitutional Prior

total

Even

Restraint:

(1)

circulation

prohibits,

except

suppression.

restriction

of

constitutes

censorship.

Law

which

during

the

prescribed election period, the

[Grosjean v. American Press Co.,

making

of

speeches,

297

announcements

or

US

233]

Examples

of

Unconstitutional Prior Restraint

commentaries for or against the

(1) COMELEC prohibition against

election of any candidate for

radio

or

office [Gonzales v. COMELEC

from

(1969)] (2) Prohibition on any

issues

person making use of the media

scheduled

to sell or to give free of charge

commentators

newspaper

columnists

commenting
involved

on

in

the

plebiscite [Sanidad v. COMELEC

print space or air time

(1990)] (2) Arbitrary closure of a

campaign

or

radio

purposes

except

Broadcasting v. Dans (1985)]; or

COMELEC.

Ratio: police power

even when there is a legal

of State to regulate media for

justification, such as lack of

purpose

mayors

opportunity, time and space for

station

permit

[Eastern

[Newsounds

of

other

political
to

ensuring

campaigns.

for
the

equal

Broadcasting Network Inc. v. Dy

political

[National

(2009)] (3) COMELEC resolution

Press Club v. COMELEC (1992);

Osmena v. COMELEC (1998)] (3)

If

Movie censorship: the power of

conditioned

the MTCRB can be exercised

governments

only for purposes of reasonable

neither should it be subject to

classification,

censorship.

the governments subsequent

[NACHURA citing Gonzalez v.

chastisement. Examples of Valid

Katigbak (1985) and Ayer v.

Subsequent

Judge Capulong (1988)]

4) Near v. Minnesota, (1931):

Libel.

not

(a) When a nation is at war,

many things that might be said
in time of peace are such a
hindrance to its effort that their
utterance will not be endured so
long as men fight and that no
court

could

regard

them

as

protected by any constitutional

right (b) Actual obstruction to
the

governments

recruiting

service or the publication of the

sailing dates of transports or
the

number and

location

of

troops (c) Obscene publications

(d)

Incitements

violence

and

to

the

acts

of

overthrow

by force of orderly government

SUBSEQUENT
Concept:

PUNISHMENT

Freedom of speech

includes freedom after speech.

Without

this

assurance,

the

citizen would hesitate to speak

for fear he might be provoking
the vengeance of the officials
he has criticized (chilling effect).

criticism

is

not

to

be

on

the

consent,

then

Restraints:

Every

(1)

defamatory

imputation is presumed to be
malicious. [Alonzo v. CA (1995)]
Exceptions:

(a)

private

communication

in

the

performance of any legal, moral

or social duty (b) fair and true
report of any judicial, legislative
or other official proceedings (2)
Obscenity. The determination of
what is obscene is a judicial
function. [Pita v. CA (1989)] (3)
Contempt

for

criticism/publications tending to
impede, obstruct, embarrass or
influence

the

administering

courts
justice

in

in

pending suit or proceeding (sub

judice)

[People

(1939)]

(4)

irregularities

v.

Alarcon

Imputation
in

the

of

judiciary

must strike a balance between

the right to free press and the
reputation of judges. A reporter
is

prohibited

disregarding
reputation

from
a

without

recklessly
private
any

bona

fide effort to ascertain the truth

constitutes inciting to sedition.

thereof

Jurado

It suggests or incites rebellious

(1995)] (5) Right of students to

conspiracies or riots and tends

free speech in school premises

to stir up the people against the

must

constituted authorities,

[In

not

Re:

Emil

infringe

on

the

or to

schools right to discipline its

provoke

students

College

opposition

(2000)]

seek to silence the writer, which

Exceptions: (1) Fair comment on

is the sum and substance of the

matters of public interest. Fair

offense

comment is that which is true

[Espuelas

or, if false, expresses the real

Freedom of Expression and Libel

opinion of the author based

National community standard as

upon reasonable degree of care

basis of what is defamatory Not

and on reasonable grounds. (2)

belonging to a royal house does

Criticism of official conduct is

not

given the widest latitude. [US v.

community like ours which is

Bustos (1918)] CONTENT-BASED

both republican and egalitarian,

AND

such

[Miriam

Foundation

v.

CA

CONTENT-NEUTRAL

violence
groups

under

who

People

constitute

In

whether

REGULATIONS CONTENT-BASED

correct

RESTRICTIONS The regulation is

defamatory.

based on the subject matter of

standards

the utterance or speech.

Freedom of Expression

community, not to those of the

National

Security

fictitious

suicide

letter

were

newspapers
circulation

Where
photo

published
of

and
a
and
in

general
expressing

disappointments of the Roxas

administration and instructinga
fictitious wife to teach their
children to burn pictures of the
President,SCheld that such act

not,

(1951)]

libel.

ascription,
or

may

consideration.

v.

an

from

It
of

cannot
is
the

to

be
the

national

region that a court must refer

especially where a newspaper is
national in reach and coverage.
[Bulletin

Publishing

v.

Noel

(1988)]

Report

conduct

is

privileged

covered

by

press

of

official
and

freedom

Where the defamation is alleged

to have been directed at a
group/class, it is essential that
the

statement

must

be

so

sweeping or all-embracing as to

Public

apply to every individual in that

defamatory statement is false,

group or class, or sufficiently

no

specific so that each individual

relates

to

in the class or group can prove

unless

the

that the defamatory statement

concerned

proves

specifically pointed to him, so

statement

was

that he can bring the action

actual malice that is, with

separately,

knowledge that it was false or

if

need

be.

Interest

liability

Even

can

if

attach

official

if

it

conduct,

public

official
that

the

made

with

[Newsweek v. IAC (1986)] As

with

the

whether it was false or not.

size

of

increases,

these

the

groups

chances

for

reckless

the

New

recover damages on tortious

(1964)]

libel

CIRCULAR

elusive.

This

of

[Vasquez v. CA (1999) citing

members of such groups to

become

disregard

York

Times

SC

v.

Sullivan

ADMINISTRATIVE
NO.

