I.

THE THREE GREAT flexible response as

POWERS OF THE the conditions
GOVERNMENT warrant.” [White Light
Corporation v. City of
Manila (2009)]
a) Police Power
b) Power to Tax
c)Power to SCOPE AND
Expropriate LIMITATIONS

(As limitations to the

enjoyment of rights) “The police power of
the State [...] is a
Read annotations power coextensive
found in political/ with self-protection,
constitutional law and is [aptly] termed
books written by C.J. the 'law of overruling
Justice Enrique necessity.'” [Rubi v.
Fernando, Fr. Jaoquin Provincial Board
Bernas S.J., Justice (1919)]
Isagani Cruz and
Professor Rene B. The state, in order to
Gorospe promote the general
welfare, may interfere
with personal
A. POLICE POWER

DEFINITION

Police power is the

inherent and plenary
power of the state
which enables it to
prohibit all that is
hurtful to the comfort,
safety and welfare of
society.

“Police power [...] has

been properly
characterized as the
most essential,
insistent, and the least
limitable of powers,
extending as it does to
all the great public
needs.” [Ermita-Malate
Hotel and Motel
Operators Association,
Inc. v. Mayor of Manila
(1967)]

“Police power, while

incapable of an exact
definition, has been
purposely veiled
general terms to
underscore its
comprehensiveness to
meet all exigencies and
provide enough room
for an efficient and
 liberty, with property, destinations, its use,
and with business and operation, and
occupations. Persons maintenance require
may be subjected to all close regulation. Public
kinds of restraints and interest and safety
burdens, in order to require the imposition
secure the general of certain restrictions
comfort, health and on toll ways that do not
prosperity of the state apply to ordinary
and to this fundamental roads. As a special kind
aim of our Government, of road, it is but
the rights of the reasonable that not all
individual are forms of transport
subordinated.” [Ortigas could use it.
and Co., Limited
Partnership v. Feati 2. Carlos Superdrug
Bank and Trust Co. Corp. v. Department of
(1979)] Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD),
526 SCRA 130
TESTS FOR VALIDITY (2007): validity of the
OF EXERCISE OF Senior Citizen’s Act; it
POLICE POWER is a measure under
the general welfare
clause.
(1) Lawful subject
(2) Lawful means
3. Fernando v. St.
Scholastica’s College,
693 SCRA 141 (2013):
CASES the LGU cannot
compel or impose
1. Hermano Oil restrictions of the
Manufacturing & Sugar property rights of
Corporation v. Toll private persons under
Regulatory Board, 742 the guise of exercise
SCRA 395, G.R. No. of police powers when
167290 November 26, it is actually taking
2014: In Mirasol v. private property
Department of Public without just
Works and Highways, compensation and
490 SCRA 318 (2006), invades the right to
the Court has further privacy
noted that: A toll way is
not an ordinary road. As 4. Aquino v.
a facility designed to Municipality of Malay,
promote the fastest Aklan, 737 SCRA 145
access to certain (2014): a Mayor may
exercise adjudicatory exercise of government
powers and order power should be
demolition of a stamped out.”
structure which
contravenes an
ordinance in his WHEN EXERCISE OF
jurisdiction. POLICE POWER MAY
BE QUESTIONED
5. Ferrer, Jr. v. Bautista,
760 SCRA 652 (2015):
the Constitution allows [MMDA v. Bel-Air
local governments to Village Assn. 328
raise their own SCRA 836] Where is
sources of revenue but there is no explicit
the provision of a grant of power, a
public service is not government agency
subject to any form of cannot exercise
tax imposition; taxes police power.
on idle lands and
socialized housing are The Court said:
valid but tax on “Clearly, the MMDA is
garbage collection is not a political unit of
invalid. government. The
power delegated to the
MMDA is that given to
the Metro Manila Council
HISTORY OF POLICE
to promulgate
POWER
administrative rules and
regulations in the
Dissenting Opinion of implementation of the
Chief Justice Puno in MMDA’s functions.
Lim v. Pacquing, 240
SCRA 649: Former Chief
Justice Puno in his
Dissenting Opinion in
this 1995 case said that
the exercise of police
power is not without
limit.

He said that while it is

the “prerogative of the
State to promote the
general welfare of the
people thru the use of
police power; on the
opposite end is the
right of an entity to
have its property
protected against
unreasonable
impairment by the
State. Courts accord
the State wide latitude
in the exercise of its
police power to bring
about the greatest
good of the greatest
number. But when its
purpose is putrefied by
private interest, the
use of police power
becomes a farce and
must be struck down
just as every arbitrary
There is no grant of The repository of
authority to enact eminent domain powers
ordinances and is lodged in the
regulations for the legislature which is
general welfare of the exercised through the
inhabitants of the enactment of laws.
metropolis.”

DELEGATION OF
B. POWER OF POWER TO
EMINENT DOMAIN EXPROPRIATE

DEFINITION Delegation of the

power may be done
The power of eminent through legislation.
domain is the inherent Thus under R.A. 7160
right of the State to (The Local Government
condemn private Code), the power has
property to public use been be delegated to
upon payment of just LGUs. Other
compensation. government entities
through the charters
creating them also enjoy
the right to expropriate.
SCOPE AND
[Manapat v. CA (2007)]
LIMITATIONS

It is well settled that REQUISITES FOR

eminent domain is an EXERCISE OF THE
inherent power of the POWER OF EMINENT
State that need not be DOMAIN
granted even by the
fundamental law.
(1) Private property
Section 9 of Article III of
(2) Genuine necessity
the Constitution merely
(3) Taking is for a public
imposes a limit on the
purpose
government’s exercise
(4) Payment of just
of this power. [Republic
compensation
v. Tagle (1998)].
(5) Due process [Manapat
v. CA (2007)
 CIRCUMSTANCES 4. Republic v. Heirs of
WHICH MAY Saturnino Q. Borbon,
WARRANT “TAKING” 745 SCRA 40 (2015):
the retirement of the
transmission lines
when the owner is
necessarily stripped
deprived of his
the expropriation
proprietary rights, there
proceedings of the
is taking of private
element of public use.
property.
To continue with the
expropriation
It may include:
proceedings despite
the definite cessation
(1) Diminution in value;
of the public purpose
(2) Prevention of ordinary of the project would
use; and
result in the rendition
(3) Deprivation of of an invalid judgment
beneficial use.
in favor of the
expropriator due to the
absence of the
CASES essential element of
public use.
1. Hacienda Luisita, Inc.
v. Presidential Agrarian 5. Land Bank of the
Reform Council, 670 Philippines vs. Suntay,
SCRA 392 (2012): 662 SCRA 614, G.R. No.
award of land under 188376 December 14,
tenancy can be done 2011: the enactments of
through a natural the Legislature decreed
person or collectively that the money to be
through a juridical paid to the landowner
person; a resolution of as just compensation
an administrative for the taking of his land
agency has the effect is to be taken only from
of a law and can be
governed by the
operative fact
doctrine.

