TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.! PLACE OF JUDICIAL POWER ............................................................................................ 2!
A.! In General ..................................................................................................................................... 2!
Cases: ..............................................................................................................................................................4!
B.! Case or Controversy Requirement: Elements ............................................................ 7!
Requisites for the exercise of judicial review.................................................................................8!
Cases: ..............................................................................................................................................................9!
II.! DUE PROCESS CLAUSE ................................................................................................... 13!
A.! Procedural Due Process....................................................................................................14!
B.! Old Substantive Due Process ..........................................................................................14!
C.! “New” Substantive Due Process ....................................................................................14!
D.! Protected Interests in Property .....................................................................................14!
Cases ........................................................................................................................................................... 15!
III.! EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE ..................................................................................... 27!
Requisites for valid classification .................................................................................................... 27!
Standards of Judicial Review ............................................................................................................ 28!
Cases ........................................................................................................................................................... 29!
IV.! FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ......................................................................................... 36!
WHY THE SAFEGUARD? .................................................................................................................... 36!
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II A.!
B.!
Protected Speech .................................................................................................................36!
Unprotected Speech ............................................................................................................37!
Cases ........................................................................................................................................................... 38!
Atty. Butch Jamon V.! CHURCH AND STATE: THE WALL OF SEPARATION ....................................... 51!
A.! Establishment Clause ..........................................................................................................51!
B.! Free Exercise Clause............................................................................................................51!
C.! Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices ....................................................................51!
Cases ........................................................................................................................................................... 52!
VI.! Unlawful Searches and Seizures ............................................................................... 60!
Cases ........................................................................................................................................................... 60!
VII.! ACADEMIC FREEDOM ................................................................................................... 62!
Cases ........................................................................................................................................................... 63!
VIII.! PROTECTED INTERESTS IN LIBERTY..................................................................... 64!
A.! Non-Impairment of Obligations of Contracts ............................................................64!
B.! Involuntary Servitude............................................................................................................64!
C.! Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt ....................................................................64!
D.! Right Against Self-incrimination ......................................................................................64!
CaseS ........................................................................................................................................................... 65!
IX.! SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION ......................................................... 66!
A.! Who are entitled to Constitutional Protection.........................................................66!
Juridical Persons .................................................................................................................................... 66!
B.! Who are subject to Constitutional Prohibitions ......................................................66!
State Action Requirement ................................................................................................................. 66!

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

I. PLACE OF JUDICIAL POWER law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
A. In General assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
{Const. Art. VIII, sec 1} relation thereto.
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower
courts as may be established by law. court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
!
reclusion perpetua or higher.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
is involved.
and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
* The power to exercise review power is not limited to the Supreme Court
instrumentality of the Government.
because it is also vested in such lower courts.
* If no more expeditious remedy after Motion for Reconsideration (Rule 65 –
* concept of judicial power is found in the second paragraph.
certiorari), go to the Supreme Court.
* The qualifications of Supreme Court judges are not subject
to change but the qualifications of lower courts may be.
Note: If the SC gravely abuses its discretion, the other branches of
There really has to be a duty to settle actual controversies.
government may invoke the separation of checks and balances

{Const. Art. VIII, sec 2} The Bill of Rights should be balanced with the power of the government.
The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the o Bill of Rights > Power of Government =
jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its anarchy
jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof. o Power of Government > Bill of Rights =
! autocracy
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the
security of tenure of its Members. The government cannot invoke the Bill of Rights for their interest (a limitation)
because it is for the people.
{Const. Art. VIII, sec 4(2)}
All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive Judicial Power Judicial Review
agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and Where vested
all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en
banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation Supreme Court & Lower courts
of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and
Definition
other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the
Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case Duty to settle actual controversies Power of the courts to test the
and voted thereon. involving rights which are legally validity of executive and
demandable and enforceable, and to legislative acts in light of their
determine whether or not there has been conformity with the Constitution
{Const. Art. VIII, sec 5(2)} a grave abuse of discretion amounting to [Angara v. Electoral Commission
Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part (1936)]
the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
of any branch or instrumentality of the
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of
Government [Art. VIII,Sec. 1, par. 2]
any treaty, international or executive agreement,

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Judicial Power Judicial Review

Requisites for exercise
Jurisdiction – Power to decide and hear a (1) Actual case or controversy
case and execute a decision thereof (2) Locus Standi
(3) Question raised at the earliest
opportunity
(4) Lis mota of the case

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

making the act invalid for violating the constitution. with Jurisdiction: Keywords: B-BOYZ. as they were the Court must decide on the kuya sa gabi invalid having been delivered after Adam's term. and utilization of public resources. two cognizance of the protest filed by Ynsua. two are subservient to it. MARBURY v Marbury was appointed by then President Adam. oil in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of HELD: YES. has the power to adjudicate actual and appropriate such with the principles Keyword: angara ng cases and controversies in order to see that no one branch or agency of the However. Angara filed a writ of prohibition against the Electoral Commission from taking In Angara.Jamon] . constitutional boundaries. the SC has judicial SC is the only constitutional powers to adjudicate mechanism devised to finally resolve HELD: ElecComm has the mandate from the Consitution. operation of each. equal branch of government can Electoral Commission and the subject matter of the present controversy for the only be tried by the SC when there purpose of determining the character. appointments. The Constitution is JUDICIAL POWER the law of the land and all other laws [will come out in the HELD: The petition was denied. This is contrary to Article III of the Constitution states it does not issue – the constitution have original jurisdiction. Congress. be left to the “whims and wants” of the investors. first district of Tayabas. it’s just the delivery Keywords: midnight of the commission finalizing his appointment that was in issue. which mandates that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over writs of conflicting laws were in test he says] mandamus. in controversies. Judicial supremacy also dictates that SC. where Madison compelling the latter to deliver his appointment commission. Two different bodies (ElecComm and HRET) issued two different resolutions regarding election contests. against Landmark case in the US. In Marbury. or other co- government transcends the Constitution. returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly * similar to issue in Onsiako-Reyes case [sir mentioned this would come out in the exam] A proclamation reserved a parcel of land of public domain in Bataan for “industrial estate purposes” for Petrochemical Industrial Zone under the SC has the power to invalidate acts ownership of the Philippine National Oil Company. thus dismissing the petition. acts of any other laid down in the buhay ni mayor constitutional bodies. The new If two laws conflict with each other. with the Supreme Court. scope and extent of the constitutional is evidence of GADELEJ grant to the Electoral Commission being the sole judge of all contests relating to the election. Ynsua. All the exercise judicial review powers MADISON are defined. as a justice of peace. Congress enacted the Judiciary Act of 1789. aligning COMM exercising judicial review. Issue is WON BOI GADELEJ clothing SC GARCIA v BOI government when they have acted committed GAD when they approved such transfer. The SC has jurisdiction over the Constitution. refused to honor the commissions. and and act by The constitution prevails. Castillo and Mayor conflicting agencies were candidates for the position of member of the National Assembly for the were involved. merely appellate jurisdiction over mandamus cases. The board cannot just arbitrarily allow the decision. the papers and proceedings have been complied with. Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . A mandamus was filed by Marbury. Angara. Issue is which body ought to Both cases show that give the deadline for the contests. The SC is the only actual and conflicts and allocate constitutional ANGARA v ELEC constitutional mechanism devised to finally resolve conflicts and allocate appropriate cases and boundaries. sawi si president. Thomas Jefferson. CASES: Case Facts & Ruling Doctrine Related cases Facts & Ruling Doctrine Related cases Antecedent fact: Congress enacted a law that gave original jurisdiction to the SC of mandamus. BOI approved the transfer of of tribunals/ other branches of Petrochem to Batangas as per the wishes of their investors. regarding the use jurisdiction.

Respondents claim that it is a different lease of the issues involved [Guingona] contract and that the agreement did not have to be submitted for public hearng because it fell within the exceptions under EO 301 questioning petitioner’s standing. Since GSIS refused to accept its bid security SC is the arbiter on how a Related to Marbury v Keywords: feeling to match the bid of the Malaysian group. What is principally involved is the wisdom of an act as opposed to J. maligalig merits of the case in view of its the people. sa putol trees enforcement of a right versus policies already formulated and expressed in which deals with legislation. other laws or Supreme Court decided in favor of MPH in pursuant of the Filipino First Policy proclamations. The Keywords: kilos ng ramifications of such issues affect the social. Issue WON the provision is self-executory. On the other hand. GUINGONA / respondents claim that it does not violate the Constitution. the Constitution over all Filipino first HELD: NO. of transcendental importance to the public of the issues involved. Guingona: Kilosbayan wanted to prohibit the implementation of a Contract of Lease executed by PCSO and PGMC. all three refers to acts The ramifications of such issues affect KILOSBAYAN v of agencies not found the social. VIII of 1987 consitution expanded SC’s enforceable/impaired rights jurisdiction to review the discretion of political departments when GADELEJ is When whoever enacts a law or alleged. Petitioners contend that an analysis of the contract shows that it is Related to Garcia. The second half of Sec 1 Art. found in the Constitution. a political question becomes justiciable. They unborn as valid also asserted the rights of their generation and the unborn to a balanced and healthful ecology and that the matter is of judicial notice. with authority to kilosbayan PCSO constitutional and public policy exercise Judicial underpinnings [Morato] contracts Morato: powers May be brushed aside by the court PCSO and PGMC signed an Equipment Lease Agreement for online lottery. Judicial question: OPOSA v FACTORAN P refers to questions on policy and Keywords: oposa sila HELD: The TLA’s involve a judicial question. to acquire 51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation. Kilosbayan sent an open A party’s standing is a procedural letter to President ramos opposing the on-line lottery system but it still pushed technicality that can be relaxed in through. MPH came to the Supreme Court on constitutional provision would be Madison: both referred prince si manila prohibition & mandamus. Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . Manila Prince Hotel. in a bid against Renong Berhad (a Malaysian firm).Jamon] . The Board of Investments are supposed to be a group of specialized body on economics or politics and the SC is not one that is knowledgeable about those subjects. spoiled brat. SC is arbiter on how a constitutional provision is to be interpreted. economic. PCSO issued a request for proposal of the Standing: contract and PGMC submitted its bid for evaluation. invoked the Filipino First policy found in Section 10 of Article XII of SUPREMACY GSIS the Constitution of the Philippines. policy is found to have done so with GADELEJ. interpreted to the supremacy of prince. view of transcendental importance KILOSBAYAN v PGMC that is the actual lotto operation and not PCSO. Political vs. Dissent [sir’s comment also]: GAD on the part of SC. to the public of the issues involved. which owns the CONSTITUTIONAL MANILA PRINCE v Manila Hotel. as a mere procedural technicality in Kilosbayan contended that the amended ELA was null and void for being the view of transcendental importance same with the old lease contract. Oposa on GADELEJ. economic. and moral well-being of Requires partial consideration of the STANDING: clothes SC kilos. and moral HELD: A party’s standing is a procedural technicality that can be relaxed in view in the constitution MORATO well-being of the people. Why should they replace the findings of the BOI Standing: SC allowed inter-generational The petitioners sought to enjoin the respondent Secretary of DENR from representation of generations yet approving and wanting to cancel all existing Timber License Agreements.

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . principals and supervisors merely passed the complaint around and that the 1st placer was tutored by a SANTIAGO v Grade 6 teacher during summer. Since it was already passed in Congress. SC is given Mapapagiwanan sa for granted the Filipino First Policy making the Philippines not have a self-reliant of the department/agencies jurisdiction to try the economy as per the 1987 Constitution. There is no proof that public funds are being spent. 1965. Respondents moved to dismiss the case on the basis that action BAUTISTA for certiorari was improper as question became academic on May 24. On December 14. Three days before graduation. The Committee for Rating Honor Students is neither judicial nor quasi-judicial body. To do so would automatically mean HELD: Where an action of the legislative branch is alleged to have infringed the amount to GAD on the part of the that the Constitution. It Keywords: Grade 6. one that limits. even though there is a bias towards Filipinos. it becomes not only the right but in fact that duty of the judiciary SC agency/legislative [will come out in the to settle the dispute. It is necessary that there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or property under which adverse claims are made and brought to tribunal with competent authority. 1965 with third honors. Thus. What is essentially being questioned is a private contract. The injunction was denied as graduation was the next day. seeking to nullify the ratification on the agreement. he and his parents sought to invalidate the final list of honor students in the Grade 6 for school year 1964-1965 as the respondents had prejudiced him. was granted. gara ng buhay if Phils prerogative. The senate voting to give its consent to the agreement is a legitimate exercise of its sovereign duty and power. is a sixth grader at Sero Elementary School scheduled to graduate on May 21. and violated the Service Manual for Teachers of the Bureau of Public Schools which provides the committee to select the honor students should be composed of all teachers in Grade 6 and 5.Jamon] . HELD: They do not have standing nor substantial interest to make them a real party because there is no constitutional question involved. The Constitution did not intend to place the Philippines in acted in GAD. The petitioner Teodoro Santiago Jr. test he says] isolation so it needs foreign investments. the judiciary has no power to rescind the award of the board of judges. Resolution no. SC cannot exercise case but does not did not participate judicial power. 1994. and impairs Philippine economic sovereignty and takes When acts are done within the ambit alleged. Petitioners Related to Oposo on Keywords: WTO filed a petition. 3rd honor LOL HELD: There was no actual controversy. 97 TANADA v ANGARA was adopted by the Philippine Senate to ratify the WTO Agreement. Navarro. signed the Uruguay Round Final Act. which stipulates that the Philippines agree to submit World Trade Organization Agreement. viewing it as Grave abuse of discretion: GADELEJ: When GAD is agreement. then Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry. restricts. There is no law for such nor did petitioner present pertinent provisions of the Manual which was violated by the Committee. it cannot be now a political question.

with discretionary power to act. B. Like Judge Hand. They should adapt standards for resolving it. There is no showing of grave abuse of discretion Congress. and dependable rights [note: there must be standing for a case to be tried] Triable by courts Not triable for violation of co-equal branches Concept in Constitutional Law Concept in Remedial Law of government Does not inflict direct damage to parties. damaged caused Refers to: (1) matters to be exercised by the Until and unless such actual or threatened injury is established. but calls for more than just a generalized have a right that was injured and act/measure and policies of the executive grievance. actual case Term Foreword: The Passive Virtues. 75 HARV. An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a grounds of expediency. ripeness. government. giving the presumption of regularity on the laws 3. More. thus undermining the will of 1. Impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent “It is the Court's function of declaring principled goals that the rule of the resolution without expressing lack of the respect due neutral principles would excise. mootness] L. giving them that much power? This is termed by Bickel to be “Counter-majoritarian” – the argument that judicial review is Guidelines for determining whether a question is political or not [from Estrada illegitimate because it allows unelected judges to overrule the v Desierto citing Baker v Carr]: lawmaking of elected representatives. So why are we 2. counter-majoritarian argument: 4. depreciate the function of the judges as "teachers to the citizenry. elected by the people nonetheless. with overtones of principle most of what the political institutions do merely on 5. 2. There is a textually demonstrable constitutional the majority.Jamon] . Potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question STANDING Justiciable Question Political Question Legal Standing Locus Standi Relate primarily to enforceable Relates usually to a political issue Vests jurisdiction to a court over a case. The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial Excerpt from the article justifying judicial review being under attack by the discretion. Mr. Wechsler appears to political decision already made. the petitioners people in their primary political capacity. and controversy." “ 6. Case or Controversy Requirement: Elements This means that there must be a genuine conflict of legal rights and interests which can be resolved through judicial determination. or will not be clothed with legal personality to raise constitutional questions (2) those specifically delegated to some other department or particular office of the [exception to the rule on standing: issues of transcendental importance] Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . commitment of the issue to a political department. the virtues of being passive. it would require the Court to validate coordinate branches of government. Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable SIR’S OPINION: SC should adapt the power of self-restraint. The issue is a political question. The Supreme Court 1960 Requisites for justiciability needs to be met [standing. REV 40 (1961) Problem is the 15 members of the SC has the power to The judiciary will not interfere with its co-equal branches when: declare unconstitutional the acts passed by over 300 members of 1. Alexander Bickel. You have to show that you really Talks of legality of an Talks of wisdom behind the laws of legislative.

consequences of a declaration of has yet to pose any danger or injury to people. OR Art. If what’s co-equal branches.e. (b) The situation is of exceptional character and paramount public interest is involved. or having been promulgated. Actual case and controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power: Taxpayer (1) Appropriation.Jamon] . (2) Disbursement • means that the case or controversy is (1) Direct injury. this is the doctrine of separation of powers which requires that due respect be given to the Ripeness: the controversy must be actual and ‘ripe’ for adjudication. City of Manila after thought to an earlier defense that may (2009)] have failed 4. Question of constitutionality raised at the earliest possible (1) Authorized. The issue of the constitutionality is the very lis mota of the case: RIPENESS & MOOTNESS: • Decision on the constitutional question must be Ripeness of the controversy: The issue must be raised not too early that determinative of the case itself. General Rule: Courts will not decide questions that have become moot and academic. 18 (on the appropriate for determination. REQUISITES FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW Special Rules on Standing: 1. (1) Litigants must have injury-in-fact. nor too late that it becomes moot. then it is not ripe for unconstitutionality. Standing: [check explanation above] Voter Right of suffrage is involved 3. The reason for it is conjectural or anticipatory. VII. [includes Citizen sufficiency of the factual basis for martial law or suspension concepts of ripeness and mootness check of the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus) explanation above] 2. (2) Litigants must have The question must be raised at the first court close relation to the third-party. (2) Public right. and with judicial review powers. the bar and the public. a opportunity: Legislator derivative suit) • The reckoning point is the first competent court. Exception: Courts will still decide if: (a) There is a grave violation of the Constitution. adjudication Mootness: When an act or promulgation have seized to have any legal effect. Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . [White Light v. Sec. (2) Affects legislative prerogatives (i. Reason for this is to Third-Party (3) There is an existing hindrance to the third party’s ability prevent the defense of unconstitutionality as an Standing to protect its own interest. ruling on such would not resolve any controversy and is done merely for academic purposes. and because of the grave being contested has not been promulgated. [transcendental importance] (c) [Symbolic Function] The constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench. and (d) The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