08-2008

principle is said to embrace two

Implements a rule of preference

important public policies:

for the imposition of fine only

(1)

Where the group referred to is

rather

than

imprisonment

in

large, the courts presume that

libel

suits.

Freedom

of

no

Expression and the Right to

reasonable

take

the

literally

reader

statements
applying

would
as

to

so

Privacy Being a public figure

each

does not automatically destroy

individual member; and (2) The

in

limitation

would

privacy. The right to invade a

satisfactorily safeguard freedom

persons privacy to disseminate

of speech and expression, as

public info does not extend to a

well as of the press, effecting a

fictional

sound compromise between the

person, no matter how public a

conflicting

figure

on

liability

fundamental

toto

he/she

[Lagunzad

[MVRS

v.

DaWah

Freedom

Council

of

(2003)]

expression

Actual

the

Malice

Phil

Standard

for

Public Officials and Matters of

tofilm

right

representation

interests involved in libel cases.

Islamic

persons

v.
of

a
be.

(1979)]

speech

includes

and

of

may
Soto

to

and

freedom

producemotion

pictures and to exhibit them.

The

fact

that

production

is

such

film

Itcannot be inferred that such

commercial

act has "a dangerous tendency"

activity is not a disqualification

to

for

of

undermine the administration of

The

justice for the writer merely

be

exercised his constitutional right

invoked to resist publication and

to petition the government for

dissemination

redress

availing

speech
right

of

and

to

freedom

expression.

privacy

cannot

of

matter

of

belittle

the

of

court

or

legitimate

public interest.The intrusion is

grievance.

no more than necessary to keep

Fernandez (1957)] Freedom of

the film a truthful historical

Expression

account. Enrile is a public figure

Determination

because of his participation as a

standard

principal

native

actor

in

the

[Cabansag
and

v.

Obscenity
Community

Pictures
inhabitants

depicting
in

their

culminating events of the EDSA

native dresses as they appear

revolution. [Ayer Productions v.

and

Capulong (1988)] Freedom of

homelands are not obscene or

Expression

indecent.

and

the

live

in
The

their

native

pictures

in

Administration of Justice Due to

question merely depict persons

the delay in the disposition of

as they actually live, without

his

attempted

original

asked

for

case,

Cabansag
from

through

of

the

persons in unusual postures or

letter

dress. The aggregate judgment

addressed to the Presidential

of the Philippine community, the

Complaints

and

moral sense of all the people in

Commission

(PCAC).

President

help

presentation

Actions
was

the Philippines, would not be

charged for contempt because

shocked by photographs of this

such

type.

complaint

He

should

have

[People

Kottinger

been raised to the Secretary of

(1923)]

Justice or SC instead. SC ruled

portraying a life of a widow who

that

lost

for

his

act

to

be

her

v.

hula-hula
guerrilla

dance
husband

contemptuous, the danger must

cannot be considered protected

cause a serious imminent threat

speech if the audience, about a

to the administration of justice.

hundred

customers,

were

howling and shouting, sigue

would purport to differ from or

muna, sigue nakakalibog (go

be

ahead first, go ahead, it is

tolerance, is NULL and VOID.

erotic), during the performance.

CPR serves no valid purpose if it

[People

means

v.

Aparici

(1955)]

in

lieu

the

of

maximum

same

thing

as

CONTENT-NEUTRAL

maximum tolerance (Sec. 3 [c]

RESTRICTIONS Regulations on

of B.P. 880), and is illegal if it

the incidents of speech time,

means

place and manner. Freedom of

Accordingly,

Assembly The right to freedom

followed is and should be that

of speech and to peaceably

mandated by the law itself,

assemble,

namely,

and

government

is

maximum

to

be

tolerance.

B.P. 880 not unconstitutional

fundamental

B.P. No. 880 is not an absolute

personal rights of the people

ban of public assemblies but a

guaranteed by the constitutions

restriction that simply regulates

of democratic countries. City or

the time, place and manner of

town mayors are not conferred

the assemblies. The law is not

the power to refuse to grant the

vague or overbroad. There is,

permit, but only the discretion

likewise, no prior restraint, since

in

to

the content of the speech is not

determine or specify the streets

relevant to the regulation. A fair

or public placeswhere the

parade may pass or

and impartial reading of B.P. No.

are

issuing

the

redress

the

what

else.

of

grievances

for

petition

something

permit

the

meeting may be held. [Primicias

v. Fugoso (1948)] Absent any
clear and present danger of a
substantive

evil,

peaceable

assembly in public places like

streets

or

denied.
Bagatsing
Calibrated

parks
[J.B.L.

cannot

be

Reyes

v.

(1983)]

The

Pre-emptive

Response (CPR), insofar as it

880 thus readily shows that it

refers to all kinds of public
assemblies

that

would

use

public places. Freedom Parks

B.P. 880 provides that every city
and municipality must set aside
a

freedom

months

park

from

within
the

six
laws

effectivity in 1985. Section 15 of

the

law

provides

for

an

alternative forum through the

creation of freedom parks where

tolerance prescribed by the law.

no prior permit is needed for

[Bayan

v.

Ermita

peaceful assembly and petition

Freedom

of

Association

at

Self-Organization Proscription of

any

time.

Without

such

(2006)]
and

alternative forum, to deny the

Terrorist

permit would in effect be to

Association,

deny the right to peaceably

Persons.

assemble.

