Article 1.
Substantive Due Process
Cases
Balacuit v CFI
(7-12 years old, cinema)
Ordinance 640
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties
PAGCOR in Cagayan de Oro
LGC: General Welfare Clause
Bennis v Michigan
Car, prostitution
Cruzan v Dir Missouri
Persistent vegetative state
Doctrine of Informed consent
(right not to consent or to
refuse medical treatment)
Chavez v Romulo
Issue/s and Doctrine
I: Violates substantive due process?
To invoke the exercise of police power, not only must it appear that the
interest of the public generally requires an interference with private
rights, but the means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment and purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals
Properly exercised police power:
1. Interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, require the interference of the state (lawful subject)
2. The means employed are reasonably necessary for the attainment of
the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals (lawful method)
To be valid, an ordinance must conform to the ff substantive
requirements
CURDPU
1. It must not contravene the constitution
2. It must not be unfair or oppressive
3. It must not be partial or discriminatory
4. It must be general and consistent with public policy
5.It must not prohibit but may regulate trade
6. It must not be unreasonable
Violates PD 1869 which has the character abd force of a statute as w
When a property is used to facilitate a criminal activity, forfeiture of
such property is not a violation of due process. The government may
not be required to compensate the owner for the property which it has
lawfully acquired in the light of the government’s power to eminent
domain (capacity of the state to take land with just compensation).
I: w/o due process- NO
II: w/o compensation- NO
Court: there shall be a convincing standard of evidence in proceedings
where a guardian seeks to discontinue life support of a patient
Court of Missouri: due process clause protects an interest in life and
that a State is entitled to protect against potential abuses and may
assert an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life weighed
against the constitutionally protected interests of an individual.
Issues:
1. right to bear arms is a constitutional right (NO)
Permit to Carry Firearms
Outside of Residence
GSIS v Montesclaros
Survivorship pension
Chavez v COMELEC
Billboards
COMELEC Resolution 6520
(premature campaigning)
Lucena v JAC liner
Common carrier operating
buses with various routes to and 2. The means employed are reasonably necessary for the attainment of
from Lucena City
Ordinance 1631: Common bus
jeepney terminal
Ordinance 1778: use the
common bus terminal
2. revocation of petitioners PTCFOR is a violation of his right to property
(NO)
3. is it a valid exercise of police power (YES)
Right to bear arms is a mere statutory privilege, not a constitutional
right. It is a mere statutory creation
Police power: test to determine the validity of a police measure
1. interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class
2. means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment
of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals
All property in the state is held subject to its general regulations,
necessary to the common good ad welfare. The right of individuals to
bear arms is not absolute, but is subject to regulation. The maintenance
of peace and order and the protection of people against violence are
constituitional duties of the State, and the right to bear arms is to be
construred in connection and In harmony with these constitutional
duties
The requirements for a valid and reasonable classifications are (equal
protection)
1. It must rest on substantial distinctions
2. it must be germane to the purpose of the law
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only
4. It must apply equally to all members of the same class
Provision discriminates against the dependent spouse. The law itself is
vague
SC held that it was a valid exervise of police power since the provision
aims to prohibit premature campaigning and to level the playing field
for candidates of public office, as well as to equalize the situation
between the rich and poor candidates
Properly exercised police power:
1. Interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, require the interference of the state (lawful subject)
the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals (lawful method)
Traffic congestion is a public and not merely a private concern. However
bus terminals do not impede or help impede the flow of traffic.
The true role of Constitutional law is to effect an equilibrium between
authority and liberty so that rights are exercised within the framework

City of Manila v Laguio
Ermita Malate Area
(amusement or entertainment)
Ordinance 7783
General Welfare Clause (LGC
Code): where the LGU gets
police power
Bayan v Ermita
Right to peaceful assembly
BP 880 (no permit, no rally)
Calibrated Preemptive Response be followed is and should be that mandated by the law itself, namely,
(implement it)
Kilusang Mayo Uno v DG NEDA
Streamline and harmonize ID
systems
EO 420
Infringes citizens right to privacy
Mirasol v DPWH
AO: absolute ban on
motorcycles on toll roads
DO 123 allowed motorcycles
with 4oo cc engine
displacement to access toll
roads
Parreno v COA
AFP retiree, loss filipino
citizenship, loss pension
(retirement benefits)
of the law and the laws are enacted with due deference to rights. A du
deference to the rights of the individual requires a more careful
formulation of solutions to societal problems
Violates the substantive due process of respondents as well as those
other operators
To be valid, an ordinance must conform to the ff substantive
requirements
CURDPU
1. It must not contravene the constitution
2. It must not be unfair or oppressive
3. It must not be partial or discriminatory
4. It must be general and consistent with public policy
5.It must not prohibit but may regulate trade
6. It must not be unreasonable
Violate police power: exercise must be reasonable and for the public
good
I: W/N BP 880 and CPR are unconstitutional
The Court also ruled that in view of the maximum tolerance mandated
by BP 880,. CPR serves no valid purpose if it means the same thing as
maximum tolerance and is illegal if it means something else. What is to
maximum
The court held that EO 420 shows no constitutional infirmity because it
only collects and records 14 specific data and even limits the data that
can be collected, recorded and shown, compared to the existing ID
systems of government entities.
I: W/N valid exercise of police power
The order was made due to a public interest, which is to promote safety
in the use of highways
What the order does is it outlines precautionary measures, it does not
impose unreasonable restricitions. While the prohibition may not be
the best measure, it is nonetheless reasonable, as it aims to promote
safety of those who use the highways by providing regulation.
I: W/N PD 1683 Sec 27 is constitutional for being violative of due
process
The SC said no because Parreno at the time the PD took effect was still
in active service hence his retirement benefits were only future benefits
and did not constitute a vested right
PD 1638
St Lukes Medical Center
Employees’s Assoc v. NLRC
Xray technician (Maribel Santos)
Radiologic Technology Act of
1992
CASES
The constitutional right to equal protection of the laws is not absolute
but it subject to reasonable classifications
The requirements for a valid and reasonable classifications are (equal
protection)
1. It must rest on substantial distinctions
2. it must be germane to the purpose of the law
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only
4. It must apply equally to all members of the same class
The SC ruled that while the right to security of tenure is constitutionally
protected, its exercise may be regulated according to the police power
of the State. The regulation of the medical field through the
requirement of licenses is a reasonable way of protecting the health
and safety of the public from potential incompetence from the
petitioners
- Radio Technologists: cover CT scans and X-rays
- Why does the legislative ask for the
- Issuance of licensure exams to technicians
- Professions of high technical, specific educational requirements
Issues/ Doctrine
MMDA v Viron
E0 179: NCR Public Transport
System
Unconstitutional for being an
invalid exercise of police power
Sec of DND v Manalo
Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo
abducted, on the premise of being
NPA sympathizers.
Writ of Amparo
White Light v City of Manila
Requisites for declaratory relief:
1. Justiciable controversy
2. Controversy must be between parties whose interests are adverse
3. party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the
controversy
4. The issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination.
--All requisites are present in the case--
Invalid exercise of police power.
Requisites for a valid exercise of police power:
1. Genuine public need
2. Means employed are necessary
The traffic congestion is a genuine public need is beyond an argument.
EO seeks to decongest traffic by eliminating bus terminals along EDSA
and transfer all lines to common terminals. It is not a reasonable means
to the problem at hand.
- Police power is always vested in the legislature
- The President was delegated the power of police power in this
case
- You need to check whether it is a correct agency that exercises
police power, in this case MMDA does not have a police power.
- SC: Total absence of showing on how their acts would eliminate
the problem. It should be a reasonable means and effort to use
this solutions. The solutions is not out of nowhere.
3 reliefs of the privilege of the Writ of Amparo
1. Furnish all official and unofficial reports of the investigation
undertaken in connection to the case
2. Confirm in writing the present places of official assignment of M/Sgt/
Hilario and Donald Caligas
3. Cause to be produced (a) all medical records and reports of any
treatments given, and (b) a list of all medical personnel who attended
the brothers during their detention
Right to security of person is guarantee of the secure quality of his life,
a life lived with the assurance that the government he established and
consented to will protect the security of his person and property. This
protection includes effective investigations
- The COURT was the one who adopted the Writ of Amparo
- Writ of Amparo: how is it preventive and curative
- Writ of Amparo as curative: find out what happened if you are a
victim
- Writ of Habeas Corpus: to produce the body. This came before
Writ of Amparo
Requirements for Substantive due process
CUDPRU
Ordinance 7774: prohibits short
time admission in hotels, motels,
lodging houses, pension houses
and similar establishments
Unconstitutional
Roxas v. Macapagal
Substantive Due Process- Writ of
Amparo and Habeas Data
Petitioner Roxas was abducted
during her immersion trip under
one of the programs organized
by BAYAN USA
1. It must not contravene the constitution
2. It must not be unfair or oppressive
3. It must not be partial or discriminatory
4. It must be general and consistent with public policy
5.It must not prohibit but may regulate trade
6. It must not be unreasonable
Two standards of judicial review:
1. Strict scrutiny for laws dealing with freedom of the mind or restricting
the political process
2. Rational test basis standard of review for economic legislation
Scrutiny:
The court lays down requisites for legitimacy of the ordinance as a
police power measure
1. Interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, require an interference with private rights
2. The means must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of
the purpose and not unduly oppressive of private rights
3. No other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less
intrusive of private rights can work
4. Reasonable relation must exist between purposes of the measure
and the means employed for its accomplishment
- Standards of Judicial Review
- 1. Strict Scrutiny Test: deals with freedom of the mind or
restricting the political process
- 2. Rational basis standard: review for economic legislation
- 3. Heightened or immediate scrutiny: evaluating classifications
based on gender and legitimacy
Habeas Data: judicial remedy enforcing the right to privacy, most
especially the right to informational privacy of individuals. It operates to
protect a person’s right to control information regarding himself,
particularly in the instances where such information is being collected
through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends.
Writ of Habeas Data: remedy available to any person whose right to
privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful
act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual
or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or
information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of
the aggrieved party.
An indispensable requirement is the shpwing, at least by substantial
evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in
life, liberty or security of the victim.