The price of commodity would be affected with public executive might be unlawfully money) to implement funds and petitioner. The trial judge dismissed the Taxpayer standing: Donations does nature of the funds being so. contended that RA 3452 prohibits importation of rice so they are acting without jurisdiction. standing In Hechanova. These laws provide that a permit should first be obtained from the Secretary of Education before any General rule on standing: PACU v SEC of person may be permitted to operate a private school. HELD: The People of the Philippines is a proper party in the proceedings Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . SolGen contends that Not falling within any of the EDCUATION petitioners have no legal standing because all of them have permits to exception on standing. “public funds” have any bearing. Vera claims laws. judicial assistance to restrain what he thinks is an attempt to unlawfully taxpayer standing is allowed disburse said funds. showing of injury from a ka affected law/regulation. 4221 but the Fiscal denied granting the probation for being in violation of equal protection. It was also not fall within the definition of being a tax payer does not Keywords: ARHT dami alleged that the EO is encroaching on the legislative department. The even gave money as war damage funds. a rice planter. Gonzales. CASES: Facts & Ruling Doctrine Related cases Actual case and controversy Standing The PACU assailed the constitutionality of Act no. that petition does not state sufficient facts. being a taxpayer. Unjieng was convicted of criminal charges and he filed an application for probation under Act no. 2706 because they regulate the ownership of private schools in the country. In Marcos. since the HECHANOVA as a taxpayer would prosper executive essentially uses Keywords: Rice HELD: Gonzales is entitled a chance to sell to the government the rice it now because in doing such. has sufficient personality to seek disbursing public funds. not tax. The Board of private donations and not Trustees accepted donations from private sectors and President Johnson GONZALES v from tax payer’s money. without the Keywords: PACyU di operate.Jamon] . projects for the people. Hechanova authorized the importation of foreign rice to be purchased. People is claiming that Vera does is a proper party when Keywords: sabog not have power to place accused under probation because Section 1 of the questioning the validity of its own judge Act applies only to provincial and not chartered cities like Manila. the funds being questioned came from Gonzales questioned the validity of EO 30 creating the CCP. Vera concluded that Unjieng is The Government of the Philippines PEOPLE v VERA innocent but denied petition for probation. Mere apprehension that he might revoke the permits is not a justiciable controversy. MARCOS petition as funds came from contributions and donations. the public funds (tax payer’s agreement seeks to buy abroad. the complainanant HELD: PACU did not show that it suffered any injury from the exercise of such cannot be said to have standing powers granted to the Secretary of Education. alam donations HELD: The petitioner does not have the capacity to question the EO as funds held by CCP came from donations and not tax. the executive agreements. Respondents contend that he does not Taxpayer standing: in questioning GONZALES v Taxpayer standing: have sufficient interest.

The Judiciary must leave the Constitutional Commission free to fulfill Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . it is reversed by the floor then it is “initiated” (pinag- seriousness. 2x within The first complaint was filed by Estrada and a second complaint was filed by prerogative as legislators. asserting that it Taxpayer standing: pre-supposed Gonzales v Hechanova & is in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Petitioner Francisco alleges that he has a duty as FRANCISCO v HOR member of IBP to stop unconstitutional impeachment. The Supreme Court defined the word “initiate”. since an act HELD: Taxpayers have a standing to challenge congressional action when reading. expenditures of funds. Flast objected to federal expenditures destined for sectarian religious schools under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.” importance. they have a substantial interest in having it set aside as there will be damage caused by illegal expenditure of public funds. Fuentebella filed second impeachment case founded on alleged involve public funds. They wanted to oppose the Timing of the filing of the petition Keywords: tantanan proposal to have a change of government. Taxpayer status is not an absolute bar to Article III standing in the outcome there Is a strong presumption requirements. affects whether or not it’s justiciable ako macapagal ng or not.Jamon] . a year Fuentabella. it has been “initiated”. They must demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome. limited when they can show that what they are using are Standing should be limited when taxpayers can only show incidental incidental expenditures of funds taxpayer’s money. novelty and weight as aralan). issue is of transcendental complaint. precedents (though their mere The Supreme Court ruled that the rules of the House are unconstitutional invocation does not suffice alone to clothe them with standing) Ripeness Petitioners are questioning the validity of an agreement expanding the power TAN v MACAPAGAL and authority of Constitutional Commission. There’s no actual controversy effectivity at injury HELD: There was still no injury at that point.” results of legislative inquiry. Taxpayer standing: “any impending transmittal to the The HoR adopted a resolution which directed the Committee on Justice to Senate of the Articles of conduct an investigation on the manner of expenditures by the Chief Justice impeachment and the ensuing trial through JDF. books for they allege a link between their taxpayer status and the challenged [two nexus] was passed appropriating religious schools must demonstrate a personal stake money to a project or event. A three judge panel ruled that allocated funds from the Gonzales v Marcos: check appellants lacked standing to maintain the action as they must allege a government are from the taxes paid above FLAST v COHEN particularized injury. by taxpayers Keywords: flast STANDARD FOR TAX PAYER SUIT: In Flast’s case. because if the Act really violates the Constitution. the Court Standing: can be relaxed if impeachment (is claimed) to infringe (their) relaxed the strict rules of court to accommodate the filing of the complaint. who failed to validity of any official action which allege interest in the case. [will come out in the To the association and members of The House has his own rules on impeachment and on the meaning of the legal profession: test he says] “initiate” – if there are 2/3 votes of members of House that may have as they advanced constitutional endorsed impeachment complaint. Estrada filed an impeachment case against Chief Justice of the Chief Justice will necessarily Davide. In the case at bar. enactment. Only after it has made concrete when an act is not effective yet what it intends to submit for ratification may the appropriate case be instituted. they have alleged that tax money is being spent in violation of a specific constitutional protection. Because of the importance of the issue. Being a legislator: Keywords: wHORe “allowed to sue to question the lang mag file ng HELD: Legal standing is granted to all petitioners except Vallejo. issues which deserve the attention of If justice committee has opposed the filing of an impeachment complaint the Supreme Court in view of their and upon appeal.

its responsibility. who believes the safest course of treatment for the A penal statute that has not been Keywords: juskoPOE. He makes no claim that appropriated funds are being spent in violation of a specific constitutional limitation upon the taxing and spending power. Because of this. Richardson sued Congress. couples includes using contraceptive devices. District Court dismissed the case for lack of standing based on Flast v Cohen but CA said there was sufficient standing. ordering the AFP and PNP to suppress that Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . capable of repetition yet evading review Exception to mootness: If an issue is SANLAKAS v EXEC AFP entered into a mutiny into Oakwood Premiere Hotels. PGMA review. Keywords: oakwood declared a state of rebellion. Four petitions were filed contending that her state of Subsequent events to the filing of a LACSON v PEREZ rebellion was used to justify the warrantless arrests. PGMA lifted her declaration. US v RICHARDSON HELD: The party must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger * this case is more on standing than Nexus ruling in flast stated Keywords: CIA no of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the enforcement of the statute. it is harder to apply because it involves a public right and not a civil right. There is also no logical nexus between the asserted status of taxpayer and the claimed failure of the Congress to require the Executive to supply a more detailed report of the expenditures of that agency. a couple whose wife had experienced a severely traumatic pregnancy and their physician. Appellants included a couple who had several pregnancies result with severely abnormal progeny which died shortly after POE v ULLMAN birth. Public standing has a broader application than locus standi. enforced is not ripe for judicial buntis nalaglag review. He based his standing to sue on his status as a United States taxpayer. Connecticut has never attempted to fully prosecute any case under the statute. Before the SC could act on petition may leave the same moot. it being that the very issue has Perfect illustration of issues sugod kay ate glo seized to exist that are moot but are HELD: The lifting of the declaration rendered it moot. makukulong pa HELD: A penal statute that has not been enforced is not ripe for judicial review. Keywords: angrymob the legality of the declaration. not only have the Appellants not suffered injury in fact from the statute. but there is no evidence that they would be prosecuted for acting in violation of the statute. ripeness here basis and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally. Justice Laurel: Locus standi refers to a personal injury sustained by the complainant but in Constitutional law. The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors construed a state penal statute as prohibiting the use of contraceptive devices and the giving of medical advice on their use. ordering the AFP and PNP to suppress that rebellion in the NCR.Jamon] . asking for the capable of repetition yet evading SEC resignation of the Chief of PNP. PGMA and Secretary of Defense. Mootness PGMA declared a state of rebellion. hoping to compel release of detailed funding records of CIA funding.

Art. the power to rule on the same. Section 18: The Executive can declare a state of emergency. Although the law school assured that it would ODEGAARD allow De Funis to graduate regardless of the Court’s decision. it is deemed moot. law school admission HELD: The court held that when the original controversy has disappeared prior to development of the suit. it describes the objective reality that there is no state of rebellion. yet evading review. it is deemed moot. He was then admitted to the law school but during his second year. the Washington Supreme Court reversed the judgment and held that the admissions policy was not unconstitutional. The case neither constituted voluntary cessation (because the plaintiff was now in his final quarter so school couldn't do anything) nor was it capable of repetition. otherwise moot. for the reason that the Congress. same might happen again.Jamon] . even There is no power to declare a state of rebellion in the Executive. but it may happen again to other people. the court should have ruled on the matter. then the court has on cases. if it is capable of repetition yet evading review. but when moot. VII. The Supreme Court of the United States granted De Funis’ petition for a writ of certiorari and stayed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington pending final disposition of the case. both parties When the original controversy has Keywords: de contended that mootness did not exist to block formal adjudication of the disappeared prior to development mafunis funis issue sa matter. HELD: It was lifted so the case became moot but the SC said that it will decide happens again. of the suit. At most. The case came before the Supreme Court of the United States for a full hearing when De Funis was in DE FUNIS v his final year of law school. which was previously ruled to be moot. mutiny rebellion. De Funis sued members of the Board of Regents for discrimination against him on account of his race in violation of equal protection. Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . If the same act. Dissent: the issue may not be capable of repetition in De Funis’ case. still evading review [below will come out in the test he says] Capable of repetition yet evading review → You cannot declare a state of rebellion because it has no legal consequences. suppress lawless rebellion and suspension of writ of habeas corpus.

{Const. Hernandez (1957)] It covers any governmental action which constitutes a deprivation of some Noted exceptions to due process person's life.” [Ynot v. Life is also the right to a good life. be valid. [Villegas v. and extends to the (4) The passport of a person sought for a criminal offense may use of God-given faculties which make life enjoyable. III. to compel his return to the country he has fled. Natividad. as has often been held. or 2) the 263 US 197] urgency of the need to protect the general welfare from a clear and present danger. [Torraco v. The guarantee extends to aliens and includes the means of livelihood. of due process in view of: 1) the nature of the property involved. sec. in each (2) There are instances when the need for expeditious action will appropriate case. free from dismemberment. play to hear "the other side" before an opinion is formed or a decision is made and that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the by those who sit in judgment. [Ichong v. IAC (1987)] subject sought to be attained. Art III. v. 4 Wheaton 518] drugs are inherently pernicious and may be summarily destroyed. xxx It is responsiveness to the supremacy of justify omission of these requisites—e. [It] includes the right of the citizen to be free to of the public health and bawdy houses to protect the public use his faculties in all lawful ways[. nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.]” [Rubi v. arbitrary or capricious. or property. (1) The conclusive presumption. Hernandez (1957)] immediate danger it poses to the safety and lives of the people. [Ichong v. [Bernas] It includes the right of an individual to his body in its completeness. IAC (1987)] Property is anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of contract. 40 Phil. like a mad dog on the freedom from arbitrariness. [Ynot v. Provincial Board] morals. [Darthmouth College v. contaminated meat and narcotic judgment only after trial. previous judicial hearing may be omitted without violation includes the right to secure.Jamon] . it In such instances. Sec. which may be killed on sight because of the play. xxx Correctly it has been identified as abatement of a nuisance per se. xxx The guaranty of due process. Due process of law simply states that “[i]t is part of the sporting idea of fair demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable. HiuChiong. Negatively pit. 163] law. A law hears before it condemns. use and dispose of them. in the summary reason. bars the admission of contrary evidence as long as such presumption is based on human Definition experience or there is a rational connection between the Due process furnishes a standard to which the governmental action should fact proved and the fact ultimately presumed there from. 9 The due process clause has to do with the legislation enacted in pursuance of In General the police power. arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided. 1} Artificial persons are covered by the protection but only insofar as their No person shall be deprived of life. which proceeds upon inquiry and renders (3) Pornographic materials. Liberty “includes the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary (5) Filthy restaurants may be summarily padlocked in the interest personal restraint or servitude. [Malcolm] be cancelled without hearing. Woodward. DUE PROCESS CLAUSE color or nationality. Scope and limitations Universal in application to all persons without regard to any difference in race. II. Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . liberty or property. liberty. It is the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair loose. Thompson. It represents more than the things a person owns. 86 SCRA 275] Const. liberty. conform in order that deprivation of life. or property without due process of property is concerned [Smith Bell and Co.g. Art. obedience to the dictates of justice.

“New” Substantive Due Process: Protection for Liberty Interest in Privacy In other words. Procedural Due Process (b) This law shall be reasonable in its operation. Harv. (d) It shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of a class. (a) There shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative department of the Government. D. should be fair. asks whether the government has an adequate reason for taking away a person’s life. Concerned with government action on established process when it makes intrusion into the private sphere. A. The Right to Privacy. L. liberty. or property. I. Clause versus “Taking of Property via the Requisites: Power of Eminent Domain Due process of law means simply that Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . reasonable. C. 4 justification for the government’s action. and just. substantive due process looks to whether there is a sufficient Warren and Brandeis.Jamon] . It refers to the method or procedure prescribed. Old Substantive Due Process: Protection for Property Interests SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS: Substantive due process. . Rev. 193 (1890) Substantive due process is an aspect of due process which serves as a Cortes. and manner by which a law is enforced. 1-70 (1983) The law itself. in EMERGING TRENDS IN LAW. The aspect of due process which serves as a restriction on actions of judicial (c) It shall be enforced according to the regular methods of and quasi-judicial agencies of the government. Protected Interests in Property It guarantees against the arbitrary power even when exercised “Mere Regulation” under the Due Process according to proper forms and procedure. not merely the procedures by which the law would be enforced. Constitutional Foundations of Privacy restriction on the law-making and rule-making power of the government. B.

Since Palanca was a non- 1. the defendant must be given • The problem is if publication is sufficient notice? There is truly no due an opportunity to be heard process if you didn't notify. the tribunal must consider Toribio owns and operates Ang Tibay which laid off members of the National evidence presented Labor Union because of the shortage of leather soles. The bank Procedural Due Process: instituted an action to foreclose the property. 4. Juan was dismissed from Ateneo after an investigation was conducted. judgment must be heard upon • Even if there is already execution. The NLU filed a motion for new trial. Essential Requirements of Administrative Due Process: 1. necessity for the court to ANG TIBAY v CIR was a scheme to systematically terminate employees and that he is guilty of have evidence presented Keywords: ang tibay unfair labor practice. 3. The NLU aver that it 3. before it Keywords: banco vs HELD: There was no denial of due process as there was proper service of otherwise the Court will not 2. a Chinese man. such evidence must be ng leather soles substantial [will come out in the HELD: The newly discovered evidence obtained by NLU were inaccessible to 5. it was necessary for him to be given notice through publication and BANCO ESPANOL v with judicial power to hear court directed clerk of court to send him notice through mail. but moved away and never came back again. CASES Case Facts & Ruling Doctrine Related cases Due Process Procedural Dude Process Engracio Palanca. to parties 6.Jamon] . court must act on its own consideration of the law and facts of a controversy 7. judgment will not bind the property of the defendant test he says] defendant. Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . Notice is an essential PALANCA and determine the matter element of due process. right to a hearing which includes the right of party affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support 2. Being given notice and opportunity ATENEO v CA A waitress in Cervini Cafeteria charged Ramon Guanzon for unbecoming to be heard is enough to satisfy the Siopao pa po conduct as he hit her when she told him that the siopao would take longer to due process requirement. mortgaged three parcels of land to Essential Requirements of Banco Espanol. jurisdiction must be lawfully invisible chinese summons through publication (in rem) even though there was no actual acquired over the person or acquire jurisdiction and its [will come out in the notice. courts should render decision in a way that parties can know all pertinent issues and reasons for decisions. the execution of the decision is lawful hearing invalid because of lack of jurisdiction and lack of due process. decision must be rendered test he says] them during trial with CIR and these attached documents are important on the evidence presented theat their admission would necessarily mean modification of rendered at the hearing and disclosed judgement. heat. 4. there must be a court clothed resident.