Application

association, or group of persons

There is a need to address the

organized for the purpose of

situation

by

engaging in terrorism, or which,

petitioners where mayors do not

although not organized for that

act on applications for a permit

purpose, actually uses the acts

and when the police demand a

to terrorize mentioned in this

permit and the rallyists could

Act or to sow and create a

not produce one, the rally is

condition

immediately dispersed. In such

extraordinary fear and

among the populace in order to

Permit
adverted

situation,

as

consequence
maximum

and

tolerance,

to

necessary
part

Organizations,
or

Group

Any

of

of

organization,

widespread

and
panic

of

coerce the government to give

rallyists

in to an unlawful demand shall,

who can show the police an

upon

application duly filed on a given

Department of Justice before a

date can, after two (2) days

competent Regional Trial Court,

from

with due notice and opportunity

said

date,

accordance

with

rally

in
their

to

be

application

heard

of

given

the

to

application without the need to

organization,

show a permit, the grant of the

group of persons concerned, be

permit being

then presumed

declared

under the law, and it will be the

outlawed

burden of the authorities to

association, or group of persons

show that there has been a

by the said Regional Trial Court.

denial of the application, in

[Sec. 17, Human Security Act]

which case the rally may be

The right to associate is not

peacefully dispersed following

absolute.

the

(1972)]

procedure

of

maximum

as

association,

the

terrorist

or
and

organization,

[People
The

right

v.
to

Ferrer
self-

organization shall not be denied

vague statute and to one which

to government employees. [Art.

is

IX-B, Sec. 2(5)] The right of the

possible chilling effect upon

people,

those

protected speech. The theory is

employed in the public and

that [w]hen statutes regulate

private sectors, to form unions,

or

associations,

readily

including

or

societies

for

overbroad

proscribe

because

speech

apparent

and

of

no

construction

purposes not contrary to law

suggests itself as a vehicle for

shall not be abridged. [Art. III,

rehabilitating the statutes in a

Sec. 8] It shall guarantee the

single

rights

transcendent

of

all

workers

selforganization,
bargaining

to

collective

prosecution,

society

value

of

the
to

all

constitutionally

and

negotiations,

protected expression is deemed

peaceful

concerted

to justify allowing attacks on

activities, including the right to

overly broad statutes with no

strike in accordance with law.

requirement

They

to

making the attack demonstrate

humane

that his own conduct could not

conditions of work, and a living

be regulated by a statute drawn

wage.

and

shall

security

of

be

entitled

tenure,

They

participate

in

person

also

with narrow specificity.

policy

and

possible

processes

permitting

to

some

society

in

unprotected

speech to go unpunished is

benefits as may be provided by

outweighed by the possibility

law. [Art. XIII, Sec. 3(2), par. 2]

that the protected speech of

FACIAL CHALLENGES AND THE

others may be deterred and

OVERBREADTH

perceived

Rule:

rights

harm

The

and

General

their

the

shall

decision-making
affecting

that

DOCTRINE
A

party

can

fester

grievances

because

of

left

to

possible

question the validity of a statute

inhibitory effects of overly broad

only if, as applied to him, it is

statutes.

unconstitutional.

Exception:

not apply to penal statutes.

FACIAL

Criminal statutes have general

CHALLENGES A facial challenge

in terrorem effect resulting from

is allowed to be made to a

their very existence, and, if

Facial

Challenges

This rationale does

facial challenge is allowed for

punishable.

this reason alone, the State may

Fernandez (1957)] It is sufficient

well be prevented from enacting

if the natural tendency and the

laws against socially harmful

probable effect of the utterance

conduct. In the area of criminal

were

law,

substantive

the

law

cannot

take

[Cabansag

to

bring
evil

about

the

that

the

chances as in the area of free

legislative

speech.[Concurring Opinion of

prevent. [People v. Perez(1956)]

Justice Mendoza in Estrada v.

CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER

Sandiganbayan

TEST The question in every case

OVERBREADTH

(2001)]
DOCTRINE

body

v.

seeks

to

is whether the words used are

governmental purpose may not

used in such circumstances and

be achieved by means which

are of such a nature as to create

sweep

a clear and present danger that

unnecessarily

broadly

and thereby invade the area of

they

will

bring

about

the

protected freedoms.

substantive evils that Congress

has a right to prevent. It is a

A plain reading of PP 1017

question

shows that it is not primarily

degree.

directed to speech, rather it

States (1919)] This rule requires

covers a spectrum of conduct. It

that the danger created must

is a call upon the AFP to prevent

not only be clear and present

or suppress all forms of lawless

but also traceable to the ideas

violence. Facial challenge on the

expressed.

ground of overbreadth is a very

COMELEC

strong medicine. Petitioners did

test has been adopted by the

not

no

Philippine SC lock, stock and

instance when PP1017 may be

barrel and is the test most

valid. [David vs. Arroyo (2006)]

applied to cases re: freedom of

TESTS DANGEROUS TENDENCY

expression.

TEST If the words uttered create

INTEREST

a dangerous tendency of an evil

particular conduct is regulated

which the State has the right to

in the interest of public order,

prevent, then such words are

and the regulation results in an

show

that

there

is

of

proximity

[Schenck

v.

and
United

[Gonzales

(1969)]

Note:

BALANCING
TEST

When

v.
This

OF
a

indirect, conditional and partial

GRAVE-BUT-IMPROBABLE

abridgement

the

DANGER TEST To determine the

to

clear and present danger of the

of the two

utterances bringing about the

demands

evil which that legislature has

[American

the power to punish, "In each

duty

of

the

determine
conflicting
greater

of

speech,
courts

which
interests

protection.

Communications

is

Assoc.

v.

case [courts] must ask whether

Douds, 339 US 282] The test is

the

applied

legitimate

discounted by its improbability,

values not involving national

justifies such invasion of free

security

compete.

speech as is necessary to avoid

[Gonzales v. COMELEC (1969)]

the danger." In this case, an

DIRECT INCITEMENT TEST The

attempt

constitutional

Government

when

two

crimes

guarantees

of

gravity

of

to

the

'evil,'

overthrow
by

force

the
is

free speech and free press do

sufficient evil for Congress to

not permit a State to forbid or

prevent. It is the existence of

proscribe advocacy of the use of

the conspiracy which creates

force or of law violation except

the

where such advocacy is directed

(1951)] MILLER TEST (CCA-SL)

to

To

inciting

or

producing

danger.

[Dennis

determine

v.

obscenity:

US
(1)

imminent lawless action and is

Whether the average person,

likely to incite or produce such

applying

action. [Brandenburg v. Ohio

Community

(395

find that the work, taken as a

U.S.