2. Secretary of the
Department of
Public Works and
Highways v.
Tecson, 700 SCRA
243 (2013) and
Resolution dated
21 April 2015, –
SCRA – (G.R.
No. 179334, 21
April 2015):
definition and extent
of “just
compensation”

3. Mactan-Cebu
International Airport
Authority v. Lozada,
Sr., 613 SCRA 618
(2010): limitation on
the exercise of power;
right of the private
property owner
 the Agrarian Reform
Fund. As such, the
liability is not the
personal liability of
Land Bank, but its
liability only as the
administrator of the
ARF. In fact, Section
10, Rule 19 of the
2003 DARAB Rules of
Procedure, reiterates
that the satisfaction of 8.
a judgment for just
compensation by writ
of execution should be
from the ARF in the
custody of Land Bank.
6. National Power
Corporation v. Heirs
of Macabangkit
Sangkay, 656 SCRA
60 (2011): nature of 9.
public use; when is a
party entitled to just
compensation
despite no apparent
physical taking.
7. Export Processing
Zone Authority (now
Philippine Export Zone
Authority) vs. Pulido,
656 SCRA 315, G.R.
No. 188995 August 24,
2011: compensation
cannot be just to the
owner in the case of
property that is
immediately taken
unless there is prompt
payment, considering
that the owner thereby
immediately suffers
not only the loss of his
property but also the
loss of its fruits or
income. Thus, in
addition, the owner is
entitled to legal
interest from the time
of the taking of the
property until the
actual payment in
order to place the
owner in a position as
good as, but not better
than, the position he
was in before the
taking occurred.
National Power
Corporation v.
Elizabeth Manalastas
And Bea Castillo
(January 27, 2016, G.R.
No. 196140): the effect
of inflation in the
computation of just
compensation.
vda De Ouano vs.
Republic [G.R. No.
168770, 2011]: In
expropriation, the
private owner is
deprived of property
against his will; due
process ought to be
strictly followed. Public
use as an eminent
domain concept, has
now acquired an
expansive meaning to
include any use that is
of “usefulness, utility or
advantage or what is
productive of general
benefit (of the public).
NOTE
Expropriation is one
of the harshest
proceedings which the
state has against a
private party because
it deprives the party
of perpetual use of his tax measure is so
property; requisites, unconscionable as
how just compensation to amount to
is determined; relate to confiscation of
the Bill of Rights. property, the Court
will invalidate it. But
invalidating a tax
C. POWER OF measure must be
TAXATION exercised with utmost
caution, otherwise, the
State’s power to
legislate for the public
DEFINITION welfare might be
seriously curtailed.
Taxation is the power
by which the State (4) Uniformity of
raises to defray the taxation
necessary expenses
of the Government. It is GR: The power to
the enforced tax operates with
proportional the same force and
contributions from effect in every
persons and property, place where the
levied by the State by subject of it is
virtue of its found. This is
sovereignty, for the known as
support of the geographical
government and for all uniformity.
public needs.

UNDER THE
LIFEBLOOD
THEORY, TAXES
ARE IMPOSED:
(1) To raise revenue
(2) As a tool for
regulation
(3) To serve as
protection of state’s
interest/power to
keep alive

SCOPE AND
LIMITATIONS

(1) Power to tax exists

for the general
welfare; should be
exercised only for a
public purpose.

(2) Imposition might

be justified as for
public purpose
even if the
immediate
beneficiaries are
private individuals.

(3) Tax should not be

confiscatory: If a
 XPN: The rule on at will by the granting
uniformity does not authority. [Republic
prohibit v. Caguioa (2009)]
classification for
purposes of NOTE: EXEMPTIONS
taxation, provided MAY EITHER BE
the requisites for CONSTITUTIONAL OR
valid classification STATUTORY.
are met. [Ormoc
Sugar v. Treasurer
of Ormoc (1968)] CONSTITUTIONAL
EXEMPTIONS
(5) Taxes must be UNDER [SEC. 28(3),
equitable – As a general ART. VI]
rule, taxes should be REQUISITES:
apportioned among the
people according to (a) Actual
their ability to pay. (b) Direct
(c) Exclusive Use by the
following:
· Educational
CLAIM FOR TAX institutions
EXEMPTIONS · Charitable
institutions
GR: Tax exemptions · Religious
are frowned upon. organizations
Therefore, no law
granting any tax
exemption shall be STATUTORY
passed without the EXEMPTIONS
concurrence of a
majority of all the
Statutory exemptions
Members of Congress has to have been
[Sec. 28 (4), Art. VI]
passed by majority of all
the members of
There is no vested right Congress. [Sec. 28 (4),
in a tax exemption [.] Art. VI]
Being a mere statutory
privilege, a tax
exemption may be
CASES
modified or withdrawn
1. Com. of Internal assessment of
Revenue v. S. C. franchise tax on
Johnson & Son, Inc., NAPOCOR; NAPOCOR
309 SCRA 87. In is liable to pay
negotiating tax franchise tax to the
treaties, the underlying LGU but LGU has the
rationale for reducing burden to specify the
the tax rate is that the liability for a given
Philippines will give up period of time.
a part of the tax in the
expectation that the 4. Nursery Care
tax given up for this Corporation vs.
particular investment Acevedo, 731 SCRA
is not taxed by the 280, G.R. No. 180651
other country. July 30, 2014: There is
double taxation when
In order to eliminate the same taxpayer is
double taxation, a tax taxed twice when he
treaty resorts to several should be taxed only
methods. First, it sets once for the same
out the respective rights purpose by the same
to tax of the state of taxing authority
source or situs and of within the same
the state of residence jurisdiction during the
with regard to certain same taxing period,
classes of income or and the taxes are of
capital. the same kind or
character.
The second method for
the elimination of
double taxation applies II. HISTORY AND
whenever the state of PURPOSE OF THE
source is given a full or BILL
limited right to tax OF RIGHTS
together with the state
of residence. In this
case, the treaties make
it incumbent upon the
state of residence to
allow relief in order to
avoid double taxation.

2. Philippine Health Care

Providers, Inc. v.
Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, 600
SCRA 413 (2009):
payment of
documentary taxes
and VAT by way of
deficiency assessment
by the BIR; contracts of
HMO are not subject to
DST and VAT since
they are insurance
contracts and the
companies issuing
such policies are
regulated by the DOH.

3. National Power
Corporation v. City of
Cabanatuan, 737 SCRA
305 (2014):
A. CONCEPT OF sphere inaccessible to
SOVEREIGN WILL any power holder.”
[People v. Marti (1991)]
Preamble
It is self-executing.
Art. II, Sections 1 and 3
[Gamboa v. Teves (2011)]
Art. V, Constitution

B. THE CONCEPT OF It also imposes

SEPARATION OF safeguards against
POWERS AND THE violations by the
THREE BRANCHES OF government, by
GOVERNMENT individuals, or by groups
of individuals.

Art.VI, VII and VIII,

Constitution ARTICLE III OF THE
CONSTITUTION
C. DEFINITION AND PROTECTS THE
PURPOSE OF THE BILL FOLLOWING
OF RIGHTS PERSON'S
FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL
Protection of guaranteed AND POLITICAL
rights to liberty, property RIGHTS
and other freedoms.
(Section 1, Article III, (1) Civil rights – rights
Constitution) that belong to an
individual by virtue of
THE BILL OF RIGHTS his citizenship in a state
or community.
“The Bill of Rights
(2) Political rights –
governs the relationship
between the individual rights that pertain to an
individual’s citizenship
and the state. Its concern
is not the relation vis-à-vis the
management of the
between individuals,
between a private government.
individual and other
individuals. What the Bill (3) Social and
of Rights does is to economic rights –
declare some forbidden rights which are
zones in the private intended to insure the
well-
 being and economic government interest
security of the so great that it
individual. justifies the limitation
of fundamental
(4) Rights of the constitutional rights.
accused – civil rights The courts make the
intended for the decision of whether
protection of a person or not the purpose of
accused of any crime. the law makes the
classification
Human rights have a necessary.
primacy over property
rights. The rights of 3. INTERMEDIATE
free expression and of SCRUTINY TEST
assembly occupy a
preferred position as A third standard,
they are essential to denominated as
the preservation and heightened or
vitality of civil immediate scrutiny,
institutions. The Bill of was later adopted by
Rights is designed to the U.S. Supreme
preserve the ideals of Court for evaluating
liberty, equality and classifications based
security "against the on gender and
assaults of legitimacy. While the
opportunism, the test may have first
expediency of the been articulated in
passing hour, the equal protection
erosion of small analysis, it has in the
encroachments, and United States since
the scorn and derision been applied in all
of those who have no substantive due
patience with general process cases as
principles.” [Philippine well. [White Light
Blooming Mills Corporation v. City of
Employees Manila (2009)]
Organization v.
Philippine Blooming
Mills
Co., Inc. (1973)]
VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE AND
OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE
THE BILL OF RIGHTS SERVES:
(1) To preserve democratic ideals.
(2) To safeguard fundamental VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS
(3)rights.
Topromote the happiness of an
individual. An act is vague when it lacks