aid coz gold LOL HELD: Only a pre-termination hearing provides the recipient with procedural due process. Petitioners were not allowed to re-enroll to school for participating in student mass actions. an educational institution is able to exercise its academic freedom to suspend and refuse admission to a student who has subverted its authority in the implementation of the STFAP. He was already 18 and chose not to inform his parents even though he was asked to seek advice from them. NON v JUDGE Even when there is a valid claim of In their enrollment form. CFI ordered Ateneo to pay damages but CA set aside the decision. They filed a petition seeking their readmission to the school but trial court dismissed it as the petitioners were able to air out their grievances. of the college.Jamon] . if the DAMES admission of students whose conduct discredits with the efficient operation adverse party is not given due Keywords: non. Such rules are incident to the very object of incorporation and Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . After suit was filed. UP charged him before Disciplinary Board which expelled him. New York City Department provided for the GOLDBERG v KELLY recipient to challenge the termination of benefits within 7 days and a pre- Keywords: Financial termination hearing. His parents filed a complaint for damages against Ateneo because their kid was expelled without a fair trial in violation of his right to due process. His conduct also constituted grounds for dismissal. and they alleged that city officials administering these programs terminated or about to terminate such aid without prior notice and pre-termination hearing. The UP Administration implemented the socialized scheme of tuition fee payments through the Socialized Tuition Fee and Assistance Program (STFAP) wherein applicants need to state their family’s annual income. process. Nadal did not UP v LIGOT declare his car nor his mother’s income. it would make the act reenrollment for you invalid HELD: Excluding students because of failing grades when the cause of the action taken against them undeniably related to possible breaches of discipline is a denial of due process. HELD: Guanzon was given notice of the proceedings. Ateneo justified his dismissal on the ground that they have sole prerogative to drop a student found to be undesirable in order to preserve and maintain its integrity. and even presented his side so all requisites of administrative due process were met. The appellees were receiving financial aid under the assisted Aid to Families with Dependent Children program or under New York Home Relief Program. that he was not afforded due process. hugot ng UP HELD: Through the power to impose disciplinary sanctions. Nadal filed with RTC for injunction on the basis Keywords: STFAP. The interest of the eligible recipient in uninterrupted receipt of public assistance coupled with the State’s interest that payments not be erroneously terminated clearly outweighs the State’s interest to prevent administrative and fiscal burdens. it says that the college reserves the right to deny a right to be exercised. They were dismissed outright.

etc.” It thus alleges guilty knowledge on paninidigan ni erap sa the part of petitioner. If the law is vague. the accused always has in his favor the presumption of innocence. on behalf of employees. LAND filed a motion of garnishment but Labor Arbiter ordered DBP Being given opportunity to be heard impleaded in interest of due process and ordered DBP to remit to NLRC the Keywords: land for proceeds. it is not necessary to prove every act done in furtherance of SANDIGANBAYAN rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. There is a distinction between crimes which are mala in se.. such as illegal possession of firearms. The amended information alleges that the crime of plunder was committed Keywords: reasonable standard gives life to the due process clause. [below is included in the test he said] In a criminal prosecution for plunder. rape. Lirag Textile Mills terminated the service of its employees on the ground of retrenchment. NLRC. and those that are mala prohibita. You cannot amass such great The fact that the acts enumerated in Section 1(d) of R. you will not know why you are being prosecuted ESTRADA v because the constitutive crimes are mala in se.A. there is no due process because you will not know what is sanctioned. Difference between mala in se and mala prohibita in this case: Plunder is a malum in se. and present evidence contesting wages?? allegations satisfies due process HELD: DBP cannot rightfully contend that it was deprived of due process because it was given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence. such as theft. as in all other crimes. “willfully.000. A writ of execution was issued and DBP extra-judicially foreclosed the mortgaged properties for LIRAG’s failure to DBP v NLRC pay. He says that he did not steal but merely difference between the two. Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . Thus. although the term refers million was borrowed from GSIS and SSS as investment. Property was mortgaged and antedated the law on unpaid wages so it was secured way before the law was passed. earned it. generally to acts made criminal by special laws. mens rea • Plunder: Holding a position of influence in the government that [will come out in the allows you to amass at least 50. the element of mens but in this case. reasonable doubt. 7080 were wealth unless you have that position. unlawfully and criminally. It is noteworthy that the the scheme.or wrong merely because prohibited by statute. or wrongful from their nature. Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation of its members. What is required to be proved is the element of mens rea. while crimes mala prohibita are violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society. indispensable to the successful management of the college. This standard gives life to the Due Process Clause which protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact Estrada questioned the constitutionality of the law as it dispenses with necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. Precisely HELD: If the law is vague. unpaid wages cannot be taken from DBP. test he says] made criminal by special law does not necessarily make the same mala o Estrada alleged that he did not steal because the 6 prohibita where criminal intent is not essential. resulting in the laying off of 180 employees. requiring proof of criminal intent. For there is a marked and sold for 100. One of the employees filed for illegal dismissal. homicide. filed a complaint asking for separation pay. abolishes the element of mens rea and violates rights to due process and to be informed of the accusation against him.Jamon] .

The limitation on labor laws has no direct relation to the health of the employee as to justify the law as a health law. There were three telephone wires that were wiretapped by officers state to intrude in the people’s wiretapping who listened to the conversations. limit of the police power was exceeded as there was no reasonable ground for interfering with the right of free contract by determining a baker’s labor laws. Lochner violated Section 10. The right to property owing to creditors of Agrix are dissolved without regard to private interest violated. exceeded as there was no YORK reasonable ground for interfering Keywords: lochner the HELD: A law that affects freedom of contract is unconstitutional if it is not with the right of free contract by baker reasonably related to a legitimate purpose of protecting public health. Private property prejudices third parties rather than cannot simply be taken by law from one person and given to another favor the interest of most without compensation.Jamon] . manood ng movie right of the owner to fix a price at which his property shall be used is an inherent attribute of the property itself and within the protection of due process. The determining a baker’s labor laws. compensation Keywords: condonation of debt HELD: The creation of New Agrix violated the prohibition of the Batasang Exercise of police power is wrong in na hindi tama Pambansa which shall not provide for the formation of private corporations this case because it unduly unless these are owned or controlled by the government. its purpose must have been bulsa na magulang is an unlawful curtailment of the personal and property rights of citizens. Veterans took measures to Private property cannot simply be extra-judicially foreclose the three properties RTC ruled in favor of Veterans taken by law from one person and NDC and AGRIX v PHIL on the ground that decree is a violation of due process as creditors were not given to another without VETERANS consulted in public hearings before the law was enacted. Old Substantive Due Process: Protection for Property Interests The Bakeshop Act prohibited bakery employees from working for more than 10 hours per day. Petitioners contend that government’s private lives Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . New Substantive Due Process: Protection for Liberty Interest in Privacy Right to be let alone doctrine limits OLMSTEAD v US Petitioners violated the National Prohibition Act by unlawfully possessing the powers and authority of the Keywords: liquor. The addressed with reasonable means. contending that it violated his freedom to make a contract in relation to his LOCHNER v NEW The limit of the police power was business under the due process clause. The purpose of the ordinance was to ease the burden of parents but at the cost of the business which are made to bear the cost of savings and penalize failure to comply. Article 8 for permitting an employee to work in his bakery for more than that time. He filed a petition. The trial court and CA ruled that the ordinance was valid. BALACUIT v CFI In order for an ordinance to be Keywords: balacuit sa HELD: Ordinance invades the personal and property rights of petitioners as it valid. Petitioners assailed the validity of an ordinance passed by the Municipal Board of Butuan which penalizes any person who would requires children aged 7-12 to pay in full for being in violation of due process for undue restraint of trade. AGRIX executed a REM over land to Philippine Veternans Bank but later became bankrupt. Marcos issued PD 1717 which created a law to exempt the property of AGRIX from mortgage foreclosure.

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed the operation of Fundamental right > state interests SKINNER v OKLAHOMA thing vasectomy. By Oklahoma’s Criminal Sterilization Act. RULING IN LAURENCE: They appealed that the accessory statute violated the 14th amendment. A habitual criminal is a person who has been convicted two or more times for cases dealt with the right to crimes involving moral turpitude. a pro-create. and the state in trying to Eisenstadt: Having sex is sterilization HELD: There is no showing that the petitioner’s offspring would commit the achieve eugenics and sterilizing one’s own private act same offenses that his father would make. DISSENT OF BRANDEIS: Right to privacy should be most protected. The very essence of constitutional liberty and security apply to all invasions on the part of the government on the privacies of life. not statutory or mala prohibitum but mala in se. had sex. their unmarried persons under the Massachusetts law violates the equal bedroom more specifically protection clause. Anything that your conscience says is wrong Bowers: there’s no involves a crime of moral turpitude. The association of marriage is a privacy right older procreate. persons. Right to procreate is a fundamental Keywords: skin off LOL right. From Skinner up til Bowers. Keywords: baird from not achieved by limiting the law to the coverage to essentially giving vaginal foam just married couples saying that what people do HELD: The dissimilar treatment of similarly situated married persons and in their homes. be let alone. It the purpose was for health reasons. I also have the right to abort the same Crimes involving moral turpitude is anything that is wrong. a fundamental habitual criminal is rendered sexually sterile as long as sterilization is without right given by the detriment to the general health. expanded to go beyond of rights merely having the right to thus is unconstitutional. wire-tapping constituted unreasonable search and seizure while the government contends that the 4th Amendment does not include telephone conversations.Jamon] . Every governmental intrusion upon the privacy of the individual must be deemed a violation of the 4th Amendment. while crimes involving embezzlement is constitution. being convicted of the second robbery that the Act was Griswold: Marital privacy is a passed. immune. Penumbra of the rights to privacy CONNECTICUT The right mention above was implied in and from different El gamma penumbra HELD: The law forbidding contraception violates the right to marital privacy statutes in the constitution. Procreation is fundamental to the criminals do not align. GRISWOLD v instruction and medical advice to married persons by way of contraception. very existence and survival of the race such that any individual whom the Roe: If I get preggers cause I Act touches is deprived of a basic liberty. but the right to than the Bill of Rights. The prohibition on contraception does not prevent cannot be regulated by married persons from engaging in illicit sexual relations with unmarried laws. procreation because sex between two men will never produce an offspring Griswold and Buxton were prosecuted as accessories for giving information. The petitioner was arrested for taking chickens and for robbery with firearms twice. it would be overbroad with Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . That governmental intrusions are limited whenever William Baird was convicted under Massachusetts Law for exhibiting fundamental rights are contraceptive articles and for giving vaginal foam to single persons as the concerned law makes it a felony for anyone to give a drug away for the prevention of EISENSTADT v BAIRD conception except if they are a registered physician administering or The purpose of the enactment was The ruling in Laurence widen prescribing it for married persons.

The sodomy law was still considered valid. victims from such acts. There’s no constitutional right to Keywords: Hard.Jamon] . Hardwick was charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing homosexual sodomy in the bedroom of his home. including a prerogative to the right to pro- woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy against state action. Whatever two consenting adults do in the privacy of his home has nothing to do with the government. The schoolchildren were voluntarily participating in the activities. respect to married and discriminate against the unmarried. The District Court held that abortion laws were void for infringing on the 9th and 14th Amendment. not absolute. it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life at various stages of pregnancy. In the first trimester. HELD: The act of consensual sodomy is not prohibited under the fundamental commit sodomy. The Tecumseh School District adopted the Student Activities Drug Testing BOARD OF EDUC v Policy which required all middle and high school students to consent to EARLS urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in any extra-curricular activity of a competitive nature. athelic. you need the consent of the Supreme Court while you cannot abort your child in the last trimester. Abortion is part of a person’s ROE v WADE HELD: The due process clause protects the right to privacy. activity. teh HELD: The school has loco parentis or the right to regulate activities in schools. wanted to abort her child but could not since her life was not threatened as the Texas Penal Code makes it a crime to procure an abortion or to attempt one except if it is to save the life of the mother. assuming si failed to demonstrate an identifiable drug problem. Houston police entered into Laurence’s apartment and saw him having consensual homosexual sex with Garner. He was charged with BOWERS v HARDWICK littering and not sodomy. HE HE HE sodomy right to privacy or any right protected under the Constitution. District Court ruled in favor of the school but CA reversed it as school right to regulate activities in schools. Wick. There is no precedent to support his constitutional right to commit sodomy. the Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . however. a pregnant woman. it is create. Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence. The first 3 months is a matter of right that you can abort. not to prosecute homosexual acts. Whomever a person decides to LAURENCE v TEXAS HELD: Whomever a person decides to engage with in sex cannot be intruded engage with in sex cannot be Gay sex okay by the government. Though a state cannot completely deny a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy. The aim of the sodomy law is to protect the minors and intruded by the government. Jane Roe. Earls and James alleged that said policy Keyword: The school has loco parentis or the violates the Fourth Amendment as they were not even in a competitive extracurricular non.

He fell in love with a person from a rival company but love prevailed. The company then transferred him to another area. Taking Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . There was also no absolute prohibition against relationships between its employees and those of competitor companies but just wanted to avoid conflict of interest. Furthermore. Protected interest in Property Mere regulation vs. Blas Ople filed a petition assailing the constitutionality of the Order on the grounds that it is a usurpation on the power of the Congress to make laws as it is not a mere administrative order but a law. but was not able to Due process was not violated GLAXO WELCOME solve it. Tecson filed but because he was given opportunities Keywords: love and CA held the policy as a valid exercise of management prerogatives. to be heard and/or remedy the other drugs situation HELD: Trade secret is a property right and it is the right of Glaxo under their management prerogatives to protect the same. urinalysis was insufficiently intrusive and the results sufficiently private as well as that concerns about student drug use were sufficiently immediate enough to hold the policy constitutional. Lack of standards in obtaining data OPLE v TORRES from people can amount to an Keywords: national ID HELD: It was unconstitutional because the scope of AO 308 is broad and intrusion to their privacy vague so it will put people’s rights to privacy in clear and present danger if implemented. It also lacks proper safeguards for protecting the information that will be gathered from people through people’s biometrics. Keywords: information already disclosed does streamlining HELD: The data collected would only be limited to only 14 specific data and not amount to an intrusion to government ID’s privacy the ID card itself will only show 8 specific data which are routine data. and thus may interfere with individual’s liberty as the government will be able to track them down Gloria Arroyo issued EO 420 which sought to unify an ID system among government agencies. He was asked DUNCAN ASSOC v to resign or his wife to resign and he kept asking for time. DISSENT: The policy testing all students who engage in extra-curricular activities violates equal protection by being too broad for not distinguishing between extra-curricular activities that may pose health and safety risks and those activities that do not Fidel Ramos issued AO 308 for the adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System. Petitioners allege that the EO is unconstitutional for it KMU v NEDA infringes upon the right to privacy as it allows access to personal data A creation of a system organizing without the owner’s consent and without proper safeguards. and intrudes into the citizen’s privacy.Jamon] . the EO applies only to governmental entities that already maintain ID systems and it is just to help the system be more efficient Tecson was hired by Glaxo Wellcome and was made to sign a contract of employment which stipulates that he needs to inform them of any relationship with a rival company so as not to have conflict of interest.

PEOPLE v FAJARDO Fajardo filed a written request to the mayor for a permit to build a building beside their gasoline station but the mayor refused. so long as they are fit for agricultural purposes. such prohibition would not lessen the slaughter or theft of carabaos. is a necessary limitation on private ownership for the protection of the community. Their billboards were said to An Act of the Legislature which is CHURCHILL v be offensive to the sight so the Collector of Internal Revenue. park. He contends that the act constitutes a taking of property for public use Regulation (eminent domain) without compensation. RAFFERTY to any of the purposes of the police Take it to church kasi HELD: The billboard was a nuisance as it is an obstruction of the sight of the power and interferes with the bawal billboard mo ordinary enjoyment of property general public. it shall be removed. 2339. The state had an interest in the US v TORIBIO protection of cows because it was Slaughter in the hauz HELD: The law is a legitimate exercise of police power. It cannot permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their property and practically confiscate them solely to preserve the aesthetic appearance of the community. Amounted to taking Bitch don’t kill my vibe The absolute prohibition on the land – said the beautiful HELD: It is oppressive in the sense that it permanently deprives the latter of made the “regulation” taking. Carabaos are vested used as a means to people’s with public interest as they are fundamental for the production of crops thus. be held to be for the welfare of the general public invalid. by virtue of obviously and undoubtedly foreign Section 100 (b) of Act no. The municipal council passed Ordinance 7 providing that “any person who will construct or repair a building should first obtain a permit from the mayor and violation of such shall make him liable to pay a fine if the building destroys the view of the Public Plaza. Petitioners' 6 carabaos were confiscated by the police for having been transported from Masbate to Iloilo in violation of EO 626-A. disturbance to the public There is compensation because the property will be used for public benefit Regulation Churchill and Tait were in billboard advertising. He brought an action for replevin. had it removed. Nuisance can be destroyed by the police power of the State would. Its decision was Cannot complete deprive a person caraboas? [to be affirmed by the IAC. Four years after. of his property without due process read as “why not”] HELD: The confiscation was really valid but the method used was not proper for the purpose of the law which was to protect the carabao. livelihood the prohibition. The respondent was charged with violation of Section 30 and 33 of Act no.Jamon] . Even though the movement of the carabao was prohibited. Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . Regulation Taking No compensation given. the right to use their own property thus overstepping the bounds of police power and amounts to a taking of property without just compensation. without doubt. 1147 for slaughtering a carabao for human consumption without a permit. 'cause deprivation is of a nuisance. The trial court YNOT v CA sustained the confiscation of the animals and declined to rule on the validity Amounted to taking y-not transport of the law on the ground that it lacked authority to do so. challenging the constitutionality of the EO.