444)]

Political

Contemporary
standards

discussion even among those

whole,

Appeals

opposed

interest

(2) Whether the work

depicts

or

to

administration

the
is

present

within

the

to

would

describes

prurient
in

protective clause of freedom of

patently offensive way, sexual

speech

The

conduct Specifically defined by

same cannot be construed as

the applicable state law (3)

subversive activities per se or

Whether the work, taken as a

as evidence of membership in a

whole, Lacks serious, literary,

subversive

organization.

artistic, political, or scientific

[Salonga v. Cruz Pao(1986)]

value [Miller v. CA (1973) also

and

expression.

applied

in

Fernando

CA

TYPES OF MASS MEDIA (1) The

(2006)] O BRIEN TEST (C-GUN)

ownership and management of

To determine whether Content-

mass media shall be limited to

Based or Content- Neutral: (1) If

citizens of the Philippines, or to

it is within the Constitutional

corporations,

power of the Government (2) If

associations, wholly-owned and

it

managed by such citizens. The

furthers

an

v.

important

or

cooperatives

substantial Government interest

Congress

(3) If the Government interest is

prohibit

Unrelated to the suppression of

commercial mass media when

free

expression

incidental

(4)

restriction

shall

regulate

or

monopolies

or
in

If

the

the public interest so requires.

is

No

No combinations in restraint of

greater than is essential to the

trade

furtherance

therein shall be allowed. (2) The

of

COMELEC

that

interest

banned

the

or

unfair

advertising

competition

industry

is

publication of surveys 15 and 7

impressed with public interest,

days

election

and shall be regulated by law

concerning national and local

for the protection of consumers

candidates, respectively. The SC

and

held

general welfare. Only Filipino

prior

that

to

this

regulation

is

the

promotion

citizens

the 3rd prong of the O-Brien

associations at least seventy

Test, it actually suppresses a

per centum of the capital of

whole class of expression, while

which is owned by such citizens

allowing

shall be allowed to engage in

expression

of

corporations

the

contentbased because applying

the

or

of

or

opinion concerning the same

the advertising industry.

subject matter by other opinion

participation of foreign investors

takers. The prohibition may be

in the governing body of entities

for

the

in such industry shall be limited

of

to their proportionate share in

expression is direct, absolute,

the capital thereof, and all the

and

v.

executive and managing officers

STATE

of such entities must be citizens

limited

curtailment

of

time,

but

the

right

substantial.

COMELEC
REGULATION

[SWS

(2001)]
OF

DIFFERENT

The

of the Philippines. [Art. XVI, Sec.

published

11(1)]

character. What is protected is

The Court pronounced that the

freedom of broadcast media is
lesser in scope than the press
because

of

their

pervasive

presence in the lives of people

and

because

of

their

accessibility to children. MOVIE

CENSORSHIP
rated

the

When
movie,

MTRCB

Kapit

sa

Patalim as fit For Adults Only,

SC ruled that there was no
grave

abuse

Censorship

is

of

discretion.

allowable

only

under the clearest proof of a

clear and present danger of a
substantive evil to public safety,
morals, health or any other
legitimate public interest: (1)
There should be no doubt what
is feared may be traced to the
expression complained of.

(2)

Also, there must be reasonable

apprehension

about

its

imminence. It does not suffice

that

the

danger

is

only

probable. [Gonzales v. KalawKatigbak

(1985)]

Limited

intrusion into a persons privacy

is permissible when that person
is

public

information

figure

and

the

sought

to

be

the

is

right

to

of

be

public

free

from

unwarranted publicity, from the

wrongful

publicizing

of

the

private affairs of an individual

which are outside the realm of
public

concern.

[Ayer

Productions v. Capulong, supra]

TELEVISION

CENSORSHIP

P.D.

1986 gave MTRCB the power to

screen, review and examine all
television programs.

By the

clear terms of the law, the

Board

has

the

power

to

approve, delete, or prohibit the

exhibition

and/or

television

broadcasts

of

television

programs. The law also directs

the

Board

contemporary

to

apply

Filipino

culture

values as standard to determine

those which are objectionable
for

being

immoral,

indecent,

contrary to law and/or good

customs

injurious

to

the

prestige of the Republic of the

Philippines and its people, or
with a dangerous tendency to
encourage the commission of a
violence or of a wrong or a
crime. The law gives the Board
the power to screen, review and
examine

ALL

television

programs

whether

religious,

UNIDO must seek a contract

public

affairs,

news

with these TV stations and radio

documentary, etc. (Ubilex non

stations at its own expense.

distinguit nec

de

[UNIDO v. COMELEC (1981)] The

bemos-when the law does not

television camera is a powerful

make any exception, courts may

weapon which intentionally or

not

something

inadvertently can destroy an

therefrom). [Iglesia ni Cristo v.

accused and his case in the

CA

Also,

eyes of the public. Considering

notwithstanding the fact that

the prejudice it poses to the

freedom of religion has been

defendants right to due process

accorded

status,

as well as to the fair and orderly

Iglesiani Cristos program is still

administration of justice, and

not

considering

distinguere

except
(1996)]

preferred

exempt

from

MTRCBs

further

that

the

power to review. Freedom of

freedom of the press and the

expression and of the press has

right

not been declared of preferred

information may be served and

status.

[MTRCB

v.

satisfied

(2005)]

On

program

Dating

the

Daan,

ABS-CBN

Soriano

of

made

of

the
by

degrading

people

less

to

distracting,

and

prejudicial

means, live radio and television

crude remarks like lihitimong

coverage

anak ng demonyo, sinungaling,

proceedings

shall

not

be

etc.

allowed.

video

shots

or

MTRCB

preventively

of
No

the

court

suspended him and his show.

photographs shall be permitted

SC held that the State has a

during

compelling interest to protect

footages of court hearings for

the minds of the children who

news purposes shall be limited

are exposed to such materials.

and

[Soriano v. Laguardia (2009)]

Justice

The SC could not compel TV

(2001)] RADIO CENSORSHIP The

stations

stations,

SC does not uphold claim that

being indispensable parties, to

Far Eastern had no right to

give UNIDO free air time as they

require the submission of the

were not impleaded in this case.

manuscript. It is the duty of Far

and

radio

the

trial

restricted.
v.

proper.Video

[Secretary

of

Sandiganbayan

Eastern

to

the

U.S. has been accorded First

submission of a manuscript as a

Amendment protection but not

requirement

broadcasting

in the same level of protection

speeches. Besides, laws provide

given to political speech. One

for

case set down the requirements

such

require
in

actions:

Act

8130.