Meralco v. Lim
Goper Lim was the subject of an
anonymous letter criticizing her
and was posted outside the
building of Meralco.
RTC granted Habeas Data to
LIM. SC reversed
Burgos v. PGMA
CHR directed to continue the
investigation of the
disappearance of Jonas Joseph
Burgos. The court now fins that
the PNP and AFP have failed to
exert their utmost effort and
dilifence into investigation of
brugos which the rule on the
Writ of Amparo requires
Legazpi v. City of Cebu
Ordinance 1664: Traffic code of
Cebu
Restricts the parking of vehicles
shall be immobilized by clamping
any tire of the said violating vehicle
Remman Enterprises v.
Professional Regulatory Board
RA 9646: Real Estate Service Act of
the Philippines
Grant of Habeas Data is reversed
- Writ of Amparo: Summary proceedings, It does not mean that
the people involved are to be criminally liable
- Responsibility: extent of actors in participation by substantial
evidence by act or omission. Looks backward
- Accountability: measure of remedies addressed to those who
exhibited involvement. Looks forward
- Writ of Amparo: YOU ARE LOOKING FOR WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE.
Who did it? Who is accountable for the people who did the act.
Writ of Habeas Data: remedy available to any person whose right to
privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful
act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual
or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or
information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of
the aggrieved party.
- Habeas Data will not issue to protect purely property or
commercial concerns nor when the grounds invoked in support
of the petitions therefor are vague and doubtful.
Section 16 of the Rule on Writ of Amparo provides that any person who
otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful process or order of court may be
punished in contempt. The rule requires that extraordinary diligence be
exerted to actions directed by the process and order of the court
The incumbent president with regard to the rule of the writ of amparo
is entitled to immunity from suit and cannot be held liable for contempt
Issue: W/N the government officials and departments tasked to comply
under the rule of writ of amparo can be tried for contempt? (YES)
Substantive due process, as that phrase connotes, asks whether the
government has an adequate reason for taking away a person’s life,
liberty or property. The police power granted to local government units
must always be exercised with the utmost observance of the rights of
the people to due process and equal protection of the law.
Ordinance was far from oppressive and arbitrary. Any driver or vehicle
owner whose vehicle was immobilized by clamping could protest such
action of a traffic enforcer or PNP personnel enforcing the ordinance.
Clamping would not be necessary if the driver was there. The clamping
only happens to prevent the driver from escaping the sanctions.
No right is absolute, and the proper regulation of a profession, calling
business or trade has always been upheld as a legitimate subject of a
valid exercise of the police of the State particularly when their conduct
affects the executive of legitimate government function, the
preservation of the state, public health and welfare and public morals.
Aims to professionalize the real
estate service sector under a
regulatory scheme of licensing,
registration and supervision of
real estate practitioners.
Disini v. Secretary of Justice Void for being unconstitutional:
1. Unsolicited Commercial Communications (Spam Mail)
Cybercrime law aims to regulate 2. Real time collection of traffic data
access to and use of cyberspace 3. DOJ to restrict block access to suspected computer data
4. aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission of cyber crimes
5. prosecution under the RPC and RA 10175 (double jeopardy)

Imbong v Ochoa Issues: WON the RH Law is unconstitutional because of vagueness? NO

Responsible Parenthood and Challenged for vagueness

Reproductive Health Act of 2012 1. Public Health service provider
(RH Law)
- the court looked at another section of the law
2. Incorrect information
Vagueness
- court took their plain meaning
- Health care provider
3. Knowingly
- incorrect information
- awareness or deliberateness that is intentional
- knowingly

PLS CHECK NOTES IPAD// REMEMBER:

- Facial: not available at all times, _________________
- As applied challenge: available at all times, _______________

- Void for vagueness: a statute or act suffers from the defect of

vagueness comprehensible standards that men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess its meaning and application
- Overbreadth: chilling effect, when the government does is more
than what is has to do (a governmental purpose may not be
achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and
thereby invade the area of protected freedom)

Garcia v Drilon The constitutional guarantees equality, not identity of rights

Constitutionality of VAWC Four requisites of equal protection

1. Unequal power relationship between men and women
Right to Equal protection clause 2. Classification is germane to the purpose of the law
3. Classification is not limited to existing conditions only, and apply to all
members

Caram v. Segul –SKIP-- Issue: W/N the petition for a Writ of Amparo is the proper recourse for
obtaining parental authority and custody of a minor child.
Writ of Amparo to regain
parental authority and custody Elements of enforced disappearances:
of her child, Baby julian.
Mison v. Gallegos
Ja Hoon Ku for spending money
allotted as reserve fund of Phildil
Korea
Writ of Amparo
Zarate v Aquino
Kidnapping and serious illegal
detention. Complainants were
shown a “list” from which to
identify defendants.
Petitioners argue that their
inclusion in the list are threats
to their life, liberty and security
warranting the protection of the
writ of Amparo
Writ of Habeas Data
Section 1. Equal Protection of Law
1. arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty
2. that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support of the
state or a political organization
3. it be followed by the State or political organization’s refusal to
acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts of the
person subject of the Amparo petition
4. Intention for such refusal is to remove the subject person from the
protection of the law for a prolonged period of time
Section 1 of Amparo Rule: a remedy available to any person whose
right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation
by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual on entity.
Elements of enforced disappearances:
1. arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty
2. that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support of the
state or a political organization
3. it be followed by the State or political organization’s refusal to
acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts of the
person subject of the Amparo petition
4. Intention for such refusal is to remove the subject person from the
protection of the law for a prolonged period of time
- Writ of Amparo is only applicable when there is a person to
conceal from the authorities
Writ of Amparo? NO
Writ of Habeas Data? NO
Writ of amparo: a remedy available to any person whose right to life,
liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation an unlawful
act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual
or entity.
- Only actual threats
- Requires substantial evidence: amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion
Writ of habeas data: remedy available to any person whose right to
privacy in life, liberty and security is violated or threatened by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collection, or storing of
data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party
- Can come in many form
 - General Rule: it doesn’t mean that there is a distinction that it is a violation.
- It could violate if it discriminates falsely or if there is no distinction at all

Classification is reasonable where:

1. Based on substantial distinctions which make real differences
-Validity of the classification itself
-What the distinction is, the jumping point
-3 levels: Strict scrutiny (fundamental freedoms), Intermediate scrutiny (gender and illegitimacy), rational
basis (the law is not arbitrary or present)
2. Germane to the purpose of the law
3. Applies not only to present conditions but also to future conditions which are substantially identical to those of
the present
-It should pertain to other groups that might occur.
-The classification cannot be time bound
4. Applies only to those who belong to the same class

Cases Issue/s and Doctrine

Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho
Ordinance 6537: prohibited aliens
from being employed, engaging in
trade or any other occupation
without securing and paying for an
employment permit from the
Mayor
Issue: Whether the requirement of an employment permit on all aliens
regardless of the nature of work violative of the equal protection clause
(YES)
The 50 pesos fee is unreasonable not only because it is excessive but
because it fails to consider valid substantial differences in situation
among individual aliens. The equal protection clause of the Constitution
does not forbid classification, but it is imperative that any classification
should be based on real and substantial differences having a reasonable
relation to the subject of the particular legislation.

Bernas: Teaches that a law can offend against equal protection not only
when it classifies but also when it fails to classify.