Thus. AFP filed expropriation 1. Entrance into private property must be for more than a alleged that the fair market value of the lands was not more than 2000 per momentary period hectare when AFP first had the taking of the property so their lands are 3. Property must be devoted to public use or informally Airforce appropriated HELD: The taking of the Castellvi property for the purposes of eminent domain 5. The space that directly is above the poultry farm may be still owned by the landowner. require not forced to enter into an “agreement” effecting the same the telephone company to permit interconnection of the government telephone system and PLDT. then it’s taking owners. Expropriator must enter private property proceedings and was placed in possession of the lands. 4. to a certain degree The Bureau of Telecommunications set up its own government system by renting the trunk lines of PDLT and their agreement prohibits the public use of the service to private parties but in 1948. the Republic may. The beneficiary of the interconnecting services would be the users of both telephone systems so that condemnation would be for public use. and it was beside an airport. Utilization of property for public use must be in such a way as to cannot be considered to have taken place in 1947 when the Republic deprive the owners of the enjoyment of the property commenced to occupy property as lessee. the Republic wanted to renew but Castellvi Elements of Taking for Eminent Domain: intended to subdivide it for sale to the general public. monthly rentals. it extended to the general public. Taking HELD: While the parties may not be coerced to enter into a contract where REPUBLIC v PLDT Properties can be expropriated but no agreement is had between them as to the principal terms and conditions Phone lines of the contract. However. The Republic 2. the government has the right to compel PLDT to interconnect lines in the exercise of police power. Entry intro property should be under warrant of legal authority REPUBLIC v CASTELVI residential with a fair market value of not less than 15 sq/m. the judicial administrator of Alfonso Castellvi. Respondent owned a parcel of land of which there was a chicken farm. by virtue of a contract of lease. PLDT says that it is taking. The Philippine Air Force occupied the land of Castellvi. in the power of eminent domain. then that is year to year and that she still remained as owner of the land and paid when “taking” happens. Ayala Corporation executed a deed of donation which covered Jupiter and Regulation Orbit Street to vehicular traffic. the land. Petitioners contend that they own the streets and should not be Gate sirain deprived of due process. The Mayor of Makati opened these streets to BEL-AIR v IAC There was not taking. it was just being utilized by the city HELD: The opening of these streets does not amount to deprivation of Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . They still own ease traffic.Jamon] . Before the expiration of the contract. Four motored bombers of the US Government make Amounted to taking loud noises and have bright lights which caused the chickens to commit If no such taking actually happened suicide. US v CAUSBY but the acts of the state deprived Chicken suicide HELD: It can be said that there was taking in the form of partial taking as it the people the use of their property. #2 and #5 were lacking as Castellvi and AFP entered into a contract of lease that was renewable from When the owner is deprived of the use of your property. and it was found that the public depreciated the property and the obstruction of the enjoyment of the benefitted.

property without due process of law without just compensation as there was
no taking of property involved. The purpose of opening the same was to
ease traffic in Makati. The duty of local executives is to take care of the
needs of the greater number at the expense of the minority.

The President issued Proclamation 1811 which reserved a land for EPZA. San
Diego, which were the registered owners of the land, claim that these lands
were expropriated to the government without them reaching an agreement
as to compensation.
JUST COMPENSATION is the
EPZA v DULAY HELD: Congress cannot provide for the amount of just compensation
equivalent for the value of the
Port bayad because it is within the functions of the Supreme Court. There should be a
property at the time of its taking
hearing in the court to make a justification why a certain property should be
expropriated. Furthermore, tax declarations presented by the petitioner as
basis for just compensation is below the acquisition cost of present owners
would be confiscatory. Congress expropriated for the property with the
amount already provided for just compensation, which is WRONG.

NPC entered into negotiations with the spouses for the purchase of land for
the construction of an access road to its Angat River Hydroelectric Project.
The issue to be addressed is only the compensation which trial court put at
NPC v CA 3.75 but CA said 7 sq/m. Reckoning period is the time of
Bayad ko bakit mo taking for computation of just
tinaasan HELD: The basis for just compensation should be the price at the time it was compensation
taken from the owner and appropriated to the government. The just
compensation should be 3.75 because the construction of the access
already commenced and that benefited the people.

Taking under Eminent Domain v Taking under Social Justice Clause
DE KNECHT v BAUTISTA
REPUBLIC v DE KNECHT

Petitioners are the owners of two large estates known as the Tambunting
Estate and Sunog-Apog in Tondo, Manila, both of which were declared
expropriated in two decrees issued by President Marcos, PD 1669 and PD
1670. The petitioners contend that the decrees violate their constitutional
right to due process and equal protection since by their mere passage their
EMINENT DOMAIN
properties were automatically expropriated and they were immediately
Taking invalid because the law that
deprived of the ownership and possession thereof without being given the
said so provided for an absolute
MANOTOK v NHAf chance to oppose such expropriation. The government on the other hand
prohibition to contest the amount of
contends that the power of eminent domain is inherent in the State and
compensation.
when the legislature or the President through his law-making powers
^^ a violation of due process
exercises this power, the public use and public necessity of the expropriation
and the fixing of the just compensation become political in nature and the
courts must respect the decision.

HELD: The challenged decrees are unfair in the procedures adopted and the
powers given to the NHA. The Tambunting subdivision is summarily

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

proclaimed a blighted area and directly expropriated by decree without the
slightest semblance of a hearing or any proceeding whatsoever. The
expropriation is instant and automatic to take effect immediately upon the
signing of the decree. No deposit before the taking is required. There is not
provision for any interest to be paid upon unpaid installments. Not only are
the owners given absolutely no opportunity to contest the expropriation, or
question the amount of payments fixed by the decree, but the decision of
the NHA are expressly declared beyond judicial review. PD 1669 and 1670
are declared unconstitutional. Such singling out of properties does not
foreclose judicial scrutiny as to whether such expropriation by legislative act
transgresses the due process and equal protection and just compensation
guarantees of the Constitution

Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition against Ordinance 4670 contending
that the ordinance was beyond the powers of the Municipal Board of Manila
to regulate due to the fact that hotels were not part of its regulatory powers.
EMINENT DOMAIN
They were a violation of due process because the hotels would be open for
It was a valid exercise of eminent
inspection from city authorities, a prohibition on age and they cannot lease
ERMITA MALATE HOTEL domain. Liberty is understood to be
any room more than twice within 24 hours, violating such would cause
v CITY OF MANILA automatic cancellation of hotel licenses.
regulated by law for the good of
the individual and peace and order
of society
HELD: It was a valid exercise of eminent domain. Liberty is understood to be
regulated by law for the good of the individual and peace and order of
society

Article XIII of the Constitution on Social Justice and Human Rights includes a
call for the adoption by the State of an agrarian reform program. The
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. sought exception
from the land distribution scheme provided for in R.A. 6657, as their lands
were less than 7 hectares. In another case, Nicolas Manaay questioned the
validity of the agrarian reform laws (PD 27, EO 228, and 229) on the ground
that these laws already valuated their lands for the agrarian reform program
and that the specific amount must be determined by the Department of
Agrarian Reform despite the fact that it should be determined by the
ASSOC OF SMALL courts.
SOCIAL JUSTICE
LANDOWNERS v SEC HELD: The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform is not violative of due process. It is
AGRARIAN REFORM true that the determination of just compensation is a power lodged in the
courts. However, there is no law which prohibits administrative bodies like the
DAR from determining just compensation. In fact, just compensation can be
that amount agreed upon by the landowner and the government – even
without judicial intervention so long as both parties agree. What is
contemplated by law however is that, the just compensation determined by
an administrative body is merely preliminary. If the landowner does not agree
with the finding of just compensation by an administrative body, then it can
go to court and the determination of the latter shall be the final
determination

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

The President approved RA 6657 which includes the raising of livestock, swine
and poultry in the CARP. The petitioners question their inclusion in the
Agrarian Reform law as they were working in the business of raising livestock,
swine and poultry.
LUZ FARMS v SEC
HELD: The livestock is excluded in the concept of “agriculture” so it cannot
be expropriated per the Agrarian Reform Law. The transcripts of the
Constitutional Commission of 1986 show that it was never the intention of the
framers of the Constitution to include the livestock and poultry industry in the
Agrarian program

Forbes Park Association is a non-profit corporation whose members are
bound by the rules and regulations stipulated in the Deed of Restrictions.
Cariday Investment Corporation is the owner of a residential building in the
Forbes Park Subdivision. Cariday decided to construct a one-storey
residence with the interior that can be occupied by two occupants, leasing
CARIDAY v CA it to one lessor and another to Proctor and Gamble.
[dissent will come out HELD: The purpose of the restriction is to avoid overcrowding both in the
in the test he says] houses and subdivision which would result In pressure upon common facilities
and accelerate the deterioration of roads.

DISSENT: It would not lead to overcrowding and the millions of properties of
single-storey residences would make the spending more. We have to curb
the lifestyle of the rich people in Forbes against ostentatious of wealth.

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

or property without due process of law. newer equal protection doctrine called two-tiered level of review. or alienage. III. liberty. Sec. which is not prohibited by the and unjustly discriminate against others. which applies the strict scrutiny test. religion unjustifiable. Fundamental rights include rights to arraignment. to meet the witnesses face tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. Sec 22} The Philippine Court has applied the rational relationship test to equal protection cases. Strict the contrary is proved. The Court will require the government to show that it is pursuing a compelling (a) It must rest on substantial distinctions which make real or overriding end. “Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be FIRST. III. and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and judicial scrutiny is applied when legislation impinges on fundamental rights. independent determination of whether the classification is necessary to (b) It must be germane to the purpose of the law. 1} 58 Phil. in terms of any right. (c) It must not be limited to existing conditions only. upon some “suspect” basis. to face. the accused shall be presumed innocent until relationship test. the Court will uphold a classification. and legislation is upheld only if it is precisely him. Art. II. Art. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. such as race.Jamon] . which applies the rational basis test. and other Provided. J. that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is constitutional rights. {Consti. Constitution. 1 (March 1993) No person shall be deprived of life. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE Defensor-Santiago. The New Equal Protection. treated alike. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. voting. promote that compelling interest. As long as there is equality There are at least three standards of judicial review over equal protection among equals an act/restriction/policy regarding a certain class is valid. and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of It becomes important to determine whether a given right is “fundamental” witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. two categories of civil liberties cases: (d) Apply equally to all members of the same class. so as to give undue favor to some relationship to an end of government. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against implicates suspect classes. more notably to cases involving alienage which is Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . and (b) when the government classification distinguishes between {Consti. However. to have a speedy. REQUISITES FOR VALID CLASSIFICATION SECOND. trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: marriage and procreation. national origin. The first tier consists of the rational (2) In all criminal prosecutions. or counsel. L. and the second tier consists of the strict scrutiny test. impartial. Similar Under this test. [will come out in the test he says] Sir: There’s no such thing as absolute equality. if it bears a rational subjects should not be treated differently. Art. old equal protection doctrine. and alienage. (a) when the governmental act classifies people in terms of their ability to exercise a fundamental right. nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Sec. THIRD. fair administration and justice. {Consti. cases. new equal protection doctrine. both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. 14} persons. and applies the intensified means test. Suspect classes include race or national origin. after and whether a given class is “suspect”. of which the Court reserves for itself the right to make an differences. and public trial. II.

the court goes beyond merely scrutinizing whether the law adheres to the Constitution but rather see whether it really serves its intended purpose. or Compelling state interest suspect classification Absence of less restrictive means Suspect classification: PHL: A class given special protection by the Constitution US: Race Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . the equal protection clause. the "new" equal protection could prove to be a useful and equitable technique of judicial analysis. phrased as it is after the American model. STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW Level of Scrutiny Classification Made Requisites for Validity Rational Basis Classifications. may pose problems of legislative and administrative classifications of the extent of the compatibility of political liberty and economic equality.Jamon] . The whole thing is basically the standards of judicial review For Sir: Santiago’s point is that the modern context of equal protection. In the Philippines. in general Test of valid classification Substantial distinction. illegitimacy Substantial government interest ightened Availability of less restrictive means Scrutiny Strict Scrutiny Affects fundamental rights. in the hands of a Supreme Court sentient to the continuing need to prevent invidious discrimination against disadvantaged victims of legislative classification or in the exercise of certain fundamental rights by the Filipino people. In the resolution of these problems. Not limited to existing conditions only. Must apply equally to all within the class Intermediate/He Gender. apparently considered a relevant status because of constitutional differences in the treatment of aliens and citizens. as a justice constituency. Germane to the purpose of the law. *see table -> for summary.

A Louisiana statute required separate railway cars for blacks and whites and it authorized the railway authorities to make the person move to the seat he is supposed to be in or imprison him. which established the “separate but equal” doctrine that stated separate facilities for Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . took a seat in PLESSY v FERGUSON the car designated for whites and refused to move to the car reserved for Separate but equal blacks. Plessy who was of mixed blood. nor the due process of law clause. Race being the lone [ain’t no one whiter If segregation and separation would factor in favoring than Fergie. they contended that segregation does not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination. Compelling state interest is an example of a sufficient reason HELD: The purpose the order was to prevent espionage and sabotage as the US was still in a time of war so the order was upheld as not being violative of the EPC. They were DENIED] denied relief based on the precedent set by Plessy v. CASES Facts & Ruling Doctrine Related cases Facts & Ruling Doctrine Related cases Congress passed RA 1180 which was to prevent persons who are not citizens of PH from having a stranglehold upon people’s economic life. ICHONG v HELD: Equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality among Equality among equals For as long as classification is based HERNANDEZ residents but requires that all persons should be treated alike. President Roosevelt issued an executive order authorizing military authorities to prescribe military areas. The difference in Persons belonging in the status between citizens and aliens constitutes a basis for reasonable on sufficient grounds. someone is Separate train cars] equal doctrine. Inchong contended that the Act denies alien residents of their liberty and property without due process and equal protection. it is [inicha business ni same category should classification in the exercise of police power. an American citizen of Japanese descent. The separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the EPC. were required to be placed in a military reservation. He challenged the statute for being in violation of EPC. African American minors had been denied admittance to certain public BROWN v BOE schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. it is valid. Ferguson. still yield “substantially equal” HELD: The law is within constitutional boundaries. The law does not violate the equal constitutional ichong] be treated alike protection clause of the Constitution because sufficient grounds exist for the distinction between alien and citizen in the exercise of the occupation regulated. basing it on the separate but treatment.Jamon] . because the law is prospective in operation and recognizes the privilege of aliens already engaged in the occupation and reasonably protects their privilege. Korematsu. In unconstitutional the decision of the Court. [dark brown students arguing that such segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause. although of American citizenship. refused to leave his home so he was KOREMATSU v US imprisoned. The Japanese-Americans.

the races was constitutional as long as the facilities were “substantially equal. Bakke contended. Color should not be the lone decisive factor in admission to a school. were denied admission.” HELD: It reserved the decision of Plessy v Ferguson about the “separate but equal” doctrine as a violation of EPC. the University implements a point system. Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities. wag na med] The school created a quota for certain groups of minorities so the only qualification for them to be accepted is the color of their skin. there should be other factors other than the color of the skin. She that will be given to a accompanied her petititon with the all the requirements needed and on due classification is [Bradwell not well examination was found to possess the requisite qualification to obtain a license. Check the practice of law is a privilege and said that “God designed the sexes to occupy table for standards of Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . The segregation of public education based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African-American children. That qualification is a violation of the EPC. first in the California courts. An admission system that grants points for certain characteristics such as race is not an individual assessment. then in the UNIV of CALI v BAKKE Supreme Court. Allan Bakke. dependent on which enough for law] The Supreme Court of Illinois denied her application on the ground that the type it is. Aside from the color of your skin. as part of the university's affirmative action program. Science and the Arts. The type of scrutiny BRADWELL v ILLINOIS Myra Bradwell was a nice lady who applied for a license to practice law. had twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. A student with extraordinary artistic talent only receives [GRATZi not – why 5 points under the admission system. lang. HELD: The school used a racial quota in the admission policy. that were score? This ain’t a determined qualified by the University. Hispanic. A group of white students. To help with admission decisions. A student that is an underrepresented group automatically receives 20 points towards his of her over all score. unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. and Native GRATZ v BOLLINGER American backgrounds. a thirty-five-year-old white man. in an effort to redress longstanding. The groups of students typically come from African-American. boll game] HELD: The policy was treated as valid because it merely promoted diversity in the school so it was valid. The University of Michigan receives a high volume of applicants each year to its College of Literature. He was rejected both times.Jamon] . that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of [magBAKKE ka na race.

character and learning be given a license to practice HELD: Original Constitution: 'The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. carries them with him into any other State of the Union. Whatever are the privileges and immunities of a citizen in one State. The excluded conditions do not affect women alone. different spheres of action and that it belonged to men to make. [can’t see clearly after going to a bar] HELD: The statute was upheld as the Court looked into the social and moral implications if women were allowed to become owners of liquor establishments or become barmaids. “singling out for less favorable treatment a gender-linked disability peculiar to women. thus creating a double standard. DISSENT: It is discriminating What was assailed was a provision in an insurance contract. in the State of his adoption. is a registered nurse but does not hold a degree in nursing. disabilities to insure. Women. Although he was otherwise qualified. A citizen emigrating from one State to another carried with him.Jamon] . The petitioners challenged the law on the ground that it violated the EPC. California operated a disability insurance system that supplemented workers compensation.” Bradwell questioned the ruling: Can a female citizen. But the fourteenth amendment executes itself in every State of the Union. he was denied Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . apply and judicial review execute the laws. DULY qualified in respect of age. emigrating.' Under this provision each State could determine for itself what the privileges and immunities of its citizens should be. an all-girls school.” MISSISSIPPI UNIV SCHOOL for WOMEN Joe Hogan. to such privileges and immunities as were enjoyed by the class of citizens to which he belonged by the laws of such adopted State. v HOGAN He applied for admission to the School of Nursing in the Mississippi University for [all girls school.000 wherein women could not be issued a license unless she was “the wife or daughter of the male owner” of a liquor establishment. which provided for payments for disabilities not covered by workers compensation BUT excluded pregnancy related conditions. not the privileges and immunities he enjoyed in his native State. There was a Michigan statute that required all bartenders to hold licenses in cities with populations greater than 50. A three-judge panel of the District Court of Michigan rejected their GOESART v CLEARLY claim. such citizen. GEDULDIG v AIELLO HELD: Provision is constitutional. but PREGGOO] both men and women with the savings given by the program DISSENT: the exclusion discriminates against women. California could constitutionally choose which [AIEEEEEEO. a dude. but was entitled.