Franchise for Far Eastern; radio

for

to be open to the general public

speech: (1) speech must not be

but

false, misleading or proposing

subject

to

regulations

protection

commercial

Comm. Act 98. Sec. of Interior

an

and/or

is

government interest sought to

empowered to censor what is

be served by regulation must be

considered

substantial;

the

Radio

Board

neither

moral,

illegal

of

activity;

(2)

(3) the regulation

educational or entertaining, and

must

prejudicial to public interest.

interest; and (4) the regulation

The Board can forfeit the license

must not be overbroad. [Bernas]

of a broadcasting station. Sec.

PRIVATE

of the Interior, Dept. Order 13.

SPEECH Parliamentary immunity

Requires

daily

guarantees the members the

reports to Sec. of Interior/Radio

freedom of expression without

Board

fear of being made responsible

submission

re:

airing.

of

programs
For

before

speeches,

advance

V.

government

GOVERNMENT

in criminal or civil actions before

manuscript or short gist must

courts

be submitted. [Santiago v. Far

Congress. But this does not

Eastern

protect them from responsibility

Strict

Broadcasting

rules

outside

of

from the legislative body. The

allowed for radio because of its

members may nevertheless be

pervasive quality and because

questioned in Congress itself.

of the interest in the protection

For

of

Pacifica

members of the Congress have

Foundation

(1978)]

been, or could be censured,

COMMERCIAL

SPEECH

committed

Commercial
unprotected

[FCC

also

forum

been

children.

have

(1941)]

or

v.

speech

is

speech.

Commercial advertising in the

unparliamentary

to

conduct,

prison,

even

expelled by the votes of their

colleagues.

[Osmea

Pendatun (1960)]

v.

HECKLERS VETO An attempt to

forever be allowed. No religious

limit

For

test shall be required for the

example, an unpopular group

exercise of civil or political rights.

unpopular

speech.

wants to hold a rally and asks

for a permit. The government
isnot

allowed

to

refuse

the

TWO CLAUSES IN SECTION 5:

permit based upon the beliefs of

The

the

applicants.

government

can

distinction

clauses is apparent - a violation of the

deny

the

free exercise clause is predicated on

because

clause

government

of

two

the

coercion

disapproves

the

But

permit, reasoning that it isnot

the

between

the

group's

message, it is just afraid that so

while

the

violation

establishment

need

not

be

so

attended. [Abington School District v.

Schemp (1963)]

many people will be outraged

that

there

might

be

violent

protests. Under the Free Speech

No law shall be made respecting an

Clause of Sec. 4 Art. III, the

establishment of religion. [Art. III, Sec.

government may not silence

5]

speech based on the reaction

(or anticipated reaction) of a
hostile audience, unless there is
a "clear and present danger" of
grave

and

imminent

harm,

which isnot easy to prove.

made

establishment
prohibiting

respecting

an

religion,

or

of

the

free

enjoyment of religious profession

worship,

governmental

compulsion

and

is

violated by the enactment of laws

which establish

an official

religion

not.

[Abington

School

District

v.

Schemp (1963)]
CONCEPT

exercise

thereof. The free exercise and

and

not depend upon any showing of direct

coerce non-observing individuals or

ARTICLE III, Section 5. No law

be

The Non-establishment clause does

whether those laws operate directly to

H. Freedom of Religion

shall

1. Non-establishment clause

without

discrimination or preference, shall

The

clause

government

prohibits

excessive

entanglement

with,

endorsement or disapproval of religion

[Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers

The government promotes the full

Union (1974)]

growth of the faculties of every child.

For this purpose, the government will

BASIS

establish, whenever possible:

Rooted in the separation of Church

(1) Schools in

and State [Sec. 6, Art. II, Sec. 2(5), Art.

municipality

IX-C; Sec. 5(2), Sec. 29(2) Art. VI, 1987

optional

Consti]

every barrio,

and

city

religious

where

instruction

shall be taught as part of the

ACTS PERMITTED BY THE NON-

curriculum at the option of the

ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

parent or guardian xxx [Art.

(1) Operation of Sectarian Schools

359, Civil Code]

Educational institutions, other than

Religion may be taught in public

those established by religious groups

schools subject to the following

and mission boards, shall be owned

requisites:

solely by citizens of the Philippines or

a.

corporations or associations at least

student and guardians;

sixty per centum of the capital of

which is owned by such citizen xxx
[Art. XIV, Sec. 4(2)]
(2)

Religious

in

Public

Schools
At the option expressed in writing by
the parents or guardians, religion shall
be allowed to be taught to their
children or wards in public elementary
and high schools within the regular
class hours by instructors designated
or

approved

by

the

religious

authorities of the religion to which the

children

or

wards

belong,

without

additional cost to the Government.

[Art. XIV, Sec. 3(3)]

written

option

of

the

b. Taught within regular school hours;

c.

Instruction

Express

Instructors

approved

by

are

designated

the

proper

and

religious

authorities; and
d.