GR: The Bill of Rights against a private

cannot be invoked party. [Zulueta v. C.A.
against acts of private , 1996]
individuals. The equal
protection erects no
shield against private JUDICIAL
conduct, however STANDARDS OF
discriminatory or REVIEW UNDER
wrongful. [Yrasuegui v. THE BILL OF
PAL (2008)] RIGHTS

XPN: The Bill of Rights

1. RATIONAL BASIS TEST
was invoked and
applied by the Court
 This test is comprehensible
applicable for standards that men of
economic, property, common intelligence
commercial must necessarily guess
legislation. [White at its common meaning
Light Corporation v. and differ as to its
City of Manila application.
(2009)]

2. STRICT SCRUTINY TEST ON THE QUESTION OF

THE
This requires the CONSTITUTIONALITY
government to OF THE ANTI-
show an TERRORISM LAW AND
overriding or THE CREATION OF
compelling THE ANTI-TERRORISM
COUNCIL

A statute establishing a
criminal offense must
define the offense with
sufficient definiteness
that persons of ordinary
intelligence can
understand what
conduct is prohibited by
the statute. A statute or
act may be said to be
vague when it lacks
comprehensible
standards that men of
common intelligence
must necessarily guess
at its meaning and differ
in its application. The
statute is repugnant to
the Constitution in two
respects: (1) It violates
due process for failure to
accord persons,
especially the parties
targeted by it, fair notice
of what conduct to
avoid; (2) It leaves law
enforcers an unbridled
discretion in carrying General Rule: Void-for-
out its provisions and vagueness and
becomes an arbitrary overbreadth doctrines
flexing of the are inapplicable to
Government penal statutes. By their
very nature penal
muscle. statutes have a
general in terrorem
[Southern effect which are
Hemisphere v. Anti- intended to discourage
Terrorism Council (2010)] citizens from
committing the
prohibited acts.
ON THE QUESTION OF
THE Exception: Said
doctrines apply to
CONSTITUTIONALITY
penal statutes when:
OF THE PLUNDER LAW
(1) The statute is
“[This doctrine] can challenged as applied;
only be invoked or
against that species of (2) The statute involves
legislation that is free speech.
utterly vague on its (Rationale: Statute
face, i.e., that which may be facially
cannot be clarified challenged in order to
either by a saving counter the “chilling
clause or by effect” of the same.)
construction. The test [Disini v. Sec. of Justice
in determining (2014), on the
whether a criminal constitutionality of the
statute is void for Cybercrime Law]
uncertainty is whether
the language conveys
a sufficiently definite
warning as to the
proscribed conduct. It
must be stressed,
however, that the
vagueness doctrine
merely requires a
reasonable degree of
certainty for the
statute to be upheld –
not absolute precision
or mathematical
exactitude.” [Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan, 369
SCRA 394 (2001)]

OVERBREADTH
DOCTRINE
The overbreadth
doctrine decrees that
"a governmental
purpose may not be
achieved by means
which sweep
unnecessarily broadly
and thereby invade the
area of protected
freedoms." [Southern
Hemisphere, supra]
III. CITIZENSHIP 1.Article IV,
Citizenship,
Constitution
A. PEOPLE 2.Article V, Suffrage,
Constitution

DIFFERENT
MEANINGS OF RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE,
WORDS “PEOPLE” ARTICLE V

Art. XIII, Sec. 1; Art. R. A. No. 9189 –

III, Sec. 2 - “People” Overseas Voting Law
as inhabitants.
Nicolas- Lewis v.
Qua Chee Gan v. COMELEC, 497 SCRA
Deportation Board, 9 649: Overseas Filipinos
SCRA 27 (1963): The qualified to vote under
state has the right to the R.A. No. 9189 need
exclude aliens in its not have one-year
territory. The actual physical
President of the residence in the
Philippines is given Philippines to exercise
the discretion to their right of suffrage.
deport aliens who are
considered
“undesirable.” C. WHO ARE
PROTECTED BY THE
Preamble, Article RIGHTS
II, Sections 1 and
4; Art. III, Sec. 7 -
“People” as citizens. (1) All citizens,
natural-born
and
Art. VII, Sec. 4 -
naturalized citizens;
“People” as
source of
sovereignty. (2) Aliens within the
jurisdiction of the
philippines;
B. CITIZENSHIP UNDER (3) Both natural and
ART. IV AND RIGHT juridical persons
OF SUFFRAGE UNDER
ARTICLE V
REVIEW:
 CASES Article XIII, Sec. 17
(2)
1. Board of Medicine v.
Ota, 558 SCRA
E. FORMER NATURAL
234(2008), See Art.
XII. Sec. 14, para 2: BORN CITIZENS AS
reciprocity TRANSFEREES OF
PRIVATE LANDS, ART.
2. Poe-Llamanzares v. XII,
COMELEC (2016): a SEC. 8
foundling is a natural-
born citizen;
citizenship as a
qualification for F. NATURALIZED
government office. CITIZENS: HOW ALIENS
MAY
3. People v. Marti, G.R. ACQUIRE PHILIPPINE
No. 81561, January 18, CITIZENSHIP
1991: a foreigner may
invoke the right against
unreasonable search
and seizures.

D. NATURAL-BORN
CITIZENS ART. IV, SEC.
2

PUBLIC OFFICERS
WHO MUST BE
NATURAL BORN
CITIZENS
(memorize)
(1) President and
Vice President,
Article VII, Sec. 2
(2) Members of
Congress, Article VI,
Sections 3 and 6
(3) Justices of the
Supreme Court
and lower
collegiate courts,
Article VIII, Sec. 7
(1)
(4) Ombudsman
and his
deputies, Article
XI, Sec. 8
(5) Members of the
Constitutional
Commission, Article
IX, B, Sec. 1 (1); C,
Sec. (1); and D, Sec.
1(1)
(6) Members of the
Central Monetary
Authority, Article
XII, Sec. 20
(7) Members of
Commission on
Human Rights,
 Who are qualified Loss and
to be naturalized? Reacquisition of
(Sec. 2) Citizenship (Art. IV,
Sec. 3, Sec. 2)
When is the 10-year
residence
requirement reduced 3. CITIZENSHIP
to 5 years? (Sec. 3) THROUGH
ADMINISTRATIVE
Who are PROCESS
disqualified to be
naturalized? (Sec.
4) Dual Citizenship:
R.A. No. 9139 – The
Declaration of Administrative
Intention (Sec. 5) Naturalization Law of
2000
Procedure (Sections 7-
8) R.A. No. 9225 –
Citizenship Retention
When decision is and Reacquisition
executed (Sec. 1) Act of 2003

Effect on wife and

minor children (Sec.
IV. DUE PROCESS
15)

Denaturalization (Sec.
18) A. DUE PROCESS:
CONCEPT, REQUISITES,
TYPES AND
2. CITIZENSHIP BY APPLICATION
LEGISLATIVE ACT

CONCEPT

Due process of law means simply that:

1. JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER
(1) There shall be a law prescribed in
COM. ACT NO. 473
harmony with the general powers of
the legislative department of the
Government;

8
(2) This law shall be cover internal
reasonable in its regulations issued by
operation; administrative
(3) It shall be enforced agencies, which are
according to the governed by the Local
regular methods of Government Code.
procedure Publication must be
prescribed; and full, or there is none at
(4) It shall be all. [Tañada v. Tuvera
applicable alike to (1986)]
all the citizens of
the state or to all of
a class. [Rubi v. CASES
Provincial Board of
Mindoro (1919)]
NOTICE OF RULES
BY PUBLICATION
B. SCOPE of DUE
AS A
PROCESS
PREREQUISITE/
NOTICE TO PARTY

PROCEDURAL DUE
Tanada v. Tuvera, 136
PROCESS
SCRA 27(Decision);
146 SCRA 446
Procedural due (Resolution)
process is that aspect
of due process which Hon. Corona v. United
serves as a restriction Harbor Pilots, G.R. No.
on actions of judicial 111953 December 12,
and quasi-judicial 1997
agencies of the
government. It refers
to the method or
manner by which a law
is enforced.