] admission solely because he was a dude. Only Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . so the system conditions sa trabaho] does on discriminate women. must be considered for appointment to a 1. then the obvious consequence is that non-veterans would be disadvantaged. but was told he would still take nursing classes. He challenged the statute for being violative of Equal SUPERIOR COURT Protection Clause since it unlawfully discriminates on the basis of gender. An ordinance was passed in California regulating the laundry business and Laundries] prescribing certain limits as a precaution to prevent accident cases of fires. Hogan. not discriminate against men. But the main justification is that the legislature sought to prevent illegitimate teenage pregnancies. FEENEY law 3. The case is unusual in that it involves a law that by 4. must not be limited to existing [Pinersonal si Feeney HELD: the classification “veteran” is a gender-neutral concept. The school and lower court maintained that in keeping the institution exclusively for girls. he just cannot enroll for credit. germane to the purpose of the civil service position ahead of any qualified non-veterans. YICK WO v HOPKINS [WO-ah dur. There is a Massachusetts legislation that provides that qualified veterans should be preferred over non-veterans. The Court forth… on a kid] considered the suffering of the women. who was [classification]: honorably discharged from the US Armed Forces after at least 9. which is more burdensome. The statute grants an [will come out in the test he says] absolute lifetime preference to veterans by requiring that “any person male or 4 elements of valid distinction female. they are merely exercising the State’s legitimate interest in providing the greatest practical range of educational opportunities for its female students. veterans have been favored over her.days of active PERSONNEL service. substantial distinction ADMINISTRATOR v 2. HELD: The Supreme Court found the policy unconstitutional. but if everyone agrees that the distinction is a valid kind of policy. at least one day in wartime. Even though she passed the exams with high marks. The school even propagated the discrimination that nursing is for women.Jamon] . Since the purpose of the statute is to benefit veterans. compared to men in rape cases. Michael M raped a 16 y/o girl. must apply equally to all design is not neutral. This is just an example of a well-accepted form of benefit members of the same class given to people who have sacrificed a lot in the service for the country. The University failed to substantially support the allegation that the women will be disturbed if a dude would study there. [Michael learns to Minority a valid classification rock…back and HELD: The statute intends to equalize. The Court held that the statute is justified related to the state’s objectives. then there is no problem. where the female MICHAEL M v is under the age of 18. Feeny is a female who had been applying for higher paying jobs under the civil service. which defines unlawful sexual intercourse as “an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female ”an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the wife of the perpetrator. It all boils down to seeing whether the purpose of the law is valid. including a nurse” qualifying for a civil service position. He was charged for violating the California Statutory Rape Law.

identifiable national origin the position. immigrated from the Philippines to Hawaii. the ordinance violated the equal protection clause. eventually causing a deadlock. He took the prima facie case of discrimination on test for the position and even got the highest score among 700+ takers. along with 200 other Chinese operators. foreign-hires receive 25% higher salary compared to the local-hires. given somehow concluding that the reason for favoring them is to attract them to join the faculty of the School. as part of the selection process. HELD: The policy is discriminatory and violates the EPC. Yick Wo was imprisoned for failing to pay the fine for violating the ordinance. From #1 he was dropped to #3 and the job was given to the natira. He applied as an entry level CSC job. The Board. No job] qualification top two applicants. complaint’s qualification New Equal Protection The International School Alliance hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty and classifies them into two-categories. It was evident that the Board’s granting ordinances were discriminating through race. Fragante alleged that he was discriminated on the basis of his national origin. either as a local- fire or as a foreign hire. When the basis of national origin: he was interviewed. that he was rejected despite his recommendation. The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded to local hires. The job was imbued with applicants from the persons of public interest and language was essential to the job. DOLE broke the deadlock by dislocation factor for those leaving QUISUMBING ruling in favor of the school saying that the equal protection clause is not their countries to stay in the [internationals > violated by legislation or private covenants based on reasonable classification. The intention of the ordinance was to reduce to risk of fire but the Court noted that only Chinese laundries were affected. aged 60. But due to Fragante’s Filipino accent. both interviewers had a 2. entailing tasks. HELD: The Chinese were discriminated because they monololized the laundry business. Fragante. they were still entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. the supervisors stressed FRAGANTE v CITY OF that the ability to speak clearly was one of the most important skills needed for 1. eventually giving him a negative employers were seeking [Fragments lang 3. Philippines. qualified for a job that the HONOLULU difficult time understanding him. The Court concluded that the statute was intended to reduce Chinese laundries rather than the risk of fire. so the presumption is that all the employees are performing at equal levels. But that aside. Moreover. The Chinese are also protected by the constitution as they fall under the US’s jurisdiction Even thoough the Chinese laundry owners were not American citizens. Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . which includes providing routine information Requirements to be considered a to the public over the telephone and at an information counter. A collective bargaining agreement began INTERNATIONAL negotiations which contested the difference in salary rates between foreign Sir: they should have considered the SCHOOL ALLIANCE v and local-hires. A premium must be local] They found a substantial distinction between foreign-hires and local-hires. however. There is no evidence in a difference of workload nor performance. the position remained open and the employer continued to seek HELD: The SC found that there was no discrimination. granted licenses to non-Chinese operators who were similarly situated as the Chinese.Jamon] . The Board of Supervisors then denied licenses to operate laundries to Yick Wo.

They claim that the respondents violate the Fourteenth HODGES Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have their marriages [ober sila. They failed to show that the admission of women will affect their expressive activities James Dale was a brilliant member of the Boy Scouts. Lgbt fell lawfully performed in another State. to full and equal [Bad ng BoD. Rotary is saying they have a right to reject women and it is protected by the First Amendment HELD: The Unruh does not violate the right of expressive association of the Rotary Club. The Rotary Club of Duarte admitted 3 women to active membership. Although women are permitted to attend meetings. sexist] accommodations. together with Duarte’s charter. Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . privileges. International notified Duarte that admitting women members is contrary to the Rotary constitution. HELD: same sex couples have marital rights. HELD: Applying New Jersey's public accommodations law to require the Boy BOY SCOUTS of Scouts to readmit Dale violates the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of AMERICA v DALE expressive association. on the other hand. BoD v ROTARY CLUB They filed a complaint alleging that the termination violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act. give speeches. america] DISSENT: By allowing petitioner to revoke the respondent's membership.Jamon] . his membership was revoked. the women. and services in all business establishments in the State. and form auxiliary organizations. which entitles all persons. The respondents. receive awards. Homosexual conduct is against what Boy Scouts want to instill as the purpose of organization is to foster “clean” and “morally straight” [gay scouts of membership. facilities. Massachusetts Department of Public Health denied 7 marriage licenses for GOODRIDGE v DEPT same sex couples on the ground that the state does not recognize same-sex OF PUBLIC HEALTH marriage. Rotary International is a nonprofit corporation composed of local Rotary Clubs. Its members are all men. are inlove] state officials responsible for enforcing the laws in question. The petitioners are 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners OBERGEFELL v are already deceased. the Rotary constitution excludes women from membership. After an internal hearing. regardless of sex. They believe that legalizing same-sex marriage would demean a timeless institution if the concept and lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of the same sex. After coming out as gay. were removed. the Supreme Court was allowing the organization to prevail over the anti- discrimination laws of the state (Justice Stevens). advantages.

HELD: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Richard Loving (a caucasian male) and Mildred Jeter (a Negro woman) left their home state of Virginia and went to the District of Columbia to get married. The right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union and it safeguards children and families. the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution as it is considered to be a fundamental right. Shortly after their marriage they returned to Virginia and settled in Caroline County. “The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.Jamon] . drawing from related rights like procreation and education. if paternity is clear. because of jus sanguinis.” FPJ's citizenship was being assailed because his mother was an American citizen but his father is Filipino. Therefore. It would make a citizenship] distinction between legitimate and illegitimate child so the Court upheld the candidacy of FPJ. After they pled guilty to said charges they were both sentenced to one year in jail but a judge suspended their sentence for 25 years on the condition that both prevent themselves to returning to Virginia together The freedom to marry resides within the individual and any statute or law LOVING v VIRGINIA for the same amount of years. The grand jury charged the couple of violating Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages. Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . The Court of Appeals held that a State has no constitutional obligation to license same-sex marriages or to recognize same-sex marriages performed out of State. The Courts argued that the Tenth Amendment left marriage the 14th Amendment of the US HELD: The state must regulate marriage within the limits set upon them by the Fourteenth Amendment. The goal of the Constitution is to constantly break barriers in identifying and protecting the fundamental rights. TECSON v COMELEC [TECka FPJ. The Lovings left but continued to pursue the cases and all the courts up to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed limiting this freedom based on racial [love knows no color] classification alone is in violation of the decisions. which makes no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children. HELD: Filipino. The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.

They carry a 4. picketing This refers to official governmental restrictions on the press and other forms of expression IN ADVANCE of actual publication or dissemination. or of [likelihood of it happening] is extremely high” [American Bible Society v City of the press.com]. 4} prevented must be “extremely serious and the degree of imminence No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech. 1. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present IV. Right to Petition the citizen would hesitate to speak for fear he might be provoking the Any person or group of persons can apply. usually applying his own subjective standards Right to Assembly in determining what is good and what is not. then neither should it be subject to the government’s subsequent chastisement. The reason here is so great that it justifies the Freedom of expression is a fundamental foundation of our constitutional limitation of fundamental constitutional rights. and that there is no other nearly every other form of freedom. [Chavez v Gonzales] Symbolic speech is a form of speech – nonverbal gestures and actions – that expresses or communicates an idea or emotion [legal-dictionary. SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT Freedom of speech includes freedom after speech. The censor serves as the arbiter for people. without fear of penalty. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION danger that they will bring about substantive evlis that Congress has a right to prevent. [Newsounds Broadcasting Network government for redress of grievances are fundamental personal rights of the v. Protected Speech type of speech is also protected under the freedom of expression. which is so important that is WHY THE SAFEGUARD? outweighs individual rights. It assures the broadest possible exercise alternative to achieve it. The right to assembly and petition prevails over economic rights. Doctrine of “Clear and Present Danger test” Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . PRIOR RESTRAINT Examples: Does not concern public lives of persons. Censorship conditions the exercise of denied. [Primacias v Fugoso] Peaceable assembly in public places like streets or parks cannot be Censorship is a form of prior restraint. US] This requires that the evil consequences sought to be {Const. This was a right elevated to constitutional status reflecting our own interest when the state has a compelling reason/interest to reach into such lesson of history… that freedom of speech is an indispensable condition for legislation infringing into the private domain. III. [Schneck v. to the vengeance of the those he criticized [the chilling effect]. of free speech and free press inasmuch as the constitution’s basic guarantee of freedom to advocate ideas is not confined to ideas of the majority only – 3. wearing armbands. Without this assurance. Art. Sec. 2. of expression. If criticism is not to appropriate branch or office of the government for redress or grievances be conditioned on the government’s consent. Doctrine of “Compelling-State Interest Test” This basically means that the State has an interest. “SPEECH PLUS”: SYMBOLIC SPEECH specially in a democratic republican country.Jamon] . Just public issues and publications Burning a draft card/flag. [JBL Reyes v Bagatsing] freedom of expression upon the prior approval of the government. and petition the heavy presumption of unconstitutionality. ASSEMBLY AND PETITION The right to freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Manila] government for redress of grievances. A right on the part of citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs. This A. Dy] people guaranteed by the contitutions of democratic countries. There is compelling state system.

the libelous. However. expressions place as a forum for speech are orderly and does not cause disturbance or such as pornography are discriminatory even though they are not harm. SPEECH MACKINNON. [Chaplinsky v New Hampshire] These are words that inflict harm or injury. It offends moral principles and repugnant. and the insulting or “fighting” words. FREE SPEECH AND SUFFRAGE 3. Take involving national security crims compete. OBSCENITY People can support whom they like. like Gonzales v COMELEC. 5. wherein the expression is traceable to decency. she distinguishes between expression A privately owned shopping center. DEFAMATORY SPEECH or utterance must be extremely serious dangerous tendency which the state Defamatory speech is either written (Libel) or stated (Slander) malicious and the degree of imminence has a right to prevent. intent and circumstances should be taken into account Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . the ideas expressed. see cases below.Mackinnon’s article “Only Words”. the profane. Slander or libel. this is part of freedom of speech. Defamatory expressive activities of its goers – regulate manners that will minimize any speech focuses on the contents of the expression – if the expression does not interference with its commercial functions. This test is applied when two legitimate values not *for rules and good law regarding obscene speech.Jamon] . and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. Unprotected Speech effects cannot be discounted.” statements that damages the good reputation of someone. it cannot be deemed as defamatory. The danger to be guarded against is It is sufficient that such acts be *for rules and good law regarding defamatory speech. “FIGHTING WORDS”. then such extremely high before the utterance words are punishable. Clear These are offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and and present danger should be applied. Fighting words are such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas. defamatory. Clear and Present Danger Rule Dangerous Tendency Rule the evil consequence of the comment If the words uttered create a 1. substantive evil which the legislative body seeks to prevent. OFFENSIVE WORDS It provides the criterion as to what The right of free speech is not absolute. “DEFAMATION AND DISCRIMINATION” IN C. These are the acts being subjected to subsequent punishment. 6. Balancing of interest test is also applied. governmental speech. lewd and obscene speech. but its B. ONLY WORDS In C. Pornography may be considered as a valid expression only in words. see cases below. USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AS A FORUM FOR OTHERS’ 4. to which the public is invited might restrict that are defamatory against those which are discriminatory. prevented natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance be to bring about the and whether the offended party is a public figure/official or not. Limitations include lewd and obscene. The effects of discriminatory expression go beyond words. Defamatory can be punished speech in media is regulated by the constitution. as well as “fighting words” are not entitled to constitutional protection and may be penalized. So long as the people using the offend in anyway. Take the 'substantive evil' sought to be advocated in general terms and if the note of the differences between those of private vs. their expression is allowed. or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. note of the Miller Test on how to determine obscenity. In some cases. 2. words may be publicly established.

held that the 1st Amendment is absolute. and with participation in graft.ous. FREEDMAN v MARYLAND Ronald Freedman challenged the constitutionality of a Maryland Motion Picture Subsequent punishment na lang [FREE and MAN to State that requires films to be submitted to a board of censors before being dito. but if he publishes what is improper. The chages against the Chief of Police were gross neglect of duty. which by their very nature create public scandal. members of other press companies. the members of the Grand Jury of Hennepin County. Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . view I respect. Lagi known as “The Pentagon Papers”. The statute is directed not only at the circulation of scandalous material itself.Jamon] . the US had been in an ongoing war with Vietnam for almost 6 years. the County Attorney of Hennepin County brought an action to enjoin the publication of what they described as a " maliciThe articles charged in substance that a Jewish gangster was in control of gambling. and that law enforcing officers and agencies were not energetically performing their duties. who view the First Amendment as an Pentagon papers] absolute in all circumstances—a HELD: Members of the majority. but at the continued publication of it by newspapers and periodicals. but reject—can find Although the justices thought that the New York Times had probably gone too such cases as these to be simple or far in publishing the Pentagon Papers. magazine and periodical. But the prior restraint on publication is the very thing that the 1st amendment of the Constitution is trying to protect. or illegal. Such freedom is essential to the nature of a free state. The US Espionage Act was the cited law for excuse “threat to national security” trying to enjoin the publications from publishing said articles alleging that the NY TIMES v US information being published "could be used to the injury of the United State or DISSENT: Executive also had to be [war TIMES. advantage of the foreign nation. Under Minnesota Public Nuisance Law of 1925. illicit relations with gangsters. Howard Guilford. scandalous and defamatory newspaper. The liberty of the press is not an absolute right and the State may punish its abuse. In 1971. The New York Times and Washington Posts had obtained a copy of documents Clear and present danger here. he must take the consequence of his own temerity. To forbid what right a freeman has to lay his sentiments is to destroy the freedom of the press. and focusing mainly on the incumbent mayor and Chief of Police. bootlegging and racketeering in Minneapolis. CASES Facts & Ruling Doctrine Related cases Prior Restraint Jay Near together with a former mayor. began publishing in The Saturday Press articles that attacked local officials. These Papers were illegally copied and then given broader authority. the Jewish Race. leaked to the press. Only those espionage. Near challenged the NEAR v MINNESOTA constitutionality of the Public Nuisance law alleging that their right to free [MIN SObra ng speech and freedom of the press was protected by the US and Minnesota allegations sa gang] Constitutions HELD: It is unconstitutional for violating the liberty of the press safeguarded by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. they found nothing in the law to prevent easy the newspaper from doing so.

debased or corrupted morals.Jamon] . on the Executive. like myself. HELD: The Court established three guidelines as adequate safeguards to protect against the "undue inhibition of protected expression. which could easily produce disaffection among the people and a state of feeling incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to the Government. show films. DISSENT (Hugo Black): While it is true that unfettered communication of ideas Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . The attack on the Governor-General went beyond the protection of Free Speech.] exhibited. The constitutionality of the statute under DENNIS v US which the Petitioners were convicted was challenged. Freedman further argued that the statute is a prior restraint because. The State itself concedes that the picture does not violate the statutory standards and would have received a license if it were properly submitted. or tended to incite crime. it presents a danger of unduly suppressing protected expression. unless the intention and effect is seditious. It was clear from the record that the leaders of the Communist Party intended to initiate a revolution when the opportunity came. “clear and present danger” does not mean the government may not act until the coup has been plotted and on is the verge of being executed. Criticism. Subsequent Punishment Isaac Perez happened to meet Fortunato Loduvico and engaged in a discussion regarding the administration of Governor-General Wood which resulted in Perez shouting a number of times: "The Filipinos. Freedman was convicted on the AYER v Capulong take note basis of that statute after exhibiting the film “Revenge at Daybreak” at his Schnek v US for clear and present Baltimore theatre without submitting the picture to the State Board of Censors danger ruling as required. must use bolos for cutting off Wood's head for having recommended a bad thing for the Filipinos. PEOPLE v PEREZ HELD: The law infringed in this instance is not Article 256 of the Penal Code but rather a portion of the Treason and Sedition Law. Obviously. The Smith Act made it a criminal offense for a person to knowingly or willfully advocate the overthrowing of any government in the United States by force or to attempt to commit or conspire to commit the crime the same. (2) require judicial determination to impose a valid determination. Perez has uttered seditious words." These guidelines are to: (1) place the burden of proving the film is unprotected expression on the censors. There is a seditius tendency in the words used by Perez. [DEiNS na to the US Protected speech: enumerate here gov’t] HELD: The overthrow of the Government by force is certainly a substantial enough interest for the Government to limit speech. is within the range of liberty of speech. Perez was charged in the CFI with a violation of Article 256 of the Penal Code having to do with contempt of ministers of the Crown or other person in authority. the Legislature. and (3) require prompt determination "within a specified time period. and the Judiciary. in the context of the remainder of the statute. for he has killed our independence”. no matter how severe. The board could disapprove films that were obscene. which includes obedience to the laws.