Without

additional

cost

to

the

government.
(3) Tax Exemption
Charitable institutions, churches and
personages or convents appurtenant
thereto,

mosques,

non-profit

cemeteries, and all lands, buildings,

and improvements,actually, directly,
and exclusively used for religious,
charitable, or educational purposes

shall be exempt from taxation. [Art. VI,

No public money or property shall be

Sec. 28(3)]

appropriated,

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP

OF NUEVA SEGOVIA V. THE
PROVINCIAL BOARD OF ILOCOS
NORTE, ET AL.
G.R.
No.
L-27588
December 31, 1927

FACTS:
The
Roman
Catholic
Apostolic Church is the owner of a
parcel of land in San Nicolas, Ilocos
Norte. On the south side is a part of
the Church yard, the convent and
an adjacent lost used for a
vegetable garden in which there is
a stable and a well for the use of
the convent. In the center is the
remainder of the churchyard and
the Church. On the north side is an
old cemetery with its two walls still
standing, and a portion where
formerly stood a tower. The
provincial board assessed land tax
on lots comprising the north and
south side, which the church paid
under protest. It filed suit to
recover the amount.
are
tax

HELD: YES. The exemption in favor

of the convent in the payment of
land tax refers to the home of the
priest who presides over the church
and who has to take care of himself
in order to discharge his duties.
Thus, the exemption must include
not only the land actually occupied
by the Church but also the adjacent
ground destined to the ordinary
(4) Public Aid To Religion

paid,

or

employed, directly or indirectly, for

the use, benefit, or support of any
sect, church, denomination, sectarian
institution, or system of religion, or of
any priest, preacher, minister, other
religious teacher, or dignitary as such,

AVANCEA, J.:

ISSUE: Whether the lots

covered by the Churchs
exemption

applied,

except when such priest, preacher,

minister, or dignitary is assigned to
the armed forces, or to any penal
institution, or government orphanage
or leprosarium. [Art. VI, Sec. 29(2)]
Government aid may be allowed
subject

to

the

following

requisites:
1. Must be for a secular purpose;
2. Its primary effect must not inhibit or
advance any religion; and
3. No excessive entanglement with
recipient institutions.

AGLIPAY V. RUIZ
G.R. No. L-45459
March 13, 1937

GARCES V. ESTENZO
G.R. No. L-53487 May 25, 1981
AQUINO, J.:

LAUREL, J.:
FACTS: Petitioner Aglipay, the head
of the Philippine Independent
Church, filed a writ of prohibition
against
respondent
Ruiz,
the
Director of Post, enjoining the latter
from issuing and selling postage
stamps commemorative of the
Thirty-third International Eucharistic
Congress organized by the Roman
Catholic Church. The petitioner
invokes that such issuance and
selling, as authorized by Act 4052
contemplates religious purpose
for the benefit of a particular sect
or church. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether the issuing and
HELD: YES. The issuing and selling
of commemorative stamps by the
respondent does not contemplate
any favor upon a particular sect or
church, but the purpose was only
to advertise the Philippines and
attract more tourist and the
government just took advantage of
an
event
considered
of
international importance, thus, not
violative of the constitutional

FACTS: Pursuant to Resolution No. 5

of the Barangay Council of Valencia,
Ormoc City, a wooden image of San
Vicente Ferrer was acquired by the
barangay council with funds raised
by means of solicitations and cash,
duly ratified by the barangay
assembly in a plebiscite, reviving
the
traditional
socio-religious
celebration of the feast day of the
saint.
The image was brought to the
Catholic parish church during the
saint's feast day. After the fiesta,
however, petitioner parish priest,
Father Osmea, refused to return
custody of the image to the council
on the pretext that it was the
property of the church because
church funds were used for its
acquisition until after the latter, by
resolution, filed a replevin case
against the priest and posted the
required bond.
Thereafter, the parish priest filed an
action for annulment of the
council's resolutions relating to the
subject image contending among
others that they contravened the

ISSUE: Whether the barangay

council's resolution providing for
purchase of saint's image with
private funds in connection with
barangay fiesta, constitutional

(3) Religious displays in public spaces:

HELD: YES. Resolution No. 5 which

provided for: (I) the acquisition of
the image of San Vicente Ferrer;
and (2) the construction of a
waiting shed as the barangay's
projects, does not directly or
indirectly establish any religion, nor
abridge
religious
liberty,
nor
appropriate money for the benefit
of any sect, priest or clergyman.
The image was purchased with
private funds, not with tax money.
The construction of the waiting
shed is entirely a secular matter.
The wooden image was purchased
in connection with the celebration
of the barrio fiesta honoring the
patron saint, San Vicente Ferrer,
and not for the purpose of favoring
any religion or interfering with
religious beliefs of the barrio
residents.
As
noted
in
the
resolution, the barrio fiesta is a

being

ACTS

NOT

PERMITTED

BY

THE

NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
(1) Prayer and Bible-reading in public
schools [Engel v. Vitale (1967)]
(2)

Financial

subsidy

for

parochial

schools [Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)]

Display of granite monument of 10

commandments
courthouse

is

in

front

of

unconstitutional

unmistakably

a
for

non-secular.

[Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282

(11th Cir. 2003)]
(4) Mandatory religious subjects or
prohibition

of

secular

subjects

(evolution) in schools [Epperson v.

Arkansas (1968)]
(5) Mandatory bible reading in school
(a form of preference for belief over
non-belief) [School District v. Schempp
(1963)]
(6) Word God in the Pledge of
Allegiance:

religious

vs

atheist

students [Newdow vs. US (2003)]

TEST
What

are

the

purpose

and

the

primary effect of the enactment? To

withstand

the

strictures

of

the

Establishment Clause there must be a

secular legislative purpose and a
primary

effect

advances

nor

that

neither

inhibits

religion.

[Abington School District v. Schemp

(1963)]
2. Free exercise clause

No law shall be made x x x prohibiting

the State. The inherent police power

the free exercise thereof. [Art. III, Sec.

can be exercised to prevent religious

5]

practices inimical to society. This is

Its purpose

is to

secure

religious

liberty in the individual by prohibiting

any

invasions

thereof

by

civil

authority. Hence it is necessary in a

free exercise case for one to show the
coercive effect of the enactment as it
operates against him in the practice of
his religion. [Abington School District
v. Schemp (1963)]
DUAL ASPECT
(1) Freedom To Believe absolute

true

even

pursued

if

out

such
of

practices

sincere

are

religious

conviction and not merely for the

purpose of evading the reasonable
requirements or prohibitions of the
law.

[Re:

Request

Of

Muslim

Employees In The Different Courts In

Iligan City (2005)]
3. Tests
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
TEST
In orderto justify restraint the court

The individual is free to believe (or

must

disbelieve) as he pleases. However

expression presets a clear and present

absurd his beliefs may be to others,

danger of any substantive evil, which

even if they be hostile and heretical to

the

the majority, he has full freedom to

[American Bible Society v. City of

believe as he pleases. He may not be

Manila (1957)]

required to prove his beliefs. He may

not be punished for his inability to do
so. [Re: Request Of Muslim Employees
In The Different Courts In Iligan City
(2005)]
(2) Freedom To Act On Ones Belief
subject to regulation
Where the individual externalizes his
beliefs in acts or omissions that affect
the public, his freedom to do so
becomes subject to the authority of

determine

state

has

whether

right

the

toprevent.