- Can there be a violation if there is no classification? YES

Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City
Ordinance 4 (1864): imposed on
any and all productions of
centrifugal sugar milled at Ormoc
Sugar Co a municipal tax
equivalent of 1% per export sale to
the USA and other foreign
countries
- There is a valid distinctions with regards to people but just
because they are aliens it is not a valid classification
- General Rule: Aliens have civil rights in the Philippines
- What aliens don’t have or cannot be regulated is their political
rights
Classification is reasonable where:
1. Based on substantial distinctions which make real differences
2. Germane to the purpose of the law
3. Applies not only to present conditions but also to future conditions which
are substantially identical to those of the present
4. Applies only to those who belong to the same class

Central Bank Employees Article II of RA 7653 which classifies exemption and non-exemption to
Association v. BSP the SSL is valid based on the idea that it was intended to address BSP’s

RA 7653: New Central Bank Act
Unconstitutional cut between two
classes of employees in the BSP
1. BSP officers of those exempted
from SSL
2. Rank-and-file (Salary Grade 19
and below), or those not exempted
from the SSL
BSP was left as the only
Government Financial Institution
with the rank-and-file issue. The
other charters of 7 other GFI had a
common proviso of a blanket
exemption of all their employees
from the coverage of the SSL
expressly or impliedly
American Tobacco v. Camacho
4 tiered tax system bracketing each interest.
cigarette companies based on their
net retail price and assigning
higher excise taxes to those with
higher retail prices.
lack of competitiveness in terms of attracting competent officers and
executives. The enactment of subsequent laws exempting all other
rank-and-file employees from the SSL is a violation of the equal
protection clause
It can be valid at one time and void at another time, depending on
circumstance
American Jurisprudence: A statute nondiscriminatory on its face may be
grossly discriminatory in its operation.
Relative Constitutionality (how statute can be valid at one time and void
at another time)
- Enactment of subsequent laws renders the assailed provision
unconstitutional insofar as it discriminates the BSP from other
Governmental Financial Institutions
- There was a valid classification between the rank and fileand the
other in BSP alone. It was invalid if you would look at BSP and
other Government Financial Institution.
-
Rational Basis Test: a legislative classification, to survive an equal
protection must be shown to rationally further a legitimate state

Classification freeze provision: shall

remain classified until revised by
the congress
Ycasuegui v PAL
Armando Yrasuegi was a former
international flight steward at
PAL. He was not able to meet
the weight standards
Meiorin Test: determine whether an employment policy is justified
1. The employer must show that it adopted the standard for a purpose
rationally connected to the performance of the job
2. the employer must establish that the standard is reasonably
necessary to the accomplishment of that work related purpose
3. the employer must establish that the standard is reasonably
necessary in order to accomplish the legitimate work related purpose

People v. Siton

Evangeline and Krystel were

charged with vagrancy under
Article 202 of the RPC

They challenged that the provision

is vague and it violates equal
protection clause
League of Cities v. COMELEC
Quinto v COMELEC
Incumbent appointive official is
considered ipso facto resigned
from his office upon the filing of his
COC contrary to the fair election
act provides that an incumbent
elective official is considered ipso
facto resigned from his office only
upon the start of the campaign
period.
Violative of the equal protection
clause because of the differential
treatment of appointive officials
and elective officials
People v. Jumanan
2 counts of marital rape by
Jumawan. Defense relies on the
“Implied Consent theory”
Villanueva v. JBC
Villanueve assails the policy of the
JBC requiring 5 years of service as
judges of first level courts before
they can qualify as applicant to
second level courts.
There are material and significant distinctions between elective and
appointive officials. The classification is germane to the purpose of the
law.
Difference:
1. Incumbent appointive official: considered ipso facto resigned from his
office upon the filing of his COC
2. Incumbent elected official: Considered as resigned only upon the
start of the campaign period; not deemed to have resigned from his
office upon filing of his COC
Rationale of difference: appointive officials/ civil servants should not be
engaged in a partisan political atmosphere. Elected public officials on
the other hand by the very nature is engaged in partisan political
activities all year long
Issue: W/N there is a substantial distinction between marital an non-
marital rape? NO
Equal protection requires that similar objects should not be treated
differently, so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate
against others.
Anti-Rape Law of 1997
(a) traditional rape
(b) sexual assault
© marital rape
- The three does not distinguish between the rape committed
Since the law does not separately categorize marital rape and non-
marital rape nor provide for different definition or elements for either,
the Court is tasked to interpret and apply what the law dictates
Issue: W/N the policy of JBC requiring five years of service as judges of
first level courts before they can qualify as a[[locant to second level
courts is constitutional.
- Valid because it is performance and experienced based
- Based on reasonable classification and proven competence
- Number of years of service provides a relevant basis to
determine proven competence
- Classification satisfies rational basis test as substantial
distinctions do exist and it is reasonable and relevant to its
legitimate purpose
Ferrer v. Bautista
Socialized Housing Tax of Quezon
City and Garbage fees
Issue W/N the two ordinances issued are unconstitutional on the
ground that it violates the equal protection of law
4 requisites for a valid and reasonable classification is reasonable where:
1. Based on substantial distinctions which make real differences
2. Germane to the purpose of the law
3. Applies not only to present conditions but also to future conditions which
are substantially identical to those of the present
4. Applies only to those who belong to the same class

- Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated

should be treated alike, both

Utak v. COMELEC

Section 3. Privacy; Exclusionary Rule

Cases Issue/s and Doctrine
Salcedo-Ortanez v CA

Zulueta v. CA Status of being married does not lessen their expectation of privacy
from each other

General Rule: “The privacy of communication and correspondence

shall be inviolable”
- The wife even aggrieved by her husband’s infidelity cannot be
exempted. M

Exception: (1) lawful order from the court (2) public safety or order
require otherwise, as prescribe by law

People v. Marti In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed

by the constitution cannot be invoked against the state

- You cant invoke the bill of rights to private individuals. The court
is now adhering more in People v. Marti than Zulueta v CA
 Section 3. Waiver of Rights under Sec 2 and 3
Cases Issue/s and Doctrine
People v Damaso It was held that the constitutional immunity from unreasonable
searches and seizures is personal. It cannot be waived by anyone except
the person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly authorized
to do so in his behalf.

The purpose of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is

to prevent violations of private security on person and property and
unlawful invasions of one’s home
- Exceptions:
o Search incidental to an arrest
o Search of a moving vehicle
o Seizure of evidence plain view

- Waiver is generally personal. It is different for example that all of

you owns the house. When they found something they have
legal rights.
- General Rule: no warrant, no search allowed
- Exceptions: check the one above

Spouses Veroy v Layague
PD 1866: Illegal possession of
firearms and ammunitions in
furtherance or rebellion
The reason for searching is to determine whether it is being used as a
hideout and recruitment center for rebel soldiers. The pieces of
evidence cannot be used against the petitioners in the criminal action
against them for illegal possession of firearms
The constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their
person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures.
Exceptions for rule on searches and seizure :
- Search incidental to an arrest
- Search of a moving vehicle
- Seizure of evidence plain view

Note: Illegal possession of firearms is malum prohibitum. Motive is

immaterial but the subjects of this kind of offense may not be
summarily seized because they are prohibited. A search warrant is still
necessary

Section 3. Habeas Data

- Habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is
violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity engaging in gathering, collecting or storing of data or information
regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party
 Cases
Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College
Graduating HS students posted
photos just wearing
undergarments with smoking and
drinking scenes. They were not
allowed to join the
commencement exericises. The
parents filed a TRO and a
petitioner of Writ of Habeas Data.
Lee v. Ilagan
Dr Joy Lee and Neri Ilagan were
common law partners.
Lee confronted Ilagan about a sex
video she saw in the said camera
RTC granted the privilege of the
writ of Habeas Data to Ilagan.
Hing v. Choachuy
Choachuy illegally set-up and
installed two video surveillance
cameras on the building of Aldo
Goodyear Servitec facing Hing’s
property.
RTC ruled in favor of Hing. CA
reversed RTC’s decision.
Issue/s and Doctrine
WON there was an actual threatened violation of the right to privacy in
the life, liberty and security of the minors involved in this case. NO
- Availment of the writ requires the existence of a connection
between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to
life, liberty or security on the other.
- They have to show a nexus between the right to privacy with
regards to the right to life, liberty and security.
- Strands of Privacy:
o Locational Privacy
o Informational privacy: control information about
themselves
o Decisional privacy
- No special means to do the alleged private post. There is no
alleged violation of privacy on the part of STC
- Writ of Habeas Data
o Violation to Privacy
o Violation to right to life, libery and security
WON RTC correctly extended the privilege of the writ of habeas data in
favor of Ilagan? NO
Habeas Data Rule essentially requires that the petition sufficiently
alleges the manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and
how it affects the right to life, liberty, and security of the aggrieved
party. In essence, it must be proven that there is a nexus between
right to privacy and right to life, liberty and security.
Issue: Whether there is a violation of petitioners’ right to privacy (YES)
The Bill of Rights guarantees the people’s rights to privacy and no one,
not even the State, except “in case of overriding social need and then
only under the stringent procedural safeguards” can disturb them in
privacy of their homes.
“right to privacy” = “right to be let alone”
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test: ascertaining whether there is a
violation of the right to privacy. Test whether a person has a reasonable
expectation of privacy and whether the expectation has been violated.
1. Whether, by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation
of privacy
2. this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable

Cases
Near v. Minnesota
Chapter 285 of the Session laws of
Minnesota: abatement of a
“malicious, scandalous and
defamatory newspaper, magazine,
or other periodical” for being a
public nuisance.
Saturday Press owned by Jay Near.
Talked about a Jewish gang in
control of gambling, bootlegging
and racketeering in Minneapolis.
An action against them was
brought because it is malicious,
scandalous and defamatory
publication that causes a public
nuisance
Freedman v. Maryland
Maryland stature which requires
approval of any motion picture
before public screening by the
State of Board Censors was
enacted in the state of Maryland.
Freedman assails that the statute
constitutes an invalid prior
restraint
He focuses particularly on the
procedure for an initial decision by
the censorship board, which
without any judicial participation,
effectively bars exhibition of any
disapproved film unless and until
the exhibitor undertakes a time-
consuming appeal to the Maryland
courts and succeeds in having the
Section 4. Prior Restraint
Issue/s and Doctrine
Issue: Whether or not a statute authorizing such proceedings in
restraint of publication is consistent with the conception of the liberty
of the press as historically conceived and guaranteed. (NO. It is an
infringement of the liberty of the press guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment)
- Shorter: WON the such statute authorizing the restraint of
publication is constitutional
- The chief purpose of the constitutional guarantee of liberty pf
the press is precisely to prevent previous restraint upon
publication.
- Protection afforded to previous restraint is not absolutely
unlimited, its limitations are still exceptional in nature and are
not applicable in the case
o Exception: Nation at war
- Public officers find their remedies for false accusations under
libel laws, not in proceedings to restrain the publication of
newspapers and periodicals.
- The publisher has a constitutional right to publish, without
previous restraint, an edition of his newspaper charging official
derelictions, it cannot be denied that he may publish
subsequent editions for the same purpose.
Issue: Whether or not the Maryland motion picture censorship is valid?
NO
Standard for censorship to be valid:
1. The burden of proving that the film is unprotected expression must
rest on the censor
2. The requirement cannot be administered in a manner which would
lend an effect of finality to the censor’s determination whether a film
constitutes protected expression
3. The procedure must also assure a prompt final judicial decision
Procedural safeguards for censorship:
1. The burden of proving that the film is unprotected expression must
rest on the censor (The state bears burden to show that petitioners
engaged in criminal speech)
2. While the state may require advance submission of all films, in order
to proceed effectively to bar all showings of unprotected films, the
requirement cannot be administered in a manner which would lend an
effect of finality to the censor’s determination whether a film
constitutes protected expression.
board’s decision.
New York Times Co. v US
The United states seeks to enjoin
the New York Times and the
Washington Post from publishing
contents from a classified study
“History of US Decision Making
Process on Vietnam Policy”
Section 4. Subsequent Punishment
Cases
People v. Perez
Defendant Perez uttered seditious
remark against the Governor
General Wood.
Charged under Article 256 of RPC:
contempt of ministers of the
Crown or other persons in
authority.
Dennis v US
Conspiracy provision of the Smith
3. The procedure must also assure a prompt final judicial decision, to
minimize the deterrent effect of an interim and possibly erroneous
denial of a license
Issue: W/N the US can employ prior restraint of free speech? NO
- Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court
bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutionality
- Government carries a heavy burden of proving the justification
for restraints imposed –Government had not met that burden
Opinions:
- Justice Black: Bill of rights changed the original constitution
under which no branch of government could abridge the
people’s freedoms of press, speech, religion and assembly
Issue/s and Doctrine
Issue: WON Perez’ remark against the Governor General is seditious and
not within the bounds of free expression? YES
In criminal law, there are a variety of offenses which are not directed
primarily against individuals, but rather against the existence of the
State, the authority of the Government, or the general public peace.
Sedition: raising of commotions or disturbances in the State. It is a
revolt against legitimate authority
Provisions of Act No. 292 must not be interpreted so as to abridge the
freedom of speech and the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and petition the Government for redress of grievances. Criticism, no
matter how severe, on the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary,
is within the range of liberty of speech, unless the intention and effect
be seditious. But when the intention and effect of the act is seditious,
the constitutional guaranties of freedom of speech and press and of
assembly and petition must yield to punitive measures designed to
maintain the prestige of constituted authority, the supremacy of the
constitution and the laws, and the existence of the State.
A seditious attack on the governor-general is an attack on the rights of
the Filipino people and one American sovereignty.
- No matter how severe on the L,E,J is within the range of liberty
od speech, unless the intention and effect be seditious
Issue: WON the Smith Act violate the First Amendment and other
provisions of the Bill of Rights or the First and Fifth Amendments? NO
Act and for advocating the forceful
and violent overthrow of the US
Government.
Charged:
1. organizing a Communist part
2. advocating and teaching
Gonzales v. COMELEC
Validity of two new sections of the
Revised Election Code under RA
4880.
- Prohibits the early
nomination of candidates
- Limits the period for
electoral campaign
Petitioners aver that these sections
violated their basic rights to
freedom of speech, freedom of
assembly, and right to form
associations or societies for
purposes not contrary to law
Ayer Prod v. Judge Capulong
Petitioner Hal McElroy wanted
to create a 6hr mini series
portraying the historic and (2) Whether or not the constitutional right to freedom of speech is
peaceful struggle of the Filipinos violated by the restraining order and if it should yield to the right to
Clear and Present Danger Test (Justice Holmes)
- Question in every case is whether the words used are used in
such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear
and present danger that they will bring about substantive evils
that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity
and degree.
Overthrow of the Government by force and violence is certainly a
substantial enough interest for the Government to limit speech.
Their conspiracy to organize the Communist Party and to teach and
advocate the overthrow of the Government of the US by force and
violence created a “clear and present danger” of an attempt to
overthrow the Government by force and violence.
Issue: WON the assailed sections of RA 4880 are unconstitutional (NO)
Court: Right is not susceptible of any limitation and that jurisprudence
dictates that the only acceptable criterion for restriction is if it passes
the (1) clear and present danger (2) dangerous tendency rule
First section: Even if right of association is affected, no basic right is
curtailed
Second section: Stricter standards of permissible statutory vagueness
may be applied to a statute having an inhibiting effect on speech
Clear and Present Danger Rule
- Evil consequence of the comment or utterance must be
extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high
before the utterance can be punished
- The danger to be guarded against is the “substantive evil” sough
to be prevented
Dangerous Tendency Rule
- If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency which the
state has the right to prevent, then such words are punishable
SC said it was constitutionally infirm for vagueness, its constitutionality
was uphold due to the lack of votes
Issues:
(1) WON the film to be made by Ayer constitutes a violation of the right
to privacy of Enrile (NO)
at EDSA (Four Day Revolution)
FVR said yes but JPE objected
and invoked his right to privacy.
TRO was issued by the RTC
Section 4. Speech and the Electoral Process
Cases
Adiong v COMELEC
COMELEC Reso 2347: prohibits the
posting of stickers and decals in
mobile places such as cars or other
moving vehicles. (it could only be
posted in posting areas provided
by COMELEC)
SWS v. COMELEC (election survey
before election)
privacy (YES)
Clear and Present Danger Rule
- No clear and present danger since Enrile had no knowledge yet
of the actual contents of the film.
Balancing of Interest
- The intrusion is fairly reasonable in order to keep the film a
truthful historical account
Right to privacy is not an absolute right and limited intrusion into a
person’s privacy is permissible if that person is a public figure and the
information sought to be elicited from him constitute matters of a
public character. The right to privacy cannot be invoked when what is to
publicized or disseminated is for public interest.
- Intrusion in the private life of Enrile does not related to his
private life but his mere involvement in the historic event
Issue/s and Doctrine
Issue: WON COMELEC may limit the posting of decals and stickers to
certain places. (NO, declared null and void)
Supreme Court: Prohibition unduly infringes on the citizens’
fundamental right of free speech, as enshrined in the Constitution.
Balancing of Interest
- Resolution was promulgated to give the poor and rich equal
opportunity in advertising, the Court stated that this was not
enough to give them the right to infringe on individual freedoms
- Balancing of interests between these individual freedoms and
substantial public interest
Clear and Present Danger Rule
- There must be patently clear and pressingly present, and the evil
sought to be avoided was substantive as to justify a clamp over
one’s mouth
Content-neutral
O’Brien Test: Government regulation is sufficiently justified