Yet the freedom to comment on public affairs is essential to the vitality of a representative democracy. it furthers an Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . does entail danger. kalma sa with intent to hinder its prosecution. This petition was filed to compel the respondents to allow the reopening of Radio Station DYRE which had been summarily closed on grounds of national security. the freedom of television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom accorded to newspaper and print media. Court of Industrial Relations) should be followed before a broadcast station may be closed or its operations curtailed. Necessarily. Russians held a rally against the US government at the time of war. however. The petitioner contended that it was denied due process when it was closed on the mere allegation that the radio station was used to incite people to sedition. riots and as they hoped. The Defendant appealed. disaffection. “Speech Plus”: Symbolic Speech In 1948. power of the government HELD: The regulation must 1) be within the constitutional power of the 2. sedition. regulation is within that limits said power. They were convicted under OLIVER WENDEL HOLMES: we should ABRAMIS v US the 1918 amendments to the Espionage Act that prohibited the curtailment of let the flow of ideas flow. noting that his act was “symbolic 1. Abrams and others were Russian immigrants. self-proclaimed revolutionists and anarchists who wrote and distributed thousands of circulars advocating a general strike In a time of war and appealing to workers in ammunitions factories to stop the production of weapons to be used against Russian revolutionaries. Therefore. The latter selective service registration certificate (draft card) at a Boston courthouse and based or content- always has power do destroy an [OOH BUURN iyon was convicted of violating a federal statute making it a crime to mutilate the neutral: individual and it is the bill of rights draft card] certificate. Ideas have production of materials necessary to the prosecution of war against Germany no danger right away. overt acts have been committed. MIS. O’Brien burned his statute is content- US v O’BRIEN for the government. the First Amendment of the Constitution does not protect their speech. BROADCASTING v DANS HELD: All forms of communication are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of expression clause. In sir’s opinion. NOT with a local draft board upon reaching the age of 18. speech” and should fall under the protection of the First Amendment of the the constitutional only individuals may United States Constitution. but when [ABRA. h8 of US] only then can they be curbed HELD: The plain purpose of Defendants’ propaganda was to excite. The respondents' general charge of "inciting people to commit acts of sedition" arose from the petitioner's shift towards what it stated was the EASTERN coverage of public events and the airing of programs geared towards public affairs. derived from free expression were worth the risk. revolution Clear and present danger: ALWAYS in this country for the purpose of embarrassing and if possible defeating the left at the discretion of law military plans of the Government in Europe. The cardinal primary requirements in administrative proceedings laid down by this Court in AngTibay v. at the supreme crisis of war. which required all male American citizens to register determine whether a Bill of Rights is for an individual.Jamon] . the United States instituted a peace-time draft with the Universal Military O’Brien test to Training and Service Act. the benefits in the eyes of the Founders of this Nation.

it is content-based regulation. 3) that interest must be unrelated to the suppression of speech (or substantial interest "content neutral". Violating students would be suspended and allowed to return to school after agreeing to TINKER v DES MOINES comply with the policy. Student speech may be regulated when such speech would materially and substantially interfere with the discipline and operation of a school. The petitioners decided to wear black armbands to their schools in protest of the Vietnam War and supporting the Christmas Truce called for by Senator Robert F.Jamon] . The participants decided to violate this policy. The wearing of the armband was singled out of all other symbolic speech engaged in by the student body. DISSENT: Tinkers' behavior was indeed disruptive. as later cases have phrased it). 4. in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police. The company warned that workers who belonged to first and [Rallying responsibly] regular shifts who did not report to work the following morning shall be dismissed Right to life liberty and property -> Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . and legitimate and substantial interest in preventing the destruction of these cards. government to enact. the government speech than is essential to further that interest. 2) further an important or substantial government important or interest. and 4) prohibit no more 3. Kennedy. The principals of the Des Moines schools learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that school children wearing an armband would be asked to remove it immediately. the incidental restriction on DISSENT: The asserted government interest was only valid when the nation was alleged First in a state of war as declared by Congress (which had not been the case since Amendment World War II) freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest If the regulation fails the third prong. PBMEO confirmed the WHICH PREVAILS??? planned demonstration and stated that the demonstration cannot be Will come out in the cancelled because it has already been agreed upon but Management Political (right to assembly and test he says informed them that the demonstration is an inalienable right guaranteed by the petition) > property (economy) Constitution. The Supreme Court found that the governmental unrelated to the interest in preserving selective service registration cards outweighed suppression of free Defendant’s interest in making his symbolic speech and that Congress had a expression. The Court ruled that the 1965 interest is Amendment satisfied this test. SCHOOL DISTRICT HELD: The actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption [MOIN is the right to and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic wear armbands] speech. Asembly and Petition PBM EMPLOYEES v Conflict is between human or PBM The leaders of the Union decided to stage a mass demonstration at Malacang political right and economic right.

Respondent based refusal on Revised Ordinances of 1927. CIR found PBMEO guilty so property petitioners filed with CIR a petition for relief from CIR dismissal order. If at a private place. Liberty prevails over have proper notice of mass demonstration. required 3. There’s no legal basis for the denial. 1. wrote a letter to respondent Mayor of Manila applying to hold a rally at Plaza Miranda. Respondent denied on the grounds that they have temporarily adopted the policy of not issuing any permit for the use of Plaza Miranda for NAVARRO v rallies or demonstrations during weekdays and suggested they just rally in the The Mayor possesses reasonable VILLEGAS Sunken Garden. Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify suppression of free speech and assembly. The petitioner. Justice Aquino dissented 2. There must be reasonable ground to believe that evil to be prevented is a serious one. The clear and present danger HELD: With regard to the ordinance. acting in behalf of the Movement of a Democratic Philippines. 7295 of the City of Manila prohibiting consent of the owner or that [Luneta to Embassy] the holding of rallies within a radius of five hundred feet from any foreign entitled to its legal possession is mission. free assembly and petition are not only civil rights but also political rights essential to man's enjoyment of his life. and time of assembly themselves and the general public may be ensured. Petitioner contested denial that it violates his right to peaceful discretion to determine public [plaza Miranda assembly. free assembly and petition are fundamental justify suppression of freedom of personal rights of the people recognized and guaranteed by the constitution expression but these are not absolute. public JBL REYES v Coliseum or any other enclosed area where the safety of the participants place. applicants should inform the Respondent suggested that a permit may be issued if it is to be held at the Rizal authority of the date. places to be used for rally denied] HELD: The free assembly and petition are not absolute as it is subject to regulation under police power. Petitioner sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march Guidelines for issuance of permit: and rally starting from Luneta to the gates of United States Embassy.Jamon] . Court believed there was a clear and present danger. The petitioner requested for a permit to hold a peaceful public meeting however the respondent refused to issue such permit because he found reasonable ground to believe that similar speeches will be delivered tending to undermine the faith of the people in the government. HELD: The demonstration was an exercise of their freedom of expression as it was against the abuses of Pasig policemen. Petitioners claim that they did not violate as they property is last. there was no showing that there was test must be applied violation and even if it could be shown that such a condition is satisfied it does 4. PRIMICIAS v FUGOSO Fear of serious injury cannot alone HELD: Freedom of speech. not against their employer. It must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience and in consonance with peace and good order. The assembly is lawful and cannot be struck down. in violation of existing CBA. The rights of free expression. to his happiness and to his full and complete fulfillment. the BAGATSING that the rally is violative of Ordinance No. If authority believes there is Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II .

Jamon] . in the absence of Kailangan ng 2/3 votes to declare a [early list of clear and present danger to the state. They held a general assembly at the second floor lobby instead of the one written in the permit.M. in vehement language. If the assembly is to be held in school premises. The decision must be transmitted to the applicants at the earliest opportunity 6. the applicants must be heard on the matter 5. Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . to 12:00 P. whatever grievances that may be aired being susceptible to correction through the ways of the law. their opposition to proposed merger of the Institute of Animal Science with Institute of Agriculture. There was the further allegation that the nomination of acandidate and the fixing of period of election campaign are matters of political expediency and convenience which only political parties can regulate by and among themselves through self- GONZALES v restraint or mutual understanding or agreement and that the regulation and COMELEC limitation of these political matters invoking the police power. They were informed that they were MALABANAN v under preventive suspension for their failure to explain the holding of an illegal RAMENTO assembly. Petitioner Cabigao was an incumbent councilor in the 4th District of Manila and the Nacionalista Party official candidate for VM of Manila while Gonzales is a registered voter in Manila. Applicants have recourse to the proper judicial authority Petitioners were officers of the Supreme Student Council of respondent University. by an advocacy of disorder under the name of dissent. They discussed. however. Sir: very liberal decision [Palaban na mga estudyante] HELD: The rights to peaceable assembly and free speech are guaranteed to students of educational institutions. or the undertaking of any campaign literature or propaganda for or against any candidate or party is repugnant to a constitutional command. permit must be sought from its school authorities. announcements or commentaries. They sought and were granted by the school authorities a permit to hold a meeting from 8:00 A. not follow that respondent could legally act the way he did. would render the constitutional rights of law unconstitutional nomination of petitioners meaningless and without effect. Free Speech and Suffrage RA 4880 prohibited the early nomination of candidates and limited the period of election campaigns. The peaceable character of an assembly could be lost. HELD: The prohibition of any speeches.M. clear and present danger. against the solicitation of votes whether directly or indirectly. who are devoid of the power to deny such request arbitrarily or unreasonably. or the holding of interviews for or against the election of any party or candidate for public office and the prohibition of the publication or distribution of campaign literature or materials. Respondents contend that the act candidates] was based on the police power of the state.

Respondents set up a table in a PRUNEYARD corner of the courtyard and distributed pamphlets in support for their opposition SHOPPING CENTER v Although Pruneyard is a private mall. only publications of a particular CLUB v COMELEC content. Petitioners maintain that the prohibition imposed by Section 11 (b) amounts to censorship. COMELEC the length of the period for the exercise by the President of his present powers. He issued another decree. which are prevented from selling or donating space and time for political advertisements. the interim assembly. which is not directly related to its commercial purposes. Respondents seek to enjoin it assumed the character of a public ROBINS Appellants from denying them access to the property to circulate their petitions. including the circulation of petitions. to a United Nations resolution against Zionism. Section 15(a) of the resolution provides a list of election propaganda prohibiting the posting of decals and stickers in mobile units like cars and other moving vehicles. 2347. ADIONG v COMELEC HELD: The prohibition unduly infringes on the citizen’s fundamental right of free [car decals] speech enshrined in the Constitution (Sec. and manner regulations that will Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . namely.Jamon] . media-based election or political propaganda during the [no donation of election period of 1992. PD 1031 providing for the manner of voting and canvass of votes in “barangays” Petitioners in these cases consist of representatives of the mass media. the powers of such replacement. airtime for political shit] HELD: The Court considers that Section 11 (b) has not gone outside the permissible bounds of supervision or regulation of media operations during election periods. 4. to convince others to agree with him Use of Private Proper PruneYard has a policy not to permit any visitor or tenant to engage in any publicly expressive activity. SANIDAD v its replacement. by displaying it on his car. Marcos issued PD No. Article III). Significantly. place. forum because it has opened its [pamphlets vs establishment for public use Zionism] HELD: The requirement that appellants permit the students to exercise their protected rights of free expression and to petition on shopping center property clearly does not amount to an unconstitutional infringement of appellants’ property rights under the taking clause. the period of its existence. 991 calling for a national referendum on 16 Oct 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies to resolve the issues of martial law. The limiting impact of Section 11 (b) upon the right to free speech of the candidates themselves is not unduly repressive or unreasonable COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. It is limited in the duration of its applicability and enforceability. The shopping center may restrict expressive activity by adopting time. The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his preference and. the freedom of expression curtailed by the questioned prohibition is not so much that of the candidate or the political party. because it selects and singles out for suppression NATIONAL PRESS and repression with criminal sanctions.

EVEN IF POLICARPIO v tended to dishonor and discredit Reyes. sent distress signals to US Airforce planes which forwarded such message to Manila. Philippine defense forces led by Major Encarnacion discovered that Cruz fabricated the story because he wanted transportation back home. Defamatory imputation presented to the public Policarpio filed for libel to Manila Times for publishing two libelous articles. Malice be true. [LOLpez. The company published statements correcting their misprint and explained that confusion and error happened due to the rush LOPEZ v CA to meet the Jan 13th issue’s deadline. Fake distress HELD: Mistake is no excuse to absolve publishers because libel is harmful on its signal. and it must be made in good faith and without any reputation of the other. In the case at bar. DISSENT: Manila Chronicle should be absolved because there was no evidence of actual malice. fair.Jamon] . the Aug 11 article presented her in a *note that it must be directed to a it becomes libelous worse predicament than that in which she. Petitioners have failed to show that the right to exclude others is so essential to the use or economic value of their property that the state-authorized limitation of it amounted to a taking. in fact was. with same name] whether it is fact or opinion is irrelevant. Cruz sued for libel. Using the radio set Cruz reported to the authorities in Manila that the locals were living in terror due to a series of killings committed on the island since Christmas of 1955. sanitary inspector assigned to Babuyan islands. Unprotected Speech Defamatory Speech “even if it’s true. person Fidel Cruz. This Week Magazine of the Manila Chronicle made reference to Cruz but photos used were of a different person. Wrong person face by the fact that it exposes the injured party to more than trivial ridicule. it must be fair” ->> Policarpio filed charges against Herminia Reyes causing the latter to be The way the separated from service. Publication [malversation is bad] manner in which a given event should be presented to the public but to enjoy 4. also. but. HELD: Newspapers must enjoy a certain degree of discretion in determining the 3. comments or remarks. minimize any interference with its commercial functions. Person defamed/maligned If the way you said it is immunity. which [damaging the good is given weight. reputation of someone] the information might MANILA TIMES 2. a publication containing derogatory information must be not only must be identifiable to malign the true. the press should have the legal right to have and express their opinions on legal questions. Reyes filed complaint against Policarpio for Elements of libel: information is malversation of public funds and estafa thru falsification of public documents so 1. the article does not ascribe anything immoral or any moral turpitude and the negligence performed by Manila Chronicle should be considered “excusable negligence” PUBLIC OFFICER Covers false NEW YORK TIMES v The respondent sued New York Times for printing an advertisement about the Distinction between public officials accusations even if Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . To deny them that right would be to infringe upon freedom of the press. a businessman. Libel cannot be used to curtail press freedom however it also can not claim any talismanic immunity form constitutional limitations. So long as it was done in good faith.

Enrile filed a complaint invoking his AYER PRODUCTION v right to privacy. which broadcast news reports every half hour. false. no "clear and present danger" of any violation of any right to privacy. Petitioners acceded to this demand and the name of Enrile was deleted from the movie script. ROSENBLOOM v These latter stories did not mention petitioner Rosenbloom’s name. or picture. maltreatment] Difference in applying malice HELD: The constitutional guarantees require a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice – that is. CAPULONG [Si Enrile pikon. Soliven claimed that he can't [nakakaASIAR. The projected motion picture was as yet uncompleted and hence not exhibited to any audience. The words he used were obviously a figure of speech MVRS v ISLAMIC accusation is not directed to an Elements of libel: Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . or that of any member of his family in any cinema or television production. Movie HELD: Freedom of speech and of expression includes the freedom to film and rights] produce motion pictures and exhibit such motion pictures in theaters or to diffuse them through television. SULLIVAN civil rights movement in the south that defamed him. He claimed that it referred to him indirectly. Neither private respondent nor the respondent trial Judge knew what the completed film would precisely look like. reproduction and/or exhibition of his name. Enrile declared that he will not approve the use. in other words. Petitioner was a distributor of nudist magazines in the Philadelphia metropolitan area. There was.Jamon] . acquittal of criminal obscenity charges. HELD: There is no libel unless there is malice. but used the METROMEDIA terms "smut literature racket" and "girlie-book peddlers. The President sued for libel. However. he filed this action seeking damages *wink wink*] under Pennsylvania's libel law. Respondent Metromedia’radio station. film or other medium. Subject matter is one of public interest and concern. with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Following petitioner's PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL [iba pala nag bloom. Malice must be proven in matters involving either public figures or private individuals Petitioner McElroy and his movie production wanted to make a movie out of the EDSA Revolution. appropriation. di be sued because the President was immune from suit. Soliven broadcasted the statement that President Aquino hid under her bed SOLIVEN v MAKASIAR during a coup d' etat. kasya sa ilalim ng bed] HELD: Beltran died and the case was not adjudicated but Soliven should have been acquitted. broadcast news stories of petitioner Rosenbloom’s arrest for possession of obscene literature and the police seizure of "obscene books”. the Commissioner of and private individuals what you said was [police Montgomery.