Substantive due
process is that aspect
of due process which
inquires whether the
government has an
adequate reason for
taking away a person’s
life, liberty, or property.
[City of Manila v.
Laguio (2005)]

Publication of laws
is part of
substantive due
process. It is a rule of
law that before a
person may be bound
by law, he must be
officially and
specifically informed of
its contents. For the
publication
requirement, “laws”
refer to all statutes,
including those of local
application and private
laws. This does not
 PROCEDURAL DUE complaint and was
PROCESS accorded the
opportunity to disprove
the allegations
A. DUE PROCESS IN
ADMINISTRATIVE
4. Agabon v. NLRC, G.R.
PROCEEDINGS
No. 158693, November
17, 2004: in labor
Requisites: Cases – cases, the two-notice
rule must apply and
1. Mayor Abraham actual notice must be
Tolentino v. COMELEC, proved
et al., G.R. Nos.
187958, 187961 and
187962, April 7, 2010,
EFFECT OF
Pay attention to the
WAIVER/ESTOPPEL
cardinal rules of due
process in
administrative 1. The Heirs of Jolly
proceedings. Bugarin v. Republic,
G.R. No. 174431, August
2. SPO 1 Acuzar v. 6, 2012: while death
Jorolan and Hon. may extinguish
Apresa, PLEB, G.R. No. criminal liability, the
177878, April 7, 2010: presentation of
administrative evidence during the
proceedings require a lifetime of the accused
different degree of may allow government
evidence to establish to seize properties
liability while a criminal established to have
case requires proof been acquired until
beyond reasonable questionable
doubt circumstances.

3. Dr. Fernando A. 2. Philippine Overseas

Melendres, Executive Telecommunications
Director of Lung Center Corporation (POTC),
of the Philippines v. Philippine
Presidential Anti- Graft Communications
Commission, et al. . G.R. Satellite
No. 163859, August 15, Corporation
2012: administrative (PHILCOMSAT) v.
hearing does not Sandiganbayan (3rd
require trial type Division), Republic
hearing; it is sufficient of the Philippines
that the party has represented by
been notified of the Presidential
Commission on Good negate a claim of lack
Government (PCGG), of due process;
G.R. No. 174462, requirements for
February 10, 2016: membership in an
effect of failure on the organization must be
part of the state to observed.
implead parties and
constitutional Vivas, on his behalf and
limitation on actions on behalf of the
involving ill-gotten shareholders of
wealth pursued by the EUROCREDIT
PCGG. Community Bank v. The
Monetary Board of the
BSP and PDIC, G.R. No.
RIGHT TO COUNSEL 191424, August 7, 2013:
notice is not required
where there is a
DUE PROCESS IN greater public interest
JUDICIAL to protect.
PROCEEDINGS
Velasco v. EFFECT WHEN DUE
Sandiganbayan and the PROCESS IS NOT
People of the OBSERVED
Philippines, G. R. No. Winston F. Garcia v.
169253, February 20, Molina and Velasco,
2013: accused cannot G.R. No. 157383, August
question the 10, 2010: where parties
amendment of the were not given the
information when he opportunity to oppose
was given the the grounds of their
opportunity to be suspension, the same
heard and was duly must be declared void.
represented by
counsel in the Jardeleza v. Chief
proceedings before Justice Sereno and the
the Office of the JBC, G.R. No.
Ombudsman. 213181, August 19,
2014: due process
DUE PROCESS IN requires the
ACADEMIC AND opportunity for a
DISCIPLINARY
PROCEEDINGS
Cudia v. PMA
Superintendent, G.R.
No. 211362,
February 24, 2015:
right to counsel is not
mandatory in
administrative
proceedings.

INSTANCES WHEN NO
NOTICE AND
HEARING ARE
REQUIRED
Arroyo v. Rosal
Homeowners
Association, Inc., G.R.
No. 175155, Oct. 22,
2012: active
participation in

administrative
proceedings prior to an
adverse decision will
 person to disprove the 2. DUE PROCESS AND
objection of his lack of POLICE POWER
integrity to qualify as
an Associate Justice of
Ermita-Malate Hotel and
the Supreme Court.
Motel Operators
Association Inc. v. City
of Manila, 20 SCRA
B. SUBSTANTIVE DUE 849(1967): valid
PROCESS exercise of police
power as an integral
component of due
1. DUE PROCESS AND process.
PROPERTY RIGHTS

Whitelight Corp. v. City

DUE PROCESS AND
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Heirs of Dr. Jose Deleste
v. Land Bank of the
Philippines, et al., G.R.
No. 169913, June 8,
2011: there is ample
jurisprudence holding
that the subsequent
and substantial
compliance of an
appellant may call for
the relaxation of the
rules of procedure.
Law and jurisprudence
grant to courts the
prerogative to relax
compliance with the
procedural rules, even
the most mandatory in
character, mindful of
the duty to reconcile
the need to put an end
to litigation speedily
and the parties’ right to
an opportunity to be
heard; actual notice is
required.
of Manila, 576 SCRA
416(2009): the right to
property and the right
to privacy cannot be
impaired through an
ordinance which falls
within the ambit of the
overbreadth doctrine.
3. DUE PROCESS AND
EMINENT DOMAIN
(Section 9, Article III
and Section 18,
Article XII)
REQUIREMENTS FOR
EXERCISE OF RIGHT
OF EXPROPRIATION:
taking for public
purpose and just
compensation
PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENT: City
of Manila v. Melba Tan
Te, G.R. No. 169263,
September 21, 2011:
answer required in
eminent domain Alejano v. Cabuhay, 468
SCRA 188(2005):
proceedings; application of the concept
government has of diminished expectancy
effectively waived its under the right to privacy.
right to prove the nature
of the taking for failure Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA
to comply with (1998): protection of the
substantive right to privacy of citizens
requirements of the law;
there two stages in Bayan Muna v. NEDA
expropriation Director-General, G.R.
proceedings: (1) court No. 167930, April 19,
must determine 2006: the Court upheld
authority of the the constitutional power
petitioner and nature of of control the President
the public purpose; and directing all government
(2) the court must entities, in the exercise of
determine just their functions under
compensation. existing laws, to adopt a
uniform ID data collection
and ID format to achieve
4. DUE PROCESS AND savings, efficiency,
NON-ECONOMIC reliability, compatibility,
LIBERTIES: RIGHT TO and convenience to the
PRIVACY public. The President’s
constitutional power of
control
Concept of the Right
(Section 3, Article III,
Constitution)

Spouses Hing v.
Chaoahuy, Sr. and Alllan
Choachuy, G.R. No.
179736, June 26, 2013:
under a civil case, a
party may seek relief
from the court for
violation of one’s right to
privacy in his abode.

WHEN MAY RIGHT BE

INVOKED

Anti-Wire-
Tapping Act
(R.A. 4200)
Privileged
Communication

Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA,
Hon. Zamora:
observation of
exclusionary rule in an
annulment case.