RA 9006(Fair Election Act)
- Surveys affecting national
candidates shall not be
published 15 days before
an election and surveys
affecting local candidates
shall not be published 7
days before an election
It constitutes a prior restraint?
Diocese of Bacolod v COMELEC
2 tarpaulins (1) “Ibasura RH
Law” (2) Lists of candidates,
classified
SWS v. COMELEC
COMELEC Reso 9674: directed
SWS, Pulse Asia and other
survey firms to submit all
commissioners and payors of all
the surveys and also the
subscribers , if not submitted it
is a violation of the Fair
Elections act
SC issued TRO but only with
respect to the “list of
1. Within the constitutional power of the Government
2. Furthers an important or substantial governmental interest
3. Governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free
expression
4. If the incidental restriction on alleged first amendment freedoms is
no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest
Court: Law is invalid because
1. It imposes prior restraint on the freedom of expression
2 direct and total suppression of a category of expression even though
such suppression is only for a limited period
3. governmental interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by
means other than suppression of freedom of expression
Issues:
(1) W/N the assailed orders violated the freedom of speech of
petitioners (YES)
(2) W/N the tarpaulin is an electronic propaganda, and therefore
subject to regulation by the COMELEC. (NO)
Court: (1) Assailed orders are unconstitutional, as the COMELEC had no
legal basis to regulate expressions made by private citizens.
- Article III, Sec 4 does not only apply to law but also to
governmental acts.
- Speech not limited to vocal communication but there is also
symbolic speech
(2) Tarpaulin may influence the success or failure of the named
candidates and political parties, this does not necessarily mean it is an
election propaganda
- Personal opinions are not covered by the term political
advertisement or election propaganda
- X Right to Freedom is indeed not absolute. Restrictions may
depend on whether the regulation is content based or content
neutral
Issues:
(1) WON Reso is invalid because it requires the disclosure of the names
of the subscribers of elections surveys? (NO)
(2) Whether the petitioners’ right to free speech will be curtailed by the
requirement to submit the names of their subscribers? (NO)
(3) Whether or not the reso constitutes prior restraint? (NO)
Court: (1) It is a valid regulation because there is a substantial and
compelling state interest involved in the inclusion of the subscribers to
the election surveys (passes the Strict Scrutiny Test)
(2) Right to Political Speech: Equality Based approach (weighing liberty
to express and equality of opportunities
subscribers”
UTAK v COMELEC
Resolution 9615 (Section7):
prohibits the posting of
campaign materials on the
vehicles of PUV owners, as well
as terminals. Imposes a penalty
of revocation of the franchise
Section 4. Commercial Speech
- Less protection than political religious speech because there is more leeway for the state to
regulate this
- For example, State says that all tobacco acts are not allowed then it could be accepted
- The legislative could regulate this more and the courts will allow this
Cases
Rubin v. Coors Brewing
Assailing a statutory provision that
bans disclosure of alcoholic
content on labels, supposedly to
prevent “strength wars”
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms
- Regulation of election paraphernalia will still be constitutionally
valid if it reaches into speech of persons who are not candidates
or who do not speak as members of a political party if they are
not candidates, only if what is regulated is declarative speech,
taken as a whole, has for its principal object the endorsement of
a candidate only.
- Test to see if is regulation is valid
o Provided for by law
o Reasonable
o Narrowly tailored to meet the objective of enhancing the
opportunity of all candidates to be heard
o Least restrictive means
(3) Prior restraint is speculative
Issue: WON the resolution is void for violating the right to free speech
of petitioners? YES
COMLEC: it should be content-neutral
COURT: It is content-neutral, it is nonetheless invalid because the
prohibition is unnecessary (it could have been less restrictive). The
absolute necessity to restrict the right to free speech of the PUV owners
is not present.
Similar to Adiong case, once a private car owner decides to post a decal
sticker to his car, it’s a choice as a private individual. The ownership of
the PUVs is also private. The petitioners did not violate the law as it
allows the posting of campaign materials on private property, provided
that consent was obtained.
Issue/s and Doctrine
Issue: W/N the ban is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech
(YES)
Value of commercial speech in practice: the free flow of commercial
information is indispensable to the proper allocation of resources in a
free enterprise system
Court: Agrees with Coors that the provision is an unconstitutional
infringement on commercial speech.

Cases
Policarpio v. Manila Times (Libel)
Policarpio is looking to recover
damages from the Manila times for
the publishing of two defamatory
and libelous articles about her
being guilty of malversation of
public funds and estafa by using
the money and falsifying public
documents for collection of
reimbursements for trips
Lopez v. CA (Libel)
Petitioner, the Week Magazine
switched the photos of two Fidel G.
Cruz. A news story about a sanitary
inspector assigned to the Babuyan
Islands sending a distress signal to
the passing Airforce plane.
Regulation of commercial speeches (Elements): LSAO
1. Said speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading
2. Government interest in regulating said commercial speech is
substantial
3. Regulation directly advances government interest
4. Regulation is not overbroad
- Last 3 elements are missing
- Each state has sufficient
- The statute itself is inconsistent with itself means that it will not
advance the government interest in preventing a strength war
(less restrictive means of preventing strength wars like limiting
alcohol content)
- If you have a law preventing substance, the content would
matter but restrictions would matter. The content matters but it
would matter in the content of the restriction.
- The chances of it becoming arbitrary are less when it is more
dangerous
Section 4. Libel
Issue/s and Doctrine
Issue: Whether the respondents are guilty of publishing defamatory
articles. (YES)
To enjoy immunity: A publication containing derogatory information
must not only be true, but also fair, and it must be made in good faith
and without any comments or remarks.
- The first article (Saturday Mirror) depicted Policarpio in a more
unfavorable light than she actually was
Issue: W/N the damages should be awarded to respondent Fidel G. Cruz
(Yes, however this should be reduced)
Libel: Malicious defamation, expressed either in writing, printing, or by
signs or pictures or the like, tending to black the memory one who is
dead or to impeach the honesty, virtue, or reputation or publish the
alleged or natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby expose him
to publiclv hatred, contempt, or ridicule.
Libel has both criminal and civil aspect because it deprives a person of
his good reputation

Cases
Miller v. California
Jury and appeals department of
California convicted Miller of
having violated the California Penal
Code on distributing obscene
matter
Miller conducted a mass mailing
campaign to advertise the sale of
adult material
Trial court: misdemeanor by
knowingly distributing obscene
material
Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak
Petitioners assail reso that
classifies their movie, Kapit sa
Patalim as “for adults only” and
deleting some parts of the film
Executive Order 876 (applying
contemporary Filipino cultural
values as standard)
Pita v. CA
Anti-Smut Campaign by Mayor of
Manila. Materials believed to
obscene and indecent were seized
and confiscated. Among the
materials seized was Pinoy Playboy
magazine.
Section 4. Assembly and petition
Section 4. Obscenity
Issue/s and Doctrine
Issue: WON Miller is protected under the First Amendment’s freedom
of speech guarantee (NO)
Miller Test (for obscenity, the basic guidelines for the trier of fact must
be)
1. Whether “the average person, applying contemporary community
standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the
prurient interest (unwholesome)
2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way,
sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value (SLAPS)
Issue: W/N the resolution was made with grave abuse of discretion (NO)
- Censorship or previous restraint on these materials is
permissible when there is a clear and present danger of an evil
of a substantive character that the State has a right to prevent
- Portrayal of sex in art, literature and scientific works, is not itself
sufficient reason to deny material the constitutional protection
of freedom of speech and press.
- Where television is concerned, a less liberal approach calls for
observance. Unlike movies, the people needs to pay while TV
reaches every home where there is a set.
Issue: WON the seizure violates the freedom of expression of the
petitioner? (YES)
- “Immoral” lore or literature comes within the ambit of free
expression, although not its protection. In free expression cases,
the court has consistently been on the side of the exercise of the
right.
- Burden is on the state to prove the existence of a clear and
present danger to justify the state’s action
- Failed to prove (1) finding the materials pornographic (2)
authorizing them to carry out such search and seizure by way of
a search warrant
 Cases
Bayan v. Ermita
BP 880: The Public Assembly Act
of 1985 (no permit, no rally)
Calibrated Preemptive Response
(implement it)
Davao City v. Aranjuez
Respondents NAMADACWAD
(Davao City Water District
employees) where protesting the
non-payment of their collective
negotiation agreement incentives,
the privatization of DCWD and a
proposed 100 million load.
In a fun run and sportfest, the
employees decided to wear tshirts
with inscriptions of their protests,
which they wore later on during
office hours. They even posted
grievances outside designated
area. Some officers were
dismissed
Filed an appeal before the CSC
contending there was a violation of
their constitutional right to
assemble and petition for redress
of grievances
Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination
or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be
Issue/s and Doctrine
Issue: W/N BP 880 violates petitioner’s rights to free speech,
expression, and assembly? NO
- BP 880 is a valid exercise of police power since what was
considered in the implementing the law is to promote health,
morals, peace, education, good order or safety, and general
welfare of the people.
- BP 880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a
restriction that simply regulates the time, place and manner of
the assemblies
- Clear and Present danger to public order, public safety, public
convenience, public morals or public health
- It is a content neutral and not content based because assemblies
really have to be for lawful cause, otherwise they would not be
peaceable and entitled to protection
Issue:
(1) WON the concerted mass of action is prohibited under Reso 021316
NO
(2) Whether or not Aranjuez violated MC 33 (posting grievances outside
designated place)? (YES)
- Civil service does not deprive government workers of their
freedom of expression. It would be unfair to hold that by joining
the government service, the members thereof have renounced
or waived this basic liberty. The freedom can be reasonably
regulated only but can never be taken away.
- The court said that wearing t-shirts with inscriptions is not
under the prohibited concerted mass action under the CSC
resolution. Only those acts that effects work stoppage is
prohibited. Posting of signs outside designated areas constitute
a lesser degree of punishment.
 required for the exercise of civil or political rights