Jamon] . The guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the right to the burden of proving malice is criticize judicial conduct. by artistic value. with malfeasance in office and asked for his removal. directed to a damages in their own behalf and as aclass suit in behalf of the Muslim members person nationwide against MVRS Publications. Criminal action was then begun against the scrutinize. no member of such class has a right of action without at all impairing the equally demanding right of free speech and expression. According to them. charging that portions of the petition the conduct of their public officials presented to the Executive Secretary were libelous. Inc. the judge Doctrine of privilege: of first instance ordered the suppression of the charges and acquitted the The people have the right to justice of the peace of the same. no member of such class has a right of action without at all impairing the equally demanding right of free speech and expression. inflict injury or exposition of ideas [goddamn of the United States Constitution. made in public libelous statement was insulting and damaging to Muslims because it referred to them as “pig worshippers” but MVRS Publications claimed that the article did not mention respondents as the object of the article and it was merely an expression of belief or opinion. Scalpel part of the [Bustos ni Justice sa as long as their comments are made two of the defendants guilty and sentenced each of them to pay a nominal decision pampanga] in good faith and with justifiable fine. element of malice the 1 August 1992 issue of Bulgar. It has been well costs on social interests in order and morality observed that such utterances are Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . Good faith defamation even if such views are surrounded the action of the petitioners. comment. walang test he said] HELD: “Fighting words” are not entitled to protection under the First Amendment their very utterance. The fact that the language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself. Executive Secretary charging Punslan. they cannot sue for a class allegedly disparaged. hence. The trial court found thirty. HAMPSHIRE “God damned racketeer” and a “damned fascist” in a public place. justifiable. Their ends and motives were found to be inaccurate or erroneous. Absent circumstances specifically pointing or alluding to a particular member of a class. the 3. Such words are of such little expositional or tend to incite an immediate breach racketeer] social value that any benefit they might produce is far outweighed by their of the peace. as well as of the press . HELD: Declarations made about a large class of people cannot be interpreted to advert to an identified or identifiable individual. After filing a motion for new trial. as well as of the press. now become the defendants.There was no fairly identifiable person who was allegedly injured by the Bulgar article. Absent circumstances specifically pointing or alluding to a particular member of a class. shifted to the plaintiff “Fighting Words”. Declarations made about a large class of people cannot be interpreted to advert to an identified or identifiable individual.DA’WAH COUNCIL Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines filed in the RTC a complaint for individaual 1.. they are insulated from prosecution or damage suits for HELD: Express malice was not proved by the prosecution. ends. justice of the peace. the proface.arising from an article published in 2. and the insulting or Fighting words walang [will come out in the “fighting” words – those which. Offensive Words CHAPLINSKY v NEW Chaplinsky was convicted under a State statute for calling a City Marshal a “Lewd and obscene. or condemn US v BUSTOS petitioners. accusation is not directed to an Citizens of the Province of Pampanga prepared and signed a petition to the individual. a daily tabloid. private respondents have no individual causes of action. Since the persons allegedly defamed could not be identifiable. the libelous.

Massachusetts which said contemporary community adult material] that in order to be judged obscene. HELD: The expletive was not directed toward anyone. STOP THE WAR". such as materials that were "utterly without redeeming social explicit ads] importance. pamphlet. The Court protected two elements discern little social benefit that might of speech: emotive and cognitive.” “we cannot indulge the facile A 19-year-old department store worker expressed his opposition to the Vietnam assumption that one can forbid War by wearing a jacket emblazoned with "FUCK THE DRAFT. Miller obscene when: MILLER v CALIFORNIA appealed to Appellate Division of Superior Court. There was no evidence convenient guise for banning the FUCK THE DRAFT!] that people in substantial numbers would be provoked into some kind of expression of unpopular views… to physical action by the words on his jacket. 2. governments [will come out in the offensive conduct. DISSENT: The tests by which these convictions were obtained require only the arousing of sexual thoughts. and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. no essential part of any exposition of ideas. materials must be “utterly without standards would find that the redeeming social value. or lascivious book. arguing that the jury 1. might soon seize upon the test he says] censorship of particular words as a [Cohen touch this. obscene. particular words without also running COHEN v Cohen was charged under a California statute that prohibits maliciously and a substantial risk of suppressing ideas CALIFORNIA willfully disturbing the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or person by in the process. result from running the risk of opening the door to such grave results” Obscenity The United States passed a law that prohibited the mailing of “lewd. picture or other publication of an indecent character”. Miller was convicted under the California Penal Code for mailing Miller obscenity test. Any test that turns on what is offensive to the community's standards is too destructive of freedom of expression to be squared with the First Amendment. The work depicts or describes Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . taken as a whole. Indeed. Roth conducted a business in New York in the publication and sale of books. could be applied.Jamon] . He was convicted of violating the statute because he mailed sexually explicit advertisements and a book to requesters." The test to determine obscenity was that the material must provide no literary or social value and it must have a tendency to excite lustful thoughts. appeals to prurient interests. applying [mailed ads with instructions did not use the standard set in Memoirs v. photographs and magazines to be used to solicit sales. The average person. ROTH v US HELD: The First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance or form [mailed sexually of expression. Material is advertisements for books and a film that contained adult material.” He argued that a national standard for obscenity work.

so that censorship is presumed to be valid as constituting prior restraint. There must always be a court order. KATIGBAK [sibak.He justified that these requirements were without basis and were restrains on artistic expression. Authorities may sue under Art. construed. but for commercial purposes. it cannot be left to the issue the search warrant discretion of the police. taken as a whole. They must convince the judge that the materials to be seized Special Anti-Narcotics Group. 3. seized and confiscated are obscene. 5. and pose a clear from dealers along Manila sidewalks. state law. 4. claimed that his film Kapit sa Patalim. artistic. Movies are within the constitutional protection of freedom of expression.Jamon] . Upon appeal to SC. political. If. president of Malaya Films. they are not entitled to constitutional protection. DISSENT: To send men to jail for violating standards that they cannot understand lacks serious literary. The work. or scientific value. The courts must intervene in probable cause exits. One of the publications was Pinoy Playboy published by Leo Pita. The judge must determine Mayor Bagatsing admitted the confiscation and burning of obscence reading whether or not the materials PITA v CA materials but admitted that these were surrendered by the stall owners and the are obscene. on a case-to-case basis and through the judge’s discretion. and the Manila Police. Authorities myst apply for a search warrant 2. the Board claimed that the deletions were removed and GONZALES v KALAW the requirement to submit the master negative was taken out but the film was still rated for adults only. to be resolved establishments were not raided. in the court’s opinion. as written or in a patently offensive way. Antonio Gonzales. HELD: If a state law that regulates obscene material is thus limited. First Amendment constitutional values are adequately protected by sexual conduct specifically the ultimate power of appellate courts to conduct an independent review of defined by the applicable constitutional claims when necessary. The statute is unconstitutional. it may the determination whether a material is obscene. was rated for adults only by a subcommittee of the movie review board together with the required cuts and scene deletions. HELD: If they are not exactly used for art’s sake. Pita procedure on sexually explicit expression when authorities seek to seize materials for being obscene: 1. The appellate court may assess whether or not the properties seized are indeed obscene Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . magazines believed to be obscene and and present danger burned them. The only case when the Board of Censors can order a deletion is when there is a clear and present danger of a substantive evil against national security or public morals or other public interest. Any conviction is subject to appeal. 3. due to vagueness. denies them of due process. 201 of the PRC 6. Kapit sa HELD: Press freedom may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and patalim movie] truthfully any matter of public concern without censorship or punishment.

The prohibition of messages even between consenting adults. After the Reno case.Jamon] . which narrowed down the CDA into messages for “commercial purposes” and “harmful to minors” as well as to the World Wide Web only as opposed to covering all modes of communication. The value of work as adjudged using community standards does not vary based on the degree of local acceptance it has won. HELD: The “community standards” is applicable to the internet and the web. “Defamation and Discimination” in C. Community standards need not be defined by reference to a precise geographic area. MacKinnon. Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . It criminalized the act “knowing transmission of indecent images to those under 18” was assailed on the grounds that the word “indecent” was too vague. Congress enacted Child Online Protection Act. ONLY WORDS Two provisions of the Communications Decency Act sought to protect minors from harmful material on the internet. The safeguards in the law are too burdensome for companies. This was assailed on the ground that it created an effective ban on the constitutionally protected speech by and to ASHCROFT v ACLU adults. RENO v ACLU HELD: CDA is unconstitutional for failing to provide definitions of “indecent” and “patently offensive”. It was struck down for over breath.

Being compelled to act contrary to his religious belief and conviction would amount to a violation of “the principle of non-coercion” {Consti. or to any penal institution. applied. which would limit the free employed. sectarian institution. 29(2)} enshrined along side the right to free exercise of religion. minister. * take note of the Lemon Test enumerated below B. freedom to act on these convictions is subject to Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices disapproval of religion. preacher. or dignitary as such. denomination. operation of sectarian schools. [keep in church. or support of any sect. 6} the principle of separation of church and state. Art. inquire into its truth or reasonableness] d) There must be associational ties with the act and belief [Estrada v Escritor] A. A CO is exempt from compliance with mandates of a law. or dignitary is assigned to the armed To be considered a CO. However. other religious teacher. [the courts cannot such as Buddhism or Taoism. Sec. preacher. paid. or of Doctrine of Conscientious Objector (CO) the press. the act being defended by it must adhere to this forces. Sec. The limited entanglement of government and the religious sect includes tax exemptions. benefit. This is expanded to non-theistic beliefs c) Demonstrable sincerity in the said belief. Establishment Clause This clause does not call for absolute separation of church and state but only prohibit excessive government entanglement with. or So long as there is no compelling state interest. II. religious instruction in public schools and limited public aid to religion. or government orphanage or leprosarium. or of any mind clear and present danger test] priest. minister. Art. exercise of COs they can freely do whatever it is they want to do. 4} No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech.Jamon] . occupying a central Religion is a reference to one’s views of his relations to his Creator and to the place in the believer’s life obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character and of b) Belief must involve a moral code transcending individual self obedience to his will [David v Beason]. Benevolent neutrality could The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. VI. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the A person may refuse to render a service or do something on the grounds of government for redress of grievances. Free Exercise Clause This clause affords absolute protection for individual convictions. allow for accommodation of morality provided it does not offend compelling state interests [Estrada v Escritor] {Const. endorsement or C. Sec. except when such priest. III. Art. CHURCH AND STATE: THE WALL OF SEPARATION government to take religion into account when creating government policies to allow people to exercise their religion without hindrance. [Imbong v Ochoa] No public money or property shall be appropriated. or system of religion. moral principle or religious belief. directly or indirectly. It protects religious realities. for the use. of expression. Benevolent Neutrality Doctrine This is also called the doctrine of accommodation. tradition and established practice with a flexible reading of {Const. which allows the V. criteria: a) There must be a belief in something.

Does its primary state supervision of nonpublic school accounting procedures required to effect neither establish the cost of secular as distinguished from religious education resulted to advance nor excessive government entanglement between the state and religion inhibit religion? 3. Resolution no. Does the statute LEMON v KURTZMAN to aid the private schools. government funds to make and distribute the stamps. It has a secular purpose of increasing tourism AGLIPAY v RUIZ HELD: There was no violation of the establishment clause. CASES Facts & Ruling Doctrine Related cases Establishment . To commemorating the 33rd international Eucharistic Congress. The restrictions and surveillance schools BUT does not handle purpose. It cannot be denied drawing of the stamp here shows that it is a roman catholic church. necessary to ensure that teachers play a strictly non-ideological role and the courses or subjects on religion. PURPOSE: Giving salaries to have a secular [will come out of the teachers [as aid] in religious legislative test he says] HELD: The law was declared unconstitutional. This resolution involved the purchase of a wooden image and construction of benches for the fiesta (image of San Vicente Ferrer). THERE IS NO VIOLATION. Since there was a map of the Philippines there.the law favors a particular sect resulting in the prejudice of another sect. The priest refused to return the wooden image thus the barangay came to the SC with the contention that GARCES v ESTENZO they are the rightful owners of the image. Does the statute not foster an excessive Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . However. The aid questions below. The law was OF CHURCH AND STATE constitutional: defended claiming that its purpose was to save the crisis in public schools and 1. 5 authorizing the revival of the socio. the BSP issued postage stamps. HELD: The image was funded by private entities. then was to be given to teachers who were not teaching religion subjects Petitioners LANDMARK CASE FOR SEPARATION the statute is contend that the said law violates the establishment clause. 2. Unless they donate the image to the church. the stamp really favors the Roman Catholic Church.Jamon] . Mass was held. 1. What they just want to say is that they Sir: Stamp would obviously use are trying to promote the Philippines around the world. its ownership belongs to them LEMON TEST WILL COME OUT IN THE TEST: If yes to all the There was a law providing for financial aid subsidizing parochial schools. they were just promoting the country world wide.

The express purpose of the assailed law is furtherance of educational opportunities for the young. The Lemon test was applied. in addition to such objects as Santa Clause house and all other typical Christmas decors. entanglement with religion The Education Law of New York contains a provision. merely Walang pinaboran making available to all children the benefits of a general program to lend schoolbooks for free. The display includes. a crèche. sued claiming the law violated ARKANSAS her First Amendment right to free speech as well as the Establishment Clause. HELD: It was not valid. which has been a part of this annual display for 40 years or more. HELD: The crèche is constitutional. a public school teacher. so no funds or books are furnished to parochial schools. It merely depicts the origins of holiday. which requires all local school boards to purchase textbooks and lend those textbooks free of charge to all students in grade 7 through 12.Jamon] . promotion” without saying how or why. The provision is being assailed for being violative of the Non-Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Pinapahiram books BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY TO BOARD OF HELD: The non-establishment clause does not prevent state from extending RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS. The opinions states that the inclusion of the LYNCH v DONNELY crèche in the display was not “an advancement or endorsement of religion” but the opinion offers no discernible measure for distinguishing between permissible and impermissible endorsements. benefit of laws to all citizens regardless of religion. There was a law that was passed prohibiting teachers from teaching human EPPERSON v evolution. COUNTY OF HELD: The petitioners sent an unmistakable message that it supported and ALLEGHENY v ACLU promoted the Christian praise to God that was the creche's religious message. a banner that reads “SEASONS GREETINGS”. The classification of students included those attending in private parochial schools. Respondents alleged that the display of a creche and a Chanukah menorah in government buildings by petitioners violated the Establishment Clause. EDUCATION v ALLEN incidental lang sila. remote. The use of state power to prohibit the teaching of Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . Ownership remains with the state. They contended that the displays had the effect of endorsing religion. It was observed that any benefit the government gave to religions from the display of crèche was no more than “indirect. and incidental. Epperson. and held that the display of the creche was unconstitutional. The display of the menorah in its particular setting was a visual symbol for a holiday with a secular dimension Christmas display was put up in a park located in the city’s shopping district.

They sought to Take note of all the ZELMAN v SIMMONS. The Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 provides grants for college and university academic facilities. The court concluded that the Act did not violate the religion clauses except for the provision which states the 20-year limitation on the religious use restrictions Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . religious worship or those primarily used in connection with any part of the program of a school or department of divinity. The appellants were unable to identify any coercion directed at the practice or exercise of their religious beliefs. ENGEL v VITALE HELD: It was invalid and unconstitutional because New York approved religion. The provision allowing students to absent themselves from this activity did not make the law constitutional because the purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent government interference with religion. The district court ruled that the statute violated the First Amendment. They vary HARRIS but justification is the HELD: A school voucher program which allows parents to send their children to same. differences. Cleveland City School District had a dismal performance compared to others. material objectionable to a particular sect amounted to an unconstitutional Establishment of religion. RICHARDSON HELD: The law was valid. There was a law that was passed TILTON v for the strong demand for the college and facilities. School required students to read Bible parable at the opening of each school day. This was an attempt to defuse politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of local communities. The school district sought to enjoin enforcement of the statute. Public schools were required to voluntrarily conduct prayer at the start of each class. Compulsory Bible readings were clearly religious exercises that violated the concept of strict neutrality. SCHEMPP HELD: It was invalid and unconstitutional because such opening exercises were religious ceremonies. This program specifically provides aid in terms of education. where the vast majority of participating private schools are affiliated to religious groups.Jamon] . even after the statute SCHOOL DISTRICT v had been amended to permit a student to excuse himself. a private school is not in violation of the Establishment Clause. invalidate the program on the basis of the violation of the establishment clause. excluding those used for sectarian instruction. Ohio started up a Pilot Project Scholarship Program aimed at any family in an Ohio school district which was under federal control owing to a court decree. Ohio does not coerce or promote the parents to send children to religious schools.