Navarro v. CA and the

People of the Philippines –
August 1999: right of a
media practitioner to
record events as they
occur in a public place.
 is self-executing and process. This does not
does not need any apply to substantive
implementing due process. [Secretary
legislation; EO 420 of Justice v. Lantion
does not compel all (2000)]
citizens to have an ID
card. EO 420 applies A determination of the
only to government precise nature of the
entities that under government function
existing laws are involved as well as of
already collecting the private interest
data and issuing ID that has been affected
cards as part of their by governmental
governmental action must be
functions. Every considered in
government entity determining the
that presently issues application of the rules
an ID card will still of procedure. [Cafeteria
issue its own ID card & Restaurant Workers
under its own name. Union v. McElroy (1961].
The only difference is
that the ID card will To say that the concept
contain only the five of due process is
data specified in flexible does not mean
Section 3 of EO 420, that judges are at large
plus the fingerprint, to apply it to any and
the agency ID all relationships. Its
number, and the flexibility is in its scope
common reference once it has been
number which is determined that some
needed for cross- process is due; it is a
verification to ensure recognition that not all
integrity and situations calling for
reliability of procedural safeguards
identification. call for the same kind
of procedure.
[Morrissey v. Brewer
C. RELATIVITY OF DUE (1972)]
PROCESS

Not all situations V. RIGHT TO LIFE,

calling for procedural LIBERTY AND
safeguards call for the PROPERTY:
same kind of SAFEGUARDS OF DUE
procedure. This
requires a reasonable PROCESS, EQUAL
degree of flexibility in PROTECTION AND
the applying
NON-IMPAIRMENT
procedural due
CLAUSES
A. RIGHT TO LIFE EQUAL PROTECTION
requires that all
persons or things
Republic v. similarly situated
Kagandahan, 565 SCRA should be treated alike,
72 (2008)
both as to rights
conferred and
Gamboa v. P/SSupt.
responsibilities
Chan, et al., G.R. No.
imposed.
193636, July 24, 2012
It does not demand
Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R.
No. 204819, April 8, absolute equality
2014 among residents; it
merely requires that all
persons shall be
B. DUE PROCESS treated alike, under
CLAUSE like circumstances and
(SECTION1, ARTICLE conditions both as to
III) privileges conferred
and
liabilities
Due process enforced. The
furnishes a standard to guarantee means that
which the no person or class of
governmental action persons shall be
should conform in denied the same
order that deprivation protection of laws
of life, liberty or which is enjoyed by
property, in each other persons or other
appropriate case, be classes
valid. x x x It is
responsiveness to the
supremacy of reason,
obedience to the
dictates of justice.
Negatively pit,
arbitrariness is ruled
out and unfairness
avoided. x x x
Correctly it has been
identified as freedom
from arbitrariness. It is
the embodiment of the
sporting idea of fair
play. [Ichong v.
Hernandez (1957)]

A law hears before it

condemns, which
proceeds upon inquiry
and renders judgment
only after trial.
[Darthmouth College v.
Woodward, 4 Wheaton
518]

C. EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE

1. DEFINITION
in like circumstances. a)Age
[Ichong v. Hernandez b)Gender
(1957)] c) Religion
d)Economic class
e)Ethnicity
2. REQUISITES FOR f) Race
VALID g)Sexual orientation
CLASSIFICATION h)Economic class
i) Residence
j) Disability
(1) It must rest on
k) Date of
substantial
filing/effectivity of
distinctions which
the law
make real
differences;
(2) It must be germane
to the purpose of CASES
the law;
(3) It must not be Yrasuegui v. Philippine
limited to existing Airlines, Inc., 569 SCRA
conditions only; and 467 (2008)
(4) Apply equally to all
members of the Garcia v. Drilon, 699
same class. SCRA 352 (2013)

Serrano v. Gallant
3. PRESUMPTION OF Maritime Services, Inc.,
VALIDITY 582 SCRA 254 (2009)

Sameer Overseas
All classifications made Placement Agency, Inc.
by law are generally v. Cabiles, 732 SCRA 22
presumed to be valid (2014)
unless shown
otherwise by ECONOMIC
petitioner. [Lacson v. EQUALITY: Filipino
Executive Secretary First Policy:
(1999)]
classification based on
alienage - Ichong v.
4. BASIS FOR Hernandez, 101 Phil.
CLASSIFICATION 1165 (1957)
 POLITICAL (1) When there is
EQUALITY: Dilution of substantial
voting rights based on impairment which
residence: Aquino and (a)changes the
Robredo v. COMELEC, terms of legal
G.R. No. 189793, April contract either in
7, 2010 time or mode of
performance;
EXCLUSION BASED (b)imposes new
ON SEXUAL conditions;
ORIENTATION : Ang (c) dispenses with
Ladlad v. COMELEC, G.R. expressed
No. 190582, April 8, conditions; or
2010 (d)authorizes for its
satisfaction
SOCIAL EQUALITY: something
Forced resettlement different from that
based on ethnicity: provided in the
Rubi v. Provincial Board terms.
of Mindoro, 39 Phil., 660
(2) When a law affects
PRIVILEGE BASED the rights of parties
ON ETHNICITY: Cruz with reference to
v. NCIP, G.R. No. each other, and not
135385, December 6,
with respect to non-
2000
parties. [Philippine
Rural Electric
B. CONTRACT CLAUSE / Cooperatives
NON-
IMPAIRMENT Association
CLAUSE

1. CONCEPT OF
MUTUAL OBLIGATION
(SECTION 10, ARTICLE
III, CONSTITUTION)

Contract Clause
A law which changes
the terms of a legal
contract between
parties, either in the
time or mode of
performance, or
imposes new
conditions, or
dispenses with those
expressed, or
authorizes for its
satisfaction something
different from that
provided in its terms, is
law which impairs the
obligation of a contract
and is therefore null
and void.

2. REQUISITES
 v. Secretary, DILG, VI. INTELLECTUAL LIBERTY:
G.R. No. 143076, June FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
10, 2003]
(SPEECH AND PRESS), FREE
ASSEMBLY AND PETITION,
EXCEPTIONS TO FREEDOM OF
RULE WHEN THE ASSOCIATION, RELIGIOUS
STATE MAY IMPAIR FREEDOM
CONTRACTS

(1) Power of taxation: A. FREEDOM OF

government may EXPRESSION
increase taxes (SPEECH AND THE
covering certain PRESS)
transactions

(2) Regulation on loans:

as a matter of 1. DEFINITION
public interest, the (SECTION 4, ARTICLE
government may III)
impose restrictions on
loans NATURE AND SCOPE
- Concept of Vested OF THE RIGHT: The
Right primacy and high
- Waiver of Right esteem accorded
freedom of expression
CASES is a fundamental
postulate of our
constitutional system.
Vigilar v. Aquino, G.R.
No. 180388, January 18, This right was elevated
2011 to constitutional status
[...] reflecting our own
Goldenway lesson of history, both
Merchandising political and legal, that
Corporation v. Equitable freedom of speech is
PCI Bank, G.R. No. an indispensable
195540, March 13, 2013 condition for nearly
every other form of
freedom.

The scope of freedom

of expression is so
broad that it extends
protection to nearly
all forms of FACIAL CHALLENGES
communication. It AND THE
protects speech, print OVERBREADTH
and assembly DOCTRINE
regarding secular as
well as political causes,
GR: A party can
and is not confined to
question the validity of
any particular field of
a statute only if, as
human interest. The
applied to him, it is
protection covers
unconstitutional.
myriad matters of
[Southern Hemisphere
public interest or
v. Anti-Terrorism
concern embracing all
Council (2010)]
issues, about which
information is needed
or appropriate, so as to XPN: A facial challenge
enable members of is allowed to be made
society to cope with to a vague statute and
the exigencies of their to one which is
period. [Chavez v. overbroad because of
Gonzales (2008)] possible “chilling
effect” upon protected
speech. The theory is
that “[w]hen statutes
2. BASES FOR regulate or proscribe
PROTECTION speech and no readily
apparent construction
Promotion of Truth, suggests itself as a
Enhance Principles of
Democracy, Expression
of Self- Fulfillment of
Citizens

SPEECH,
EXPRESSION, AND
PRESS INCLUDE:

(1)Written or spoken
words (recorded or
not)

(2)Symbolic speech (e.g.

wearing armbands as
symbol of protest)

(3)Movies and other

literary works

3. WHY STATE
RESTRICTS AND
IMPOSES
LIMITATIONS ON
FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION

Maintenance of Peace,
Promotion of Community
Morals, and Protection of
Individual Dignity
vehicle for enacting laws against
rehabilitating the socially harmful
statutes in a single conduct. In the area of
prosecution, the criminal law, the law
transcendent value to cannot take chances as
all society of in the area of free
constitutionally speech. [Southern
protected expression is Hemisphere, supra]
deemed to justify
allowing attacks on HOWEVER, SAID
overly broad statutes DOCTRINES APPLY TO
with no requirement PENAL STATUTES
that the person making WHEN:
the attack demonstrate
that his own conduct (1) The statute is
could not be regulated challenged as applied;
by a statute drawn or
with narrow (2) The statute involves
specificity.” free speech [Disini v.
Sec. of Justice (2014)]
The possible harm to
society in permitting
some unprotected OVERBREADTH
speech to go DOCTRINE
unpunished is
outweighed by the
possibility that the A governmental
protected speech of purpose may not be
others may be achieved by means
deterred and perceived which sweep
grievances left to unnecessarily broadly
fester because of and thereby invade the
possible inhibitory area of protected
effects of overly broad freedoms.
statutes.