Non-establishment of region

Three parts of the Religion Clause

1. The Non-establishment clause
- Government
- Prohibition
- Government cannot do anything that would discourage or promote a certain religion.
- You cannot establish a state religion. Any government act that promotes a religion can violate non-
establishment clause
2. Free exercise clause (believe whatever they want to believe)// act
- People
- Exercise
- People are free to exercise their freedom of religion. There are no limits to what you believe, courts
can only judge the merit if you are using it an excuse when you do something or not.
- When you are using it an excuse on a dutym then the court can judge it
- Acts: government could regulate
3. The prohibition on religious tests (floating)
Cases Issue/s and Doctrine
Aglipay v. Ruiz Issue: WON the incidental benefit to the Roman Catholic Church of
issuing the stamps is violative of the Constitution? NO
Philippine Independent Church
- The Government should not be embarrassed in its activities
Assails the sale of stamps that
simply because of incidental results, more or less religious in
were issued under Act 502 of the
character, if the purpose had in view is one which could
PH legislature which provided for
the amount of appropriation for legitimately be undertaken by appropriate legislation. The main
the 33rd International Eucharistic purpose should not be frustrated by its subordination to mere
Congress as a violation of incidental results not contemplated
appropriation of public money or
property for the benefit of any
religion
Garces v. Estenzo Issue: W/N the resolutions contravene the clause on non-establishment
of religion? NO
Two ordinances were issued to - The image was purchased with private funds and not tax money
revive the feast day of San Vicente - The image was purchased for the fiesta, and not for the purpose
Ferrer.
of establishment of any religion

- Reviving the socio-religious tradition

Board of Education v. Allen
Invalidation of Section 701 of New
York’s Education Law which
requires local public school boards
to lend textbooks free of charge to
all students of a specified grade.
Issue: W/N the statute violates the Establishment or Free Exercise Clause of
the First Amendment (because it authorizes the free loan of textbooks to
students attending parochial schools) NO
- Jurisprudence: The clause does not prevent a state from extending the
benefits of state laws to all citizens without regard for their religious
affiliations
- Schempp rule: Test for distinguishing between forbidden

Lemon v. Kurtzman
Pennsylvania’s Non-public
Elementary and Secondary
Education Act authorized the
Superintendent of Public
Instruction to purchase certain
secular educational services from
nonpublic schools, directly
reimbursing those for teachers’
salaries, textbooks and instruction
materials.
Rhode Island’s salary supplement
act statute provided state financial
support for non-public elementary
schools in the form of
supplementing 15% of teachers’
annual salaries.
involvements of the state with religion and those that are permitted
(what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment):
o If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion, then the
enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as
circumscribed by the constitution
 Applying: express purpose of the statute was for the
furtherance of the educational opportunities for the
young
o To withstand constitutional infirmity thus, there must be a
secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither
advances nor inhibits religion.
 Applying: law merely makes available to all children
the benefits of a general program to lend school
books free of charge
Issue: W/N the state aid to these schools violate the Freedom of
Religion Clause? To which the court said YES. Both statutes to foster an
impermissible degree of entanglement.
- Substantial religious character of the schools involved and the
comprehensive measures of surveillance which the provision of
the acts required would give rise to excessive church-state
entanglement contrary to the non-establishment clause.
Three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended
to afford protection
- Sponsorship
- Financial Support
- Active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity
Lemon Analysis (Establishment Clause):
- Have a secular purpose
- Must neither advance nor inhibit in its principal or primary
effect
- Not foster an excessive entanglement with religion
Every case involving the 3 evils should be analyzed by a cumulative
criteria
- Statute must have a secular legislative purpose
- Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither
advances nor inhibits religion
- Statute must not foster an “excessive government
entaglement with religion”
o Character and purposes of the institutions that are
benefited
o Nature of the aid the state provides
o Resulting relationship between the government and the
religious authority
The cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the

Tilton v. Richardson
Higher Education Facilities Act of
1963: grants were given to college
and university facilities, provided
that they were only used for non-
religious purposes
- Facility should not be used
for sectarian instruction or
religious worship within
20 years
4 church related colleges and
universities received federal
construct
Country of Allegheny v. American
Liberties Union
Two recurring holiday displays
located on public property in
Pittsburgh
statutes in each state involves excessive entanglement between
government and religion.
Excessive Entaglement:
- Presence of the need of the government to increase supervision
surveillance
Lemon Test (you need to be able to pass 3)
- Secular purpose
- Principal effect
- Excessive entanglement
Issue: W/N the Act violates either the Establishment or Free Exercise
Clauses of the First Amendment? No (But the limitation of federal
interest in the facilities to a period of 20 years violates the religion
clauses of the First Amendment)
- There is an internal tension in the first amendment between the
establishment clause and the free exercise clause
- Establishment Clause: protect sponsorship, financial support,
and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity
- Free Exercise Clause:
o Religion clauses: there is an aspect in which the statute’s
enforcement provisions are inadequate to ensure that
the impact of the federal aid will not advance religion
Questions to be answered to determine which to identify instances in
which the objectives of the religion clauses would be impaired:
- Does the act reflect a secular legislative purpose?
o Act itself was drafted to ensure that the federally
subsidized facilities would be devoted to the secular and
not the religious function of the recipient institutions
- Is the primary effect of the act to advance or inhibit religion?
o The fact that it ends after 20 years is a violation of the
Religion clause
- Does the administration of the act foster an excessive
government entaglement with religion?
o College students are less on indoctrination
- Does the implementation of the Act inhibit the free exercise of
religion?
o Unable to identify any coercion directed at the practice
of their religious beliefs
Issue: W/N the public displays violate the Establishment Clause of the
first amendment?
- Yes- As to the creche
- No- as to the menorah
 - Creche: manger in
Bethlehem after the birth
of Jesus
- Chanukah menorah:
symbolic representation of
a Jewish holiday
Zobrest v. Catalina
Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA)
James Zobrest, a deaf student
attended public school from Grade
6 to 8. He was provided with a sign
language interpreter by
respondent. Grade 9 he went to a
roman catholic school
Zobrest’s parents asked public
officials to continue to supply their
Lemon Analysis (Establishment Clause):
- Have a secular purpose
- Must neither advance nor inhibit in its principal or primary
effect
- Not foster an excessive entanglement with religion
The government’s use of religious symbolism is unconstitutional if it has
the effect of endorsing religious beliefs and the effect of the
government’s use of religious symbolism depends upon its context
Establishment Clause does not limit the religious content of the
government’s own communications. It also prohibits the
government’s support and promotion of religious communication by
religious organizations.
- The government may acknowledge Christmas as a cultural
phenomenon but it may not observe it as a Christian Holiday
Government may not: (PDDI)
- Promote or affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or
organization
- Discriminate among person on the basis of their religious beliefs
and practices
- Delegate a governmental power to religious institution
- Involve itself too deeply in such an institution’s affairs
Two principles limiting the government’s ability to recognize and
accommodate religion:
- It may not coerce anyone to support or participate in any
religion or its exercise
- It may not, in the guise of avoiding hostility or callous
indifference, give direct benefits to a religion in such a degree
that it in fact establishes a state religion
Adherence as an endorsement
Non adherence by a non-believer
Issue: Whether or not a school district may decline to provide an
interpreter to a deaf child based on the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment? (NO)
- Service at issue in this case is part of a general government
program that distributes the benefits neutrally to any child
qualifying as ‘handicapped’ under the IDEA, without regard to
the ‘sectarian-nonsectarian, or public-non-public nature of the
school the child attends
- Child is the primary beneficiary, the school receives only an
incidental benefit
son with a sign-language
interpreter, the school board
refused the request, believing that
it was a violation of the first
amendnment’s establishment
clause, which generally prohibits
the government from establishing,
advancing, or giving favor to any
religion.
Capitol Square Review Board v. Religious cannot violate the Establishment clause:
Pinette & Ku Klux Klan - Purely private
- Occurs in a traditional or designated public forum, publicly
Erect a cross on the grounds as it announced and open to all on equal terms
has been traditionally used as a
public forum. Capitol Square is a
state-owned plaza surrounding the
statehouse in Columbus, Ohio that
has been used for public speeches,
gatherings, and festivals
advocating and celebrating a
variety of causes, both secular and
religious
Islamic Da’wah Council of the Issue: WON EO 46 is void for violating Sec 5 Article III of the
Philippines (IDCP) v Executive Constitution? (YES)
Secretary - OMA created to ensure integration of Muslim Filipinos into the
mainstream of Filipino society with due regards to beliefs,
IDCP is a non governmental
customs, traditions and institutions. The OMA should not
organization that extends
intrude purely religious matters lest it violate the non-
voluntary services to the Filipino
people; especially to Muslim establishment clause and the free exercise of religion provision
Communities, they issue halal - There is no compelling justification for the government to
certification s in the Philippines on deprive muslim organizations, of their religious right to classify a
account to certify food products as product as halal, even on the premise that the health of Muslim
halal Filipinos can be effectively protected by assigning to OMA the
exclusive power to issue halal certifications
EO 46: Office of Muslim Affairs to
oversee the implementation of the - Remember: Only the prevention of an immediate and grave
Philippine Halal Certification danger to the security and welfare of the community can justify
Scheme the infringement of religious freedom.
Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano - 3 types of accommodation
o Mandatory: constitutionally compelled
o Permissive: discretionary
o Prohibited: establishment concerns prevail over potential
accommodation interests