American Bible Society V. City

of Manila
G.R. No. L-9637
April 30,
1957
FELIX, J.:
FACTS: Petitioner ABS is a foreign,
non-stock,
non-profit,
religious,
missionary
corporation
duly
registered and doing business in
the
Philippines
through
its
Philippine agency established in
Manila in November, 1898. During
the course of its ministry, plaintiff
sold bibles and other religious
materials at a very minimal profit.
On May 29, 1953, the City of Manila
informed plaintiff that the latter
was conducting the business of
general
merchandise
since
November 1945, without providing
itself with the necessary Mayor's
permit and municipal license, in
violation of Ordinance No. 3000.
The City of Manila required plaintiff
to secure the corresponding permit
and license fees, together with
compromise in the total sum of
P5,821.45. Plaintiff now questions
the imposition of such fees.
ISSUE: Whether the American Bible
Society is liable to pay sales tax for
the distribution and sale of bibles
HELD: NO. The act of distributing
and selling bibles, etc. is purely
religious and cannot be made liable
fortaxes or fees therein. Further,
Ordinance 2529, as amended,
cannot be applied to the Society,
for in doing so it would impair its
freeexercise and enjoyment of its
religious profession and worship
aswell as its rights of dissemination
of religious beliefs. The fact that
the price of the bibles and other

Furthermore, Ordinance 3000 of the

City of Manila is of general
application and it does not contain
any
provisions
whatsoever
prescribing religious censorship nor
restraining the free exercise and
enjoyment
of
any
religious
profession. The ordinance is not
applicable to the Society, as its
business, trade or occupation is not
particularly mentioned in Section3
of the Ordinance, and the record
does not show that a permit is
required therefor under existing
laws and ordinances for the proper
supervision and enforcement of
their provisions governing the
sanitation, security and welfare of
COMPELLING STATE INTEREST
TEST
Under

the

Benevolent

Neutrality

doctrine, this is the proper test where

conduct arising from religious belief is
involved.
(1) Has the government action created
a burden on the free exercise? Court
must look into sincerity (but not truth)
of belief.
(2) Is there a compelling state interest
to justify the infringement?
(3) Are the means to achieve the
legitimate state objective the least

intrusive? [Estrada v. Escritor (2003)]

ESTRADA V. ESCRITOR
A.M. No. P-02-1651
August
4, 2003
PUNO, J.:

FACTS: Escritor, a court interpreter,

while still married to another,
cohabited with Quilapio, who was

another.
Complainant
Estrada,
wanted the Court to declare
Ecritors relationship as immoral in
consonance with the pertinent
provision of the Administrative
Code. In her defense, Escritor
contended that under the rules of
the Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious
sect of whom she is a member, the
act of signing a Declaration
Pledging Faithfulness, is sufficient
to legitimize a union which would
otherwise
be
classified
as
adulterous and bigamous. That by
virtue of such act, they are for all
purposes, regarded as husband and
wife by the religious denomination.
Therefore,
insofar
as
the
congregation is concerned, there is
nothing
immoral
about
their
conjugal arrangement and they
remain members in good standing
in the congregation.
ISSUE: Whether respondent should
be
found
guilty
of
the
administrative charge of gross and
immoral conduct and be penalized
by the State for such conjugal
arrangement
HELD: The Court states that our
Constitution
adheres
to
the
benevolent neutrality approach that
gives room for accommodation of
religious exercises as required by
the Free Exercise Clause. This
benevolent neutrality could allow
for accommodation of morality
based on religion, provided it does
not
offend
compelling
state
interests.
The
states
interest
is
the
preservation of the integrity of the
judiciary by maintaining among its
ranks a high standard of morality
and decency. There is nothing in
the OCAs (Office of the Court

evidence on the compelling interest

of the state. The burden of
evidence should be discharged by
the
proper
agency
of
the
government which is the Office of
the Solicitor General.
In order to properly settle the case
at bar, it is essential that the
government
be
given
an
opportunity to demonstrate the
compelling state interest it seeks to
uphold
in
opposing
the
respondents position that her
conjugal
arrangement
is
not
immoral and punishable as it is
within the scope of free exercise
protection.
The Court could not
prohibit and punish her conduct
where the Free Exercise Clause
protects it, since this would be an
unconstitutional encroachment of
her right to religious freedom.
Furthermore, the court cannot
simply take a passing look at
respondents claim of religious
freedom but must also apply the
compelling state interest test.
The government must be heard on
the issue as it has not been given
an opportunity to discharge its
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR TEST

(1) There must be belief in God or a

parallel belief occupying a central
place in the believers life
(2) Religion must involve a moral code
transcending individual belief; cannot
be purely subjective
(3) Demonstrable sincerity in belief
must be shown, but court cannot
inquire into its truth or reasonableness
[United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163
(1965)]
(4) There must be some associational
ties. [Estrada v. Escritor (2003)]

I. Liberty of Abode and Freedom

of Movement
"Liberty"

as

democracies,

is

understood
not

license;

in
it

is

"Liberty regulated by law."

ARTICLE III, Section 6. The liberty
of abode and of changing the
same within the limits prescribed

Ground

for

exemption

from

by

law

shall

not

be

impaired

compulsory military service; expanded

except upon lawful order of the

version provides exemption even to

court. Neither shall the right to

those who object war based on non-

travel be impaired except in the

religious beliefs i.e. non-theist

interest

Criteria:

public safety, or public health, as

of

national

may be provided by law.