This rationale does not TESTS APPLIED TO

apply to penal statutes FREEDOM OF SPEECH:
[without a free-speech
aspect]. Criminal 1. DANGEROUS
statutes have general TENDENCY TEST
in terrorem effect
resulting from their If the words uttered
very existence, and, if create a dangerous
facial challenge is tendency of an evil
allowed for this reason which the State has
alone, the State may the right to prevent,
well be prevented from then such words are
 punishable. [ Cabansag commercial speech,
v. Fernandez (1957) ] and satirical
speech/parody.
2. CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER TEST
5. HOW
This rule requires that GOVERNMENT
“the danger created RESTRICTS
must not only be clear FREEDOM OF
and present but also EXPRESSION
traceable to the ideas
expressed”. [Gonzales Content Based
v. COMELEC (1969)] Restrictions
distinguished from
3. BALANCING OF Content Neutral
INTEREST TEST Restrictions as
gleaned from Justice
When a particular Carpio’s concurring
conduct is regulated in opinion in Chavez v.
the interest of public Gonzalez, supra:
order, and the
regulation results in an (i) any content-based
indirect, conditional prior restraint on
and partial PROTECTED expression
abridgement of speech, is unconstitutional.
the duty of the courts (ii) only unprotected
is to determine which expression is subject to
of the two conflicting prior restraint.
interests demands
greater protection.
[American
Communications Assoc.
v. Douds, 339 US 282]

4. UNPROTECTED
SPEECH/EXPRESSIO
N AND PROTECTED
SPEECH/EXPRESSIO
N, DISTINGUISHED

a. UNPROTECTED
SPEECH/EXPRESSION:

General Guidelines,
Obscenity, and
Incitement to National
Security, False or
Misleading

Advertisement,
Speech, Hate Speech
and Contumacious
Speech.

b. PROTECTED
SPEECH/EXPRESSION

All those excluded from

unprotected expression
may include utterances
critical of public
conduct, ordinary
(iii) prior restraint community
presumes that the standards would
expression is find that the work,
unconstitutional. taken as a whole,
(iv)government has the appeals to prurient
burden of proof every interest
time it exercises (2) Whether the work
censorship. depicts or
describes in a
patently offensive
6. STANDARDS OF way, sexual
REVIEW conduct specifically
defined by the
applicable state law
O’BRIEN TEST ON (3) Whether the work,
C O N T E N T- N E U T R A L taken as a whole,
RESTRICTIONS lacks serious,
literary, artistic,
For validity of content- political, or
neutral regulation scientific value
[Miller v. CA (1973)
(1) If it is within the also applied in
constitutional Fernando v. CA
power of the (2006)]
government
(2) If it furthers an DOCTRINES OF
important or STRICT
substantial S C R U T I N Y,
government OVERBREADTH AND
interest VAGUENESS
(3) If the government
interest is LIBEL AS A
unrelated CRIMINAL
to the suppression OFFENSE
of free expression (Article 354,
(4) If the incidental Revised Penal
restriction is no Code)
greater than is
essential to the
furtherance of that CASES
interest

MILLER TEST TO 1. Chavez v.

DETERMINE Gonzalez, 545
OBSCENITY SCRA 441 (2008)

(1) Whether the 2. Disini, Jr. v. Secretary of

average person, Justice, 716
applying SCRA 2014 and 723
contemporary SCRA 109
(2014)
3. Social Weather Stations, 1. RIGHT TO
Incorporated v. INFORMATION
Commission on Elections, ARTICLE III, SECTION
357 7, CONSTITUTION
SCRA 496 (2001)

4. GMA Network, Inc. v. The constitutional right

Commission on Elections, to information includes
734 SCRA 88 (2014) official information on
on-going negotiations
5. Diocese of Bacolod before a final contract.
v. Commission on The information,
Elections, 747 SCRA however, must
1 (2015) constitute definite
propositions by the
6. Social Weather Stations, government, and
Inc. v. should not cover
Commission on recognized exceptions.
Elections, 755 SCRA [Chavez v. Philippine
124 (2015) Estate Authority (2002)]

7. Pharmaceutical and DIPLOMATIC SECRETS

Health Care (DIPLOMATIC
Association of the NEGOTIATIONS
Philippines v. Duque PRIVILEGE)
III 535 SCRA 265
(2007) {Read
Separate Opinion of
C.J. Puno}

8. Bayan v. Ermita, 488

SCRA 226 (2006

9. Integrated Bar of
the Philippines v.
Atienza, Jr., 613
SCRA 518 (2010)

10. Re: Letter of the UP

Law Faculty Entitled
“Restoring Integrity: A
Statement by the
Faculty of the
University of the
Philippines College of
Law on the Allegations
of Plagiarism and
Misrepresentation in
the SupremeCourt,”
644 SCRA 543 (2011)

11. Soriano vs. Laguardia

[G.R. No. 164785. April
29, 2009]: Plain and
simple insults to
another person cannot
be elevated to the
status of a religious
speech.

B. RIGHT TO
INFORMATION
Secrecy of negotiations and economic
with foreign countries security
is not violative of the
right to information. (4) Information on
Diplomacy has a investigations of
confidential nature. crimes by law
While the full text [of enforcers before
the JPEPA] may not be prosecution
kept perpetually [Chavez v. PEA
confidential, it is in line and Amari,
with the public interest supra]
that the offers
exchanged during (5) Trade secrets
negotiations continue and
to be privileged banking
information. transactions
Furthermore, the [Chavez v. PCGG
information sought (1998)]
includes documents
produced and (6) Offers exchanged
communicated by a during diplomatic
party external to the negotiations
Philippine government. [Akbayan v.
However, such Aquino (2008)]
privilege is merely
presumptive, and will (7) Other
not apply to all cases. confidential
[Akbayan v. Aquino matters (i.e. RA
(2008)] 6713, closed
door Cabinet
meetings,
2. THE executive
FOLLOWING ARE sessions, or
COVERED BY THE internal
EXCEPTIONS deliberations in
the Supreme
Court) [Re:
Request for Copy
(1) Privileged of 2008
information rooted Statement of
in separation of Assets, Liabilities
powers and Net Worth
[SALN] and
(2) Information of Personal Data
military and Sheet or
diplomatic Curriculum Vitae
secrets (Neri v. of the Justice of
Various the Supreme
Committees of Court and
the Senate) Officers and
Employees of the
(3) Information Judiciary, 672
affecting national SCRA 27 (2012)]
 CASES 1. RIGHT TO STRIKE AND THE RIGHT TO
UNIONIZE (ARTICLE III, SECTION 8)
1. Chavez v. Presidential Commission on
Good Government, 299 SCRA 744 SCOPE: The right is recognized as
(1998) belonging to people whether employed
or unemployed, and whether employed in
2. Re: Request for Copy of 2008 the government or in the private sector.
Statement of Assets, Liabilities and The right includes the right to form labor
Net Worth [SALN] and Personal Data unions, societies or associations not
Sheet or Curriculum Vitae of the contrary to law.
Justice of the Supreme Court and
Offi cers and Employees of the CASE: In Re: Atty. Marcial A. Edillon, 84
Judiciary , 672 SCRA 27 (2012) SCRA 556 (1978): compulsory
membership in the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines
3. LIMITATIONS