Section 5. Free Exercise of Religion

 Cases
VIctoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers
Union
- Benjamin Victoriano is a
member of INC. He is an
employee of Elizalde Rope
Factory
- “Membership in the Union
shall be required as a
condition of employment
for all permanent
employees workers
covered by this
Agreement”
- Industrial Peace Act:
employers are not
precluded from making an
agreement with a labor
organization to require as a
condition of employment
membership. It was
amended which
introduced an agreement
that it will not cover
members of religious sects
which prohibit affiliation
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Issue/s and Doctrine
Issue: W/M RA 3550 which states that close-shop agreements shall not
cover members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their
members in any such labor organization, is constitutional? (YES)
- Free exercise or religious belief is superior to contract rights. In
case of conflict, the latter must yield to the former. It is only
where unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and
grave danger to the security and welfare of the community
that infringement of religious freedom may be justified, and
only to the smallest extent necessary to avoid danger.
- A closed shop agreement is a contract between an employer and
a labor union that stipulates that the employer will only hire
workers from a specific union and those workers can only
Primary effects of the exemption from closed shop agreements in favor
of members of religious sects:
- Protection of employees against the aggregate force of the
collective bargaining agreements
- Relieving certain citizens of a burden on their religious beliefs
- Eliminating to a certain extent economic insecurity due to
unemployment
- Benefit upon religious sects is merely incidental

US v. Ballard

American Bible Society v. City of

Manila

Ebralinag v. Division
Superintendent
Wisconsin v. Yoder
Estrada v. Escritor
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC
- Posted 2 tarpaulins
regarding RH Law
Perfecto v. Esidra
- Judge Esidera was first
married to Richard then
the marriage was void ab
initio. It was said that she
had sexual relations with
another man during the
marriage was still valid
- Religion is a complicated topic
- Where you draw the line is hard to answer. People would always fight for more privileges
READDDD FOR MIDTERMS
- Speech related to elections by private citizens generally cannot
be regulated unless they amount to election paraphernalia. It
becomes a election paraphernalia only when there is an
endorsement of a candidate only.
- Not all acts by the church is considered a religious speech. In this
case the tarpaulin on RH Bill is considered a POLITICAL SPEECH.
- Religiously motivated political/ electoral speech: in the states it
is pretty clear. In our jurisdiction it is not so clear. There is trying
to convince people of what to believe. We recognized that (RH
Bill) as outside religious speech. While there is value in learning
distinctions between them, there are different standards. There
are subject to the same religion and scrutiny.
Issue: WON Judge Esidera should be administratively liable for
misconduct? YES
- A member of the judiciary cannot claim engaging in sexual
relations to another during a marriage as an exercise of religious
expression. The sexual relations was against civil law.
- Her religious beliefs cannot put her above the law
- Benevolent Neutrality: recognizes that the government must
pursue its secular goals and interests, but at the same time
strive to uphold the religious liberty to the greatest extent
possible, within flexible constitutional limits. It could allow for
accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does
not offend compelling state interests.
- Yes you can claim benevolent neutrality but it is not a shield
from your wrong actions. Benevolent neutrality may save you
from gross immorality but it won’t save you from grave
misconduct.
 Section 6. Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel
Cases
Villavicencio v. Lukban
- Prostitutes sent to Davao
by Manila Mayor Lukban
Marcos v. Manglapus
- Right to return
- Sui generis
Yap v. CA
- Payment to bail and right
to travel
Issue/s and Doctrine
A victim forced to change his domicile has 3 remedies:
1. civil action
2. criminal action
3. habeas corpus
- Civil action takes too long, filing a criminal action does not bar
the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
- Government has the power to deport undesirable aliens and
alien prostitutes but it does not apply to Filipino citizens
- Constitutional guaranties they enjoy is the protection from being
forced to change their domicile
- There should be a law or regulation banning it.
- Habeas Corpus would apply because: without anything, you are
left there. It was still a forcible taking and a restraint of liberty
- Right to return to one’s country is not among the rights
specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights
- Do we recognize in the Philippines the right to return in the
country? Yes. Generally accepted principle (International law),
we must follow the international law in good faith.
- Right to travel: move from one place to another.
- Right to return is recognized because it is a generally accepted
principle
- The court sided with President Aquino because of the unique
situation .
- CLEARLY: The right to travel does not include the right to return.
If you are in Japan and NCOV, you cannot invoke the right to
return
- The bail was excessive
- The conditions given by the court does not impair the liberty of
abode.
- The right to change abode and travel within the Philippines are
not absolute rights
Spark v. QC
- Curfew ordinances
Genuino v. De Lima
- Hold departure order
- DOJ Circular is not a law
Section 7. Information and Access to Official Records
- Records, documents and papers
- Self-Executing: the less laws the better, the more right is granted on rights to information
Cases
Legazpi v. CSC
- If Civil service eligibility is a
public record
- Sanitary Officers from the
Department Health of
Davao?
Valmonte v. Belmonte
- GSIS: list of BP members
who acquired 2M money,
Imelda Marcos as guaranty
- Court recognizes that minors do possess and enjoy
constitutional rights, but the rights is not co-extensive as those
of adults.
- 3 justifications (Belliot case)
o Peculiar vulnerability of children
o Their inability to make critical decisions
o Importance of the parental role
- Are the rules of court law? Yes, except if they affect substantive right
- The congress gives the court jurisdiction… Rules of Court. Jurisdiction
comes from law and not from court. You have an implied power to
enforce jurisdiction and a part of it is to allow hold departure order.
Issue/s and Doctrine
- We cannot restrict someone from getting the information but
the agency could provide reasonable regulation
- Authority to regulate the manner of examining public records
does not carry with it the power to prohibit
- Authority to regulate the manner examining public records does
not carry with it the power to prohibit
- Availability of access to the information sought (to be imposed
by the legislative)
o Availability of access to the information sought
o Government agency charged with the custody.
- Writ of Mandamus: for nondiscretionary acts
- GSIS funds assume a public character since the public would
want to ensure that these funds are managed properly with the
end view of maximizing the benefits that accrue to the insured
government employees
- Rights to information and to privacy may arise when inquiring on
details of a loan to a private citizen, right to privacy belong to
the individuals in his private capacity and not to public and
private governmental agencies like the GSIS.
- You cannot give agencies more work.
- You have the right to get information but you cannot ask for a
specific format.
Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato
- Movie board
- Votes are not made as
private individuals but as
public officials
Sereno v. Committee
- Tariff rates
- Deliberative Process
DFA v. BCA International
- DFA awarded the Machine
Readable Passport and Visa
Project to BCA
International Corporation
Section 8. Right to Form Association
Cases
SSS Employees v. CA
- Strike is not allowed.
- CSC issuance on
disallowing strike that
would result to work
stoppage
Manila Public School Teachers v.
Laguio
Petitiners are public school
teachers who went on mass action
to voice out their grievances
towards the government. Secretary
of Education wants them to return
to work. (Return to work order)
- Due chalk clothing
th
allowances and 13 month
pay
- Demands were not granted
that led them to a mass
action
- 800 teachers went to a
rally instead of conducting
classes
- Right to privacy belongs to the individual acting in his private
capacity and not to a governmental agency or officers tasked
with the discharge of public duties.
- People’s right to information is not absolute
- Two requisites before the right to information may be
compelled by writ of mandamus
o Information sought must be in relation to matters of
public concern or public interest
o Not be exempt by law from the operation of the
constitutional guarantee
- NOTES ON DELIBERATIVE PROCESS
- Deliberative process privilege is a privileged on information
which is within the exceptions of the constitutional right to
information. Privilege character of the information does not end
when an agency has adopted a definite proposition or when a
contract has been perfected or consummated.
Issue/s and Doctrine
When it comes to government employees, the right to form
organization does not carry with it the right to strike. If government
employees were allowed to stike, then it will hinder the government
itself and its instrumentalities from servicing people
Issue: W/N any rights of the petitioners under the due process clause of
the Constitution as it applies to administrative proceedings were
violated in the initiation, conduct or disposition of the investigations
complained of? (Not ripe for adjudication)
- SC did not decide on the issue eh but made it clear na Public
School teachers, being part of the government and being under
the Civil Service Commission hindi nag possess ng constitutional
right to strike.
- Why not ripe for adjudication?
o SC here said na it is not a trier of facts
o Kaya, petitioners made a mistake in elevating this case to
the SC
o What should the petitioners had gawa then?
 Appealed dapat the CSC
- Petitioners are saying na public school teachers do not have a
constitutional right to strike
Petitioners filed a case with RTC
Manila to restrain the
implementation of the return to
work order (RTC denied)
Padcom v. Ortigas Center
Transferee and its successor-in
interest must become members of
an association for realty owners
and long term lessee in the area
later known as the Ortigas center
PADCOM got a lot from TDC, they
are not paying membership dues
to Ortigas Center
Dissenting Opinions:
- The teachers were out there asking to receive their benefits on
time (it was more of a peaceful assembly).
- The real issue is the freedom to speak
- The court should grant the teachers temporary relief since there
are so many of them na nagrereklamo
- There has been a disregard altogether of the constitutional right
to peaceably assemble and petition govt for redress of
grievances
- As a lot owner, PADCOM is a regular member of the Association.
No application for membership is necessary. The SC is not
convinced by PADCOM’s contention that the automatic
membership clause is a violation of its freedom of association.
PADCOM was never forced to join the association.
- It was annotated in the Certificate of Title and when it was
signed and accepted the Deed
- PADCOM voluntarily agreed to be bound by and respect the
condition and thus join the association.