1. Limitations

security,

WHO

MAY

IMPAIR

AND

WHEN

RIGHTS MAY BE CURTAILED

Liberty of abode
Who: courts (lawful order)
When: within limits prescribed by law
The executive of a municipality does
not have the right to force citizens of
the Philippine Islands to change their
domicile from one locality to another.
[Villavicencio vs. Lukban (1919)]

VILLAVICENCIO V. LUKBAN
G.R. No. L-14639
March
25, 1919
MALCOLM, J.:
FACTS: Manila mayor, Justo Lukban
ordered the deportation of 170
prostitutes to Davao beyond the
latter's consent and knowledge and
thereafter were signed as laborers.
His reason for doing so was to
preserve the morals of the people
of Manila. In effect, Lukban forcibly
assigned them a new domicile.
Most of all, there was no law or
order
authorizing
Lukban's
deportation of the 170 prostitutes.
A writ of habeas corpus was filed
against the mayor on behalf of
those women.
ISSUE: Whether mayor Lukbans act
constitutes a violation of the
womens liberty of abode
HELD: YES. The mayor's acts were
not
legal.
His
intent
of
exterminating
vice
was
commendable, but there was no
law saying that he could force
filipino women to change their
domicile from manila to nother
place. The women, said the court,
although in a sense "lepers of
society" were still filipino citizens
and such they were entitled to the
constitutional enjoyed by all other
filipino citizens. The right to
freedom of domicile was such a
fundamental
right
that
its
suppression
could
considered
tantamount to slavery.
Right to travel
Who: courts (lawful order) or by the
appropriate executive officer.

When:

in

the

interest

of

national

security (Human Security Act), public

safety or public health (quarantine)
Relocation of Manguinaes, a nomadic
people, is a proper restraint to their
liberty. It is for their advancement in
civilization

and

so

that

material

prosperity may be assured. [Rubi v.

Provincial Board (1919)]
Restraint on right to travel of accused
on

bail

is

possibility

allowed
of

losing

to

avoid

the

jurisdiction

if

accused travels abroad. [Manotoc v.

CA (1986)]
MANOTOC V. COURT OF
APPEALS
G.R. No. L-62100 May 30, 1986
FERNAN, J.:

Petitioner contends that having

been admitted to bail as a matter
of right, neither the courts which
granted him bail nor the Securities
and Exchange Commission which
has no jurisdiction over his liberty
could prevent him from exercising
his constitutional right to travel.
ISSUE:
Whether
petitioners
constitutional right to travel has
been violated
HELD: NO. A court has the power to
prohibit a person admitted to bail
from leaving the Philippines. This is
a necessary consequence of the
nature and function of a bail bond.
The
condition
imposed
upon
petitioner to make himself available
at all times whenever the court
requires his presence operates as a
valid restriction on his right to
travel. Indeed, if the accused were
allowed to leave the Philippines
without sufficient reason, he may
be placed beyond the reach of the
courts. Petitioner has not shown the
necessity for his travel abroad.

FACTS: Petitioner was charged with

estafa. He posted bail. Petitioner
filed before each of the trial courts
a motion entitled, "motion for
permission to leave the country,"
stating as ground therefor his
desire to go to the United States,
"relative
to
his
business
transactions and opportunities."

2. Right to travel

Such
was
opposed
by
the
prosecution and was also denied by
the judges. He filed petition for
certiorari with CA seeking to annul
the prior orders and the Securities

Persons against whom are issued a

WATCH LIST ORDER

Issued against accused in criminal
cases
RTC

irrespective of nationality in
or

below),

any

person

with

pending case in DOJ.

Watch List Order (WLO) are placed on

watch lists and cannot leave the
country

without

first

seeking

the

clearance from the Department of

Justice (DOJ).
HOLD-DEPARTURE ORDER

Issued against accused in criminal

cases irrespective of nationality in
courts below RTC), aliens (defendant,

MARCOS V. MANGLAPUS
G.R. No. 88211
October
27, 1989

respondent, witness in pending civil or

EN BANC:

labor case), any person motu proprio

FACTS: Ferdinand E. Marcos was

deposed from the presidency and
was forced into exile. Corazon
Aquinos ascension into presidency

by Sec of Justice or request of heads of

departments, ConComm, Congress, or
Supreme Court
A

Hold

Departure

Order

(HDO)

prevents an individual from departing

from

the

Philippines.

It

is

much

tougher than a Watch List Order as it

automatically

bars

exit

through

international airports and seaports.

BOTH ORDERS are issued by the
Secretary

of

Justice

[Department

Circular no. 41, June 7, 2010].

3. Return to ones country
Right to return to one's country, a
distinct right under international law,
is independent from although related
to the right to travel.
The

President

has

the

power

(residual/implied) to impair the right to

return when such return poses threats
to

the

government.

Manglapus (1989)]

[Marcos

v.

attempts as well as by plots of

Marcos loyalists and the Marcoses
themselves.
Marcos,
in
his
deathbed, has signified his wish to
return to the Philipppines to die.
But President Aquino, considering
the dire consequences to the nation
of his return has stood firmly on the
decision to bar the return of Mr.
Marcos and his family. Hence, this
petition
for
mandamus
and
prohibition asks the Courts to order
the respondents to issue travel
documents to Mr. Marcos and the
immediate members of his family
and to enjoin the implementation of
the President's decision to bar their
return to the Philippines.
ISSUES: Whether the President has
the power to bar the return of
Marcos to the Philippines
HELD: YES. The request of the
Marcoses must not be treated only
in the light of constitutional
provisions, it must be treated as a
matter
that
is
appropriately
addressed
to
those
residual
unstated powers of the President
which are implicit in to the
paramount duty residing in that
office to safeguard and protect
general welfare. Such request or
demand should submit to the
exercise of a broader discretion on
the part of the President to
determine whether it must be
granted or denied.
It is found by the Court that from
the pleadings filed by the parties
and the facts revealed, that there
exist
factual
bases
for
the
President's decision. Hence, this act
cannot be said to have been done

Another reason of the Court...We

cannot also lose sight of the fact
that the country is only now
beginning to recover from the
hardships brought about by the
plunder of the economy attributed
to the Marcoses and their close
associates and relatives, many of
whom are still here in the
Philippines
in
a
position
to
destabilize the country, while the
Government has barely scratched
the surface, so to speak, in its