2. RIGHT OF PRIVATE SECTOR

EMPLOYEES AND GOVERNMENT
CASES:
EMPLOYEES (ARTICLE III, SECTION
8, CONSTITUTION)
Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, 488
SCRA 1 (2006)
CASE: Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers
Neri v. Senate Committees 549 SCRA 77 Union, Inc. (1974)
(2008)

Antolin v. Abelardo R. Domondon, et al., E. FREEDOM OF RELIGION

G.R. No. 165036. July 5, 2010

Sereno v. CTRM –NEDA, G.R. No. 175210, 1. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
February 01, 2016 (ARTICLE II, SECTION 6,
CONSTITUTION )

C. RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND TO SEEK

REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES FROM CONCEPT : The clause prohibits
GOVERNMENT excessive
government entanglement with,
endorsement or disapproval of religion.
[Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union
CASES (1974)]

Bayan v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 226 (2006)

2. NON ESTABLISHMENT OF
RELIGION CLAUSE/ FREE
IBP v. Mayor Atienza, G.R. No.175241, Feb.
EXERCISE CLAUSE/NO
24, 2010
RELIGIOUS TEST (ART. III, SEC.
5, CONSTITUTION)
GSIS and Garcia v. Villaviza et al., G. R. No.
180291, July 27, 2010

TESTS ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION:

D. RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION
(1) CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGERBENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY-
COMPELLING STATE INTEREST

ALEJANDRO ESTRADA V. SOLEDAD

ESCRITOR, A.M. No. P-02-1651. August 4,
2003
 (3) CONSCIENTIOUS sects shall not be
OBJECTOR registered [as political
parties].”
IMBONG V. OCHOA, G.R.
No. 204819, April 8, (3) ART. VI, SEC. 5(2):
2014 “For three consecutive
terms after the
ratification of this
4. SEPARATION OF Constitution, one-half of
POWERS the seats allocated to
party-list
ARTICLE VI, SEC.5 representatives shall be
(2), AND ARTICLE filled, as provided by
IX C, SECTION law, by selection or
2(5), election from [...]
CONSTITUTION sectors as may be
provided by law, except
the religious sector.”
BASIS
(4) ART. VI, SEC. 29(2):
“[T]he principle of “No public money or
separation of Church property shall be
and State is based on appropriated, applied,
mutual respect. paid, or employed,
Generally, the State directly or indirectly, for
cannot meddle in the the use, benefit, or
internal affairs of the support of any sect,
church, much less church, denomination,
question its faith and sectarian
dogmas or dictate upon
it. It cannot favor one
religion and
discriminate against
another. On the other
hand, the church
cannot impose its
beliefs and convictions
on the State and the
rest of the citizenry. It
cannot demand that
the nation follow its
beliefs, even if it
sincerely believes that
they are good for the
country.” [Imbong v.
Ochoa (2014)]

RELEVANT
PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION ON
THE SEPARATION OF
THE CHURCH AND
THE STATE:

(1) ART. II, SEC. 6: “The

separation of Church
and State shall be
inviolable.”

(2) ART. IX-C, SEC. 2(5):

“Religious
denominations and
institution, or system the state. All private
of religion, or of any educational institutions
priest, preacher, may prescribe its own
minister, other requirements to
religious teacher, or maintain the standard
dignitary as such, of quality of academic
except when such quality.
priest, preacher,
minister, or dignitary
is assigned to the CASE
armed forces, or to
any penal institution, PTA of St. Mathew
or government Christian Academy et
orphanage or al., v. Metrobank, G.R.
leprosarium.” No. 176518, March 2,
2010)
4. TWO ASPECTS
OF FREEDOM OF
RELIGION: VII. PHYSICAL
FREEDOM TO LIBERTY: LIBERTY OF
BELIEVE AND ABODE AND
FREEDOM TO ACT FREEDOM OF
ON ONE’S BELIEFS MOVEMENT

FREEDOM TO BE
CASES SECURE IN ONE’S
PERSON, HOME AND
1. Ang Ladlad LGBT
POSSESSION
Party v. Commission
on Elections, 618 A. FREEDOM OF
SCRA 32 (2010) ABODE, FREEDOM TO
CHANGE ABODE AND
2.Taruc v. De La Cruz, RIGHT TO TRAVEL
453 SCRA 123 (2005) CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTEE UNDER
SECTION 6, ARTICLE
F. ACADEMIC III, CONSTITUTION
FREEDOM
FREEDOM OF
The right to academic MOVEMENT
freedom may only be INCLUDES TWO
invoked only against RIGHTS:
1) Liberty of abode
2) Liberty of travel travels abroad.
LIMITATIONS: In [Manotoc vs. CA (1986)]
certain instances
both the liberty of
abode and right to B. SEARCHES AND
travel may be SEIZURES
impaired.
1. RIGHT
AGAINST
CASES UNREASONABL
E SEARCHES
OCA v. Judge Ignacio AND SEIZURES,
ARTICLE III,
B. Macarine, A.M. No.
MTJ-10-1770, July 18, SECTIONS 1, 2
2012: In interest of AND 3,
national security, CONSTITUTION
public safety or public
health and as may be EXCLUSION OF
provided by law, both EVIDENCE
the freedom of Stonehill v. Diokno, 20
abode and right to SCRA 388 (1967)
travel may be People v. Belocura,
restricted. G.R. No. 173474, August
29, 2012
Gudani v. Senga, 498
SCRA 671 (2006): The CHAIN OF CUSTODY
executive of a DOCTRINE
municipality does not People v. Ronaldo de
have the right to force Guzman, G.R. No.
citizens of the 186498, March 26, 2010
Philippine Islands to
change their domicile
from one locality to
another. [Villavicencio
vs. Lukban (1919)]

The liberty to travel

may be withheld upon
order of the courts
through the issuance
of Hold Departure
Orders.

Fr. Roberto P. Reyes v.

Sec. Gonzales, G. R.
No. 182161, December
31, 2009: Relocation of
Manguinaes, a
nomadic people, is a
proper restraint to their
liberty. It is for their
advancement in
civilization and so that
material prosperity
may be assured. [Rubi
vs. Provincial Board
(1919)] Restraint on
right to travel of
accused on bail is
allowed to avoid the
possibility of losing
jurisdiction if accused
 CONFISCATION OF RULES ON
SEIZED ITEMS CRIMINAL
DESPITE ACQUITTAL PROCEDURE)
UNDER P.D. 969
Nogales v. People, G.R.
Valeroso v. Court of
191080, November 21,
2011 Appeals, 598 SCRA 41
(2009)
PROBABLE CAUSE
HPS Software and
Communication Corp. 4. VALID WARRANTLESS
SEARCHES
and Yap v. PLDT, et al.,
G.R. No. 170217,
170694, December 10, SEARCH INCIDENT
2012 TO A VALID ARREST
People v. Ngik Bun,
LOSS OF PROTECTION Kwok Wai Cheng et al.,
OF RIGHT G.R. No. 180452,
Sales v. People, G.R.No. January 10, 2011;
191023, February
6, 2013 BUY BUST OPERATION
People v.
Buenaventura, G.R. No.
2. REQUISITES 184807,
FOR A VALID November 23, 2011
SEARCH
WARRANT AND THE PLAIN VIEW
WARRANT OF DOCTRINE
ARREST Fa j ar d o v. Pe op l e ,
G . R . N o . 1 9 0 88 9 ,
Yao, Sr. v. People 108 January 10, 2011
SCRA (2007) United Laboratories, Inc.
People v. Nunes, G.R. v. Isip, 461 SCRA
No. 177148, June 30, 574 (2005)
2009
CHECKPOINTS
Valmonte v. De Villa, 178
3. INSTANCES OF SCRA 211 (1989)
VALID
WARRANTLESS STOP AND FRISK
ARREST (REVIEW People v. Dequina et al.,
RELEVANT G.R. no. 177570,
PROVISIONS OF THE January 19, 2011
AIRPORT SEARCH [A.M. No.07-9-9-12-SC]
People v. Johnson, 348 and Habeas Data
SCRA (2000) [A.M. No.08-1- 16-SC]

MOVING VEHICLE Melissa C. Roxas v.