Section 9. Expropriation in General; Reversion

Cases Issue/s and Doctrine
Vda. De Ouna v. Republic The taking of a private land in expropriation proceedings is always
conditioned on its continued devotion to its public purpose. As a
- Lahug Airport in Cebu City necessary corollary, once the purpose is terminated or pre-emptorily
to repurchase or secure abandoned, then the former owner, if he so desires, may seek its
reconveyance of their
reversion, subject of course to the return, at the very least, of the just
respective properties
compensation received.
- NAC (National Airport
Corp) MCIAA predecessor
agency pursued a program Issue: WON the RTC and CA erred when it dismissed the complaint of
to expand the Lahug the Ouanos for the repurchase of their land obtained by the RP through
Airport in Cebu expropriation (YES, MCIAA should return the land)
- NAC met and negotiated
with the owners.
- If the Airport expansion
project does not push
through or once the Lahug
Airport closes or its
operations transferred to
Mactan-Cebu Airport the
owners could repurchase
the land.
- Inocians: RTC, CA ruled in
their favor
- Quano: during
 expropriation, informal
settlers occupied. RTC
favor tapos reversed, CA
ruled against.
Section 9. Power to Undertake Expropriation Case
Cases
Iron and Steel Authority v CA
Iron and Steel Industry Authority:
develop and promote the iron and
steel industry in the Philippines
During the pendency of getting the
land of MCFC to give to the
National Steel Corp, the existence
of ISA expired.
Section 9. Rights of Owner Before Expropriation
Cases
Greater Balanga v. Mun of Balanga
Balanga Public Market
Section 9. Elements of “Taking”
Cases
Republic v. Vda de Castelvi
Land of Castellvi was rented by the
AFP on a year-to-year basis.
Castellvi notified them than the
property will not be renewed and
is supposed to be vacated
US v. Causby
Issue/s and Doctrine
When the statutory term of a non-incorporated agency expires, the
powers, duties, and functions as well as the assets and liabilities of that
agency revert back to, and are reassumed by the RP, in the absence of
special provisions of law specifying some other disposition thereof
Issue: W/N the RP is entitled to be substitute for ISA in view of the
expiration of ISA’s term? (YES)
- ISA powers and functions: to initiate expropriation of land
required for basic iron and steel facilities for subsequent resale
and/or lease to the companies involved.
Issue/s and Doctrine
Until expropriation proceedings are instituted in court, the land owner
cannot be deprived of its rights over the land
Issue/s and Doctrine
Taking under the power of eminent domain
1. Entering upon private property
2. For more than a momentary period
3. Under the warrant or color of legal authority
4. Devoting it to a public use, or otherwise informally appropriating
or injuriously affecting it
Issue: Did the military use of airspace violate the Takings clause in the
Fifth amendment? (YES)
Flights over the property
Republic v. PLDT
Bureau of Telecommunications.
Penn Central Transportation v. NY
City
UGP and Penn entered into
agreement. UGP was to construct
an office at the Central Station. It
was stopped by the Landmarks
Preservation Law
OSG v. Ayala
Senate investigation: collection of
parking fees by shopping malls is
contrary to the National Building
Code and is illegal as the code
merely required malls to provide
parking spaces without specifying
whether its free or not. Senate
interprets that it is free
- Flights over private land are not a taking, unless they are so low
and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference
with the enjoyment and use of the land. Actually making use of
the airspace (like putting up building or tall trees) is immaterial.
The flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch
it, is as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more
conventional entry upon it.
- Republic may, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent
domain, require the telephone company to permit
interconnection of the government telephone system and that
of the PLDT, as the needs of the government service may
require, subject to the payment of just compensation to be
determined by the court
Issue: W the restrictions imposed by the law upon the appellants’
exploitation of the terminal site effect a taking of appellants property
for a public use within the meaning of the fifth amendment- NO,
diminution in property value alone is not taking
- Appellants only showed that they were deprived of their
property’s most profitable use, which does not establish an
unconstitutional deprivation of property
- There is no taking because the law did not transfer control of
the property to the city, but only restricted appellants use of it.
Whether a taking has occurred
(1) economic impact of the regulation and the extent to which it
interferes
(2) character of government action
Issue: Whether or not the respondents are obliged to provide free
parking spaces to their customers and the public? (NO)
- Prohibition from use against collection of parking fees is
tantamount to a taking or confiscation
- (1) Section 803 of the National Building could do not mention
parking fees
- (2) fails the test of reasonableness and propriety of measures
- (3) OSG implicitly invokes Police Power to justify the regulation
of privately owned parking facilities. The power to regulate,
however does not include the power to prohibit
- The state also cannot impose the same prohibition by generally
invoking police power, since said prohibition amounts to a
taking of respondents’ property without payment of just
compensation
 Section 9. Public Use
Cases Issue/s and Doctrine
Sumulong v. Guerrero - Valid exercise of the power of eminent domain is now more

Phil. Columbian Assn. v. Hon. Panis

Section 9. Just Compensation

Cases Issue/s and Doctrine
City of Manila v. Estrada

San Roque v. Republic

Republic v. BPI

NPC v. Manalastas

Section 9. Judicial Review

Cases Issue/s and Doctrine
De Knecht v. Bautista

Manotoc v. NHA

Republic v. De Knecht

Section 10.
Cases Issue/s and Doctrine
Home Building and Loan Assn. v.
Blaisell

Rutter v. Esteban - Police power may only be invoked and justified by an emergency
temporary in nature, and can only be exercised upon reasonable
condition in order that it may not infringe the constitutional
provision against the impairment

Abella v. NLRC - Doctrine: In any event, it is well settled that in the

implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the labor
code and its implementing rules and regulations, the
workingman’s welfare should be the primordial and paramount