VELARDE v SJS HELD: SJS has failed to convince the Court that there are enough factual and legal basis to resolve the paramount issue. The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals. Sir: Since UP is a government school. HELD: The RTC said that saying a prayer before class in a public school is Saying a prayer before class in a ARIAS v UP BOARD unconstitutional. To avoid closing of its business. American Bible Society paid the City of *remember ADE: absolutely. 8 issued by DECS pursuant to RA 1265 which called for the manner of EDUCATION conduct during a flag ceremony. an emblem of national sovereignty. of national unity and Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . questioning the constitutionality of Ordinances 2529 and 3000 as religious/educational purposes not they are not required to pay any license fee. HELD: RA 1265 is valid. AMERICAN BIBLE Manila its permit and license fees under protest. in violation of Department Order GERONA v SEC OF No. and recite the pledge during the conduct of flag ceremony. sing the anthem. The flag is not an image but a symbol of the Republic of the Philippines. BUT NO public institution [UP] is a violation of OF REGENTS the constitution UPDATE ON THE CASE. Applying the said provision would impair their exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs. subject to tax HELD: They cannot be taxed because it is part of their religious freedom. An atheist questioned his praying before the class starts. Free Exercise Clause American Bible Society has been distributing and selling bibles and/or gospel portions throughout the Philippines and translating the same into several Philippine dialect. RTC said that DO 8 is invalid and contrary to the Bill of Rights. American Bible filed a exclusively used for SOCIETY v CITY complaint. SJS filed a petition for declaratory relief before RTC against Velarde for the interpretation of constitutional provisions on the separation of state and church and the constitutionality of acts of religious leaders endorsing a candidate for an elective office. directly. thereby requiring the corporation to secure the permit and license fees.Jamon] . It is not legally possible for the Court to take upon the merits the paramount question involving a constitutional principle The professor in UP Law was a Born-Again Christian. it is unconstitutional. Petitioners belong to the Jehovah’s Witness whose children were expelled from their schools when they refused to salute. City Treasurer of Manila informed American Bible Society that it was violating several Ordinances for operating without the necessary permit and license.

certainly insofar as it declares ineligible ecclesiastics to any elective or appointive office. filed a petition for quo warranto on the basis that under the Administrative Code that there shall not be elected or appointed to a municipal office ecclesiastics. persons receiving salaries from provincial or national funds. is. in Manila for the purpose of hearing mass at the St. They established the freedom to believe. filed to run to become delegate to the State’s 1977 limited constitutional convention. danger rule. Bohol. The flag is utterly devoid of any religious significance. they were not allowed in the church Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II .Jamon] . Saluting the flag consequently does not involve any religious ceremony Similar facts in the previous case: students members of Jehovah’s Witness were Two-fold aspect of religious freedom expelled from public school for refusing to salute the flag. They started marching with raised BARANGAN clenched fists while shouting anti-government invectives. They were then barred by the Mayor upon orders from proceeding any further. inconsistent with the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. a minister. To so exclude them is to impose a religious test. This violates the free exercise clause. Freedom to believe – absolute. Petitioner. 1935 Constitution Tennessee passed a statute prohibiting leaders of religious sectors to run from public office. Jude Chapel. McDaniel. Despite pleas. soldiers in active service. Article 3. so that it to salute the flag. Petitioners composed of about 50 people converged at JP Laurel St. stating that the Election Code of PAMIL v TELERON 1971 impliedly repealed the provision. Reverend Father Gonzaga was elected to the position of municipal mayor of Albuquerque. MCDANIEL v PATY HELD: The statute was unconstitutional because it conditions his right to the free exercise of his religion on the surrender of his right to seek office. as EBRALINAG v long as it’s confined to the realm of DIVISION HELD: The Supreme Court in Gerona failed to apply the clear and present thought. who was an opposing candidate. which adjoin the GERMAN v Malacanan ground on the same street. The Chancery Court held that the said section of the statute violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. The students cannot be compelled subject to regulation. Love for country does not Freedom to act on one’s belief – SUPERINTENDENT simply mean standing and saluting the flag. cohesion and of freedom and liberty which it and the Constitution guarantee and protect. HELD: The challenged Administrative Code provision. The respondent judge ruled against him. cannot prejudice the rights of others. The law that prohibits you from running is unconstitutional. on its face. Section 5.

and records. Thus. Thereafter. The CBA states that all employees would be In case of conflict between union required to join the Union and must stay in the Union to be able to retain membership (part of property rights) ANUCENSION v NLU employment. They carried religious materials with them. the exercise thereof. abusive. but reacted angrily when they heard it. The coercion test was applied – it failed. There was a clear and present danger – what they were doing constituted a threat to the security of the President. walked along Cassius Street in New Haven. HELD: The Act was constitutional.” Jesse Cantwell stopped two Catholic men on the street. indecent remarks directed to the person of the hearer. The pledge contained the phrase “one nation under God”. An Act was assailed for containing a provision saying that and religious belief. it is equally obvious that a State may not unduly suppress free communication of views under the guise of maintaining desirable conditions. simply on freedom that prevails the grounds of their non-affiliation with any worker’s union. The government should not be precluded from pursuing valid objectives. Jesse Cantwell. CONNECTICUT HELD: While it is obvious that the principles of freedom of speech and religion do not sanction incitement to riot or violence. it is the religious members of religious sects that prohibit affiliation may not be laid off. They also had a portable record player. books. it cannot be said that Cantwell’s actions resulted in a breach of the peace or an incitement to a breach An Act was passed requiring teachers and students to recite a pledge in accordance to religious beliefs. the Cantwells were arrested for solicitation without a permit CANTWELL v and for inciting a breach of the peace. and of all fundamental rights for that matter. It was a Roman Catholic neighborhood. There was a Collective Bargaining Agreement between Hacienda Luisita and the United Luisita Workers that did not include the members of the INC at the time of the agreement. no truculent bearing. There was no evidence of assaultive behavior or threatening of bodily harm. Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . The endorsement test was applied – it failed. The Lemon test was applied and it failed. secular in character. HELD: The restriction was valid. no profane. must be done in good faith. The INC prohibited any of their members from joining any outside association or organization. which played an anti-Catholic message called “Enemies. Connecticut with two family members who were Jehovah's Witnesses. even if the incidental result would be favorable to a religious sect.Jamon] . While it is beyond debate that every citizen has the undeniable and inviolable right to religious freedom. The men agreed to listen to the record. They said they were tempted to hit him and told him to leave. NEWDOW v US CONGRESS HELD: The mandatory recitation in school would tend to discriminate against atheist students. including pamphlets.

Jamon] . The Twitchwells were the parents of a seriously ill two and a half y/o child who was afflicted with a disease. This resulted in the death of their child. The 2003 case was remanded to the OCA and for the OSG to intervene Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices WISCONSIN v YODER Members of the Old Order of Amish religion were convicted of violating Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TEST must be applied ESTRADA v ESCRITOR HELD: Pursuant to the free exercise clause of the Constitution. Sir: You cannot suppress the freedom IGLESIA NI CRISTO v of religion no matter how annoying it CA HELD: Prohibiting of screening of the show suppresses petitioner’s freedom of can be speech and interferes with its right to free exrcise of religion. Instead of having their child undergo surgery. was given the opportunity to adduce evidence that it has a more compelling interest to defeat the claim of the respondent to religious freedom. mandatory or permissive. reckless conduct COMMONWEALTH v TWITCHELL HELD: The case was remanded to answer some questions of fact. The court rule on whether Escritor should be recognizes that state-interests must be upheld in order that freedoms – including administratively liable since the State religious freedom – may be enjoyed. is the spirit. Escritor is a member of Jehovah’s Witness and claimed that the based on the Free Exercise Clause. they relied on healing by spiritual treatment. The parents are entitled to assert an affirmative defense if it is proved that they reasonably relied on the Atty. intent. and framework underlying the religion Estrada filed a complain against court interpreter Escritor for living with a man clauses not her husband and having a child with him despite of her still being married to In deciding a plea of exemption another man. They were charged with indirect manslaughter due to their wanton. The INC had a show. The court held that in resolving claims involving religious freedom: BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY or accommodation. This show was given an X rating by the MTRCB because their episodes contained direct attacks against other religions. which could have been easilty cured by surgery. the law In the 2003 case. conjugal arrangement was in conformity with their religious beliefs. Gen.’s opinion about whether the statute providing that spiritual treatment may be enough to prevent a finding of neglect providing a defense. the court could not recognizes actions. which are in accordance to religious beliefs.

A provision therein exempts from combatant service in the armed forces those who are conscientiously opposed to participation in war by reason of their “religious training and belief” US v SEEGER HELD: proof of being a conscientious objector would be decided upon if it can be shown that the person alleging it possess a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in his life. they should be acquitted. The lower court needs to determine if the defendants honestly believed in good faith. Their scheme involved the use of religious doctrines and beliefs. a place parallel to that filled by God. This involved 3 cases of asking for exemption claims of conscientious objectors under the Universal Military Training and Service Act. What they did is actually allowed by a law. 1) that he is conscientiously opposed to war in any form. it is not the role of a jury to determine its veracity. freedom of religion prevail over state’s interest. If they did. The Court expanded the meaning of religion to cover not just recognized sects but also personal belief system based on philosophy readings. They claimed that they had supernatural powers to heal the sick and diseased. The state’s interest in universal education is not absolutely free from balancing process when it impinges on other fundamental rights. The Courts may not inquire into the veracity of the subject of belief but only in the sincerity of the belief. 2) that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief 3) thought. HELD: Court ruled in favor of the Amish. Although their religion seems incredible to most. Respondents were convicted of conspiracy and use of mails to defraud.Jamon] . His claim was rejected by the Board w/o giving him a CASSIUS CLAY v US reason why. or based on an analogy to God. WENT ON BOXING. They justified their act saying that they sincerely believed that attending highschool was contrary to the Amish Religion. it is unknown which ground he did not pass. Wisconsin’s compulsory school-attendance law by declining to send their children to public or private school after they had graduated from the eighth grade. The traditional interest of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children is protected under the free exercise clause. conscience. Conscientious objector an individual who has claimed the [will come out of the HELD: HE WAS NOT DRAFTED. Ali refused to be drafted to fight in the Vietnam War. HE IS MUHAMMAD ALI. 3 tests must be satisfied to right to refuse to perform military test he said] service on the grounds of freedom of qualify as a conscientious objector. Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . In the case at bar. and/or religion that this objection is sincere. claiming that he is a conscientious objector. which were alleged to be false. Since the Board gave no reason for denying his claim. US v BALLARD HELD: Their belief is valid.

and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. They entered the checkpoint and Papa and other police seized the items. Sec. papers. The President shall have control of all the executive powers departments. UNLAWFUL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES {Consti. it is the Congress • This is an attempt of Arroyo who has the power to do such and only by law authorize the President. PAPA vMAGO As for Papa. • With the declaration of the state of national emergency. 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. Section 17. being respected. bureaus. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. There were warrantless arrests powers. The police claimed that the conversation in the booth is public so people can invade the privacy. Arroyo proclaimed PD Powers of the President: calling out 1017as there were allegations of ousting Gloria. The lawmakers based the arrest on the proclamation. not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but this is HELD: There was insufficient reason to arrest David. emergency and seizures on the basis of the proclamation. All the items seized are inadmissible in evidence. VI. The owner of the shipment claimed that tehre was unreasonable search and seizure because there was no warrant. he contended that B of Customs has jurisdiction. and offices. HELD: Given the nature of a moving vehicle. and residual powers that was considered anti-Arroyo and was arrested. The seizure of Katz based on the conversations heard in the public telephone booth is inadmissible The counter-intelligence of Manila found information that a shipment would be under-valued so they set up a checkpoint. not the court. CASES Facts & Ruling Doctrine Related cases There was a celebration of the 20th anniversary of EDSA. III. David was conducting a rally powers. to invoke emergency • Article VII.Jamon] . There should have been a an example of the DAVID v warrant for the Daily Tribune and should be done in the daytime and with President having such to MACAPAGAL witness unlike what happened which such arrest happened at 1 am in the ensure that the laws are morning. houses. he was convicted of illegal transmission of information based on recordings gathered against him from calls in a telephone booth. Art. 2} The right of the people to be secure in their persons. there is no need to secure a search warrant for suspected illegal goods as the vehicle would have already left the premises Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . Martial Law. The Daily Tribune was also • The residual powers are closed down. KATZ v US HELD: The one being protected is the person himself so he did not waive any privacy right. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. Acting out on suspicion that Katz was out on gambling dealings.

He saw weapons and arrested the accused. Internal STONEHILL v DIOKNO Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code” was written so no specific offense/ acts has been alleged thus no probable cause. what is in plain view should be searched and seized. Stonehill contended that the warrants were invalid because they were general warrants. HELD: The protection is against the government and the one who opened the boxes was a private individual Diokno made possible search warrants against Stonehill due to alleged violations of the Internal Revenue Code. HELD: The Supreme Court held that there was an exception to the TERRY v OHIO unreasonable search and seizures rule when the policeman has a reasonable suspicion to seize the gun and arrest the person if a crime would hapen. HELD: No warrants shall issue but upon probable cause and that it should particularly discuss what needs to be seized. If they want to arrest the petitioner. A congressman ordered Aniag to return the guns back to their house. As it is a fruit of a poisonous tree. it would allow criminals to just go about their way There was a gunban because there would be elections.Jamon] . The boxes were inspected again and there was a foul order to be reported to the NBI – t was dried marijuana PEOPLE v MARTI leaves contained in cellophane wrappers. he entered a checkpoint where the police saw the briefcase with the gun. None of requirements has been complied. If the police were not allowed to do such. it gives them standing There was a detective who saw the person who was suspicious and did a body- search. they should secure a warrant first Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . ANIAG v COMELEC HELD: With checkpoints. While driving. The accused assured Anita Reyes that the packages were only containing cigarettes so they did not check it anymore. Tariff and Customs Laws. A “violation of Central Bank Laws. DISSENT: Petitioners have standing to quash warrants regardless whether it was directed against residences or corporations as long as these effects were held by them under personal control.

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II .VII. [Garcia v Faculty Admission Committee] Intitutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide for itself. {Consti. There are four essential freedoms of any institution for higher learning: WHO- WHAT-HOW-WHO – who may teach. 25 (1989) {Consti. Sec 1} The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels. how it shall be taught. XIV.J. XIV. and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all. and how to best attain them – establishing academic and disciplinary standards – free from outside coercion or interference except for compelling state reasons. Sec 5(5)} The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment. its aims and objectives. Art. [covers who-what-how elements] The right to discipline students falls under the “what” element. ACADEMIC FREEDOM Background reading: Byrne: Academic Freedom: A “Special Concern” of the First Amendment. who may be admitted to study. 99 Yale L. what may be taught. Art.Jamon] .

CASES Facts & Ruling Doctrine Related cases Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II .Jamon] .

III. 20} No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax. in its The contracting parties may establish such stipulations. PROTECTED INTERESTS IN LIBERTY *side note: this is kind of stupid. The non-impairment clause is a limit on legislative power. Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt Moratorium laws {CONST. which injures public policy. III. because jurisprudence dictates that. 10} No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. art. clauses. LOL exception: C. Sec. Impairment is anything that diminishes the efficacy of the contract [Clements v Nolting]. {Const. Involuntary Servitude suffer from discrimination. morals.Jamon] . A law which changes the terms of a legal contract between parties. the time or mode of performance. provided they are not contrary to law. Non-Impairment of Obligations of Contracts another – forcing another to do something against their will. good customs. 1306} an issuance of a bad check with intent to defraud in estafa. 18(2)} No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a This is applied in both instances of employment or education. III. VIII. which. People v Vallejo] Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. and does not apply to material the obligation of a contract and is therefore null and void. compulsory service of one to A. Art. {Const. conditions as they may deem convenient. Art. This is a policy favoring those who tend to B. contracts may be impaired by law -___- Affirmative Action Policy refers to the policy giving preferential treatment in hiring and giving education to marginalized groups to help them reach equal status with mainstream groups. public order. Right Against Self-incrimination Every accused/witness has rights protected under the Constitution. Unlike {Civil Code. or imposes new conditions or authorizes something different from that provided in the contract is a law which impairs Only applies to compulsory testimonial. either in Safeguarding one’s right against self-incrimination furthers this. especially in relation to employment or education – a positive discrimination. this is obli we should know this by now. Sec. Background reading: Padilla IV-A CIVIL LAW 11-42 (1988)(discussion of Art. for compelling state interest. Art. this is applied mostly in policies made in the Mnidanao region] Involuntary servitude is a condition of enforced. sec. or public policy. 1306) AUTONOMY OF WILL. [In our system. terms and nature malum in se. D. objects [Villafor v Summers. How is BP22 [bouncing checks law] constitutional? BP 22 punishes the issuance of a bad check. BP 22 is malum prohibita.

Jamon] .CASES Facts & Ruling Doctrine Related cases Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II .

176 SCRA 1 Aznar v. 9 SCRA 27 Harvey v. Dela Rosa et.[below were not discussed by sir – not included in the test – so not expounded on. COMELEC. 20 SCRA 507 B. Deportation Board. 169 SCRA 364 Labo v. al. Who are subject to Constitutional Prohibitions STATE ACTION REQUIREMENT People v. Defensor-Santiago. supra Central Bank v. Jan.R. Court of Appeals. 1999 Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II . COMELEC. supra Borjal v. 23. CHAR. 162 SCRA 840 Yu v. 126466. 193 SCRA 57 Pruneyard Shopping Center v. 197 SCRA 853 Qua Chee Gan v. Morfe.Jamon] .] IX. saying lang effort. Robins. No. SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION A. Marti.. 14. Defensor-Santiago. 185 SCRA 703 JURIDICAL PERSONS Stonehill v. 301 SCRA 1. Who are entitled to Constitutional Protection Citizenship and Alienage Board of Commissioners (CID) v. G. Diokno.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.