SEARCH President Macapagal-
People v. Macarios, G.R. Arroyo, et al., G.R. No.
no. 188611, June 189155, September 7,
16, 2010 2010

CONSENTED SEARCH Canlas v. Napico

searches in school Homeowners Assn.,
premises; access to Inc., 554 SCRA 208
parking areas; entry to (2008)
malls

SEARCHES BY WRIT OF HABEAS

PRIVATE DATA
ENTITIES Viveres and Suzara v.
People v. Marti, St. Theresa’s College,
193 SCRA 57 G.R. No. 202666,
(1991) September 29,2014

ADMINISTRATIVE
SEARCHES
buildings, vessels,
aircrafts
Pollo v. Chairperson
Constantino-David, et
al., G.R. No. 181881,
October 18, 2011
WRIT OF KALIKASAN
MMDA v. Concerned
residents of Manila
C. WRIT OF HABEAS
Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-
CORPUS, WRIT OF
48, December 18, 2008
AMPARO, WRIT OF
HABEAS DATA, WRIT
OF
KALIKASAN VIII. RIGHTS OF THE
ACCUSED AND
OTHER RIGHTS
RELATED TO CRIME
WRIT OF HABEAS AND
CORPUS
PUNISHMENT

Article III, Sections 13

and 15, 1987
Constitution A. FREE ACCESS TO
FUNCTION OF THE COURTS
WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS Villavicencio
v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778 1. Representation
(1919) before the Courts,
Article III, Section 11,
SUSPEN SION OF Constitution
THE WRIT OF
H ABEAS
CORPUS Case: People v. Hon.
Article III, Section 18, Azarraga and Prevendido,
1987 Constitution G. R. No. 187117,
October 12, 2011
Function of the Writs
of Amparo
2. Costs of Litigation
Re: Query of Mr. Roger 1. Custodial
C. Prioreschi re Investigation,
Exemption from Legal Article III,
and Filing Fees of the Section 12,
Good Shepherd Constitution
Foundation, Inc., 596
SCRA 401 (2009) Case: Jesalva v.
People, G.R. No. 187725,
Re: Request of IBP January 19, 2011
National Committee on
Legal Aid Clients from
2. History of
Paying Filing, Docket
Miranda
and other Fees, A.M. No.
08-11-7 SC, August 28, Rights/What
2009 Rights are
Involved
Case: People v. Marra,
B. RIGHTS OF 236 SCRA 565 (1994)
SUSPECTS
3. When Miranda Rule (Rules on Criminal
applies Procedure, Rule 114,
Section 4) or a matter
of discretion on the
(Information given part of the cour (Rule
while in custody and on Criminal Procedure,
information is Rule 114, Section 5)
testimonial in nature)
Case: Juan
4. When Miranda Rule Ponce-Enrile v.
will not apply Sandiganbayan, August
18, 2015
(Information gathered
in non-custodial 2. Nature of Criminal
setting and Due Process
given is non-
Jurisdiction over
testimonial in nature)
Criminal Offenses:
Bayan Muna v. Romulo
and Ople, G.R. No.
5. Right to
159618, February 1,
Independent
2011
Counsel and Scope
of Waiver, Article III,
Section 12(1),
Constitution

6. Effect of
Involuntary
Confessions, Article
III, Section 12 (2), (3)
and (4), Constitution

Cases: People v.
Lucero, G.R. No.
188705, March 2, 2011
Ho Wai Ping v. People,
G.R. No. 176229,
October 19, 2011
People v. Lauga, G.R.
No. 186228, 15 March
2010
Read also The Anti-
Torture Act of 2009
[R.A. No. 9745]

C. RIGHTS OF THE
ACCUSED

1. Basis of Right to
Bail, Article III,
Section 13,
Constitution
When Bail is allowed

When Bail is a matter

of right
Criminal Secure the
Attendance of
Immunity: Disini Witnesses and
v. the Production
Sandiganbayan, G.R. of Evidence in
No. 180564, June 22, his behalf
2010
3. Speedy Trial v.
Speedy
Rights involved in Disposition of
Criminal Cases, Article III,
Proceedings, Section16,
Article III, Section Constitution
14(1) and (4)

· Right to D. THE RIGHT

Substantive and AGAINST SELF-
Procedural Due INCRIMINATION
Process

· Presumption of 1. When Right may be

Innocence invoked:
in all Criminal Cases,
· Right to be heard Administrative Cases
by Himself and and in Impeachment
Counsel Proceedings

· To be informed of
the Nature and 2. Transactional
Cause of Immunity
Accusation
against Him

· Right to Have a 3. Aspects

Speedy, Impartial covered by
and Public Trial the Witness
Protection
Program and
· Right to Meet the
Criminal
Witnesses Face
Procedure
to Face

· To Have Cases: Agustin v.

Compulsory Court of Appeals, 460
Process to SCRA 315 (2005)
Tanchanco v. 4. Effect of Acquittal
Sandiganbayan, 476 based on Demurrer to
SCRA 202 (2005)

E. PROTECTION Case: Bangayan, Jr., v.

AGAINST DOUBLE Bangayan, G.R. no.
JEOPARDY 172777, October 19,
2011

1. Nature of Double Jeopardy,

Article III,
Section 21, Constitution

Nature of right:
People v. Dante Tan,
G.R. No. 167526, July
26, 2010

When right will not

apply:
Braza v. Sandiganbayan,
G. R. No. 1950,
February 20, 2013

Exception, when
invoked:
Lejano v. People, G.R.
Nos. 176389 and
176864, January 18,
2011

Mistrial as ground for

exception:
People v. C.A.., G.R. No.
198589, July 25, 2012

2.Situations Covered: Identity of the

Act
and Identity of Offenses

Cases: People v.
Relova, 148 SCRA 292
(1987)

Loney v. People 482

SCRA 194 (2006)

3. Requisites of Double Jeopardy

Case: Ivler v. San

Pedro, G.R. No. 172716,
November 17, 2010
F. CRIMES AND 6.Non-Imprisonment for Debt or
PUNISHMENTS Poll Tax,
Article III, Section 20, Constitution

1. No Detention for Political Beliefs or

Case: People v.
Aspirations, Article III, Dacuycuy,
Section 173 SCRA
18 (1), 90 (1989)

G. BAN ON EX POST
2. Exceptions to FACTO LAW AND
Involuntary BILL OF ATTAINDER
Servitude,
Article III, Section
18 (2), 1. Characteristics of
Constitution an Ex Post Facto
Law, Article III,
Section 22,
Constitution
3.Rational behind the Imposition of
Death
Penalty, Article III, Sufficiency
Section19 of
(1), Information :
P e o p l e v. B a l a o , e t
al., G.R. 176819,
January 26, 2011
4. Non-imposition of
Excessive Fines,
Article III, Section 19 2. When Retroactivity
(1), Constitution of the Law is allowed

Salvador v. Mapa,
5.Prohibition against 539 and
Cruel SCRA 34
Degrading (2007) Valeroso v.
People, supra
Punishment, Article III, Section
19(1) and
References:

Bernas, Joaquin G., The 1987 Philippine

Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer
(2011)

V. V. Mendoza, Bar Review Guide in

Political Law (1987)

Enrique M. Fernando, The Constitution of

the Philippines (1977)

Isagani M. Cruz, Political Law

Rene B. Gorospe, Constitutional Law,

Volumes I and II (2006)

Miriam Defensor- Santiago, Constitutional

Law(2005)

J. Midas Marquez, The Constitutional

Philosophy of Philippine Jurisprudence
(2005)

Antonio B. Nachura, Political Law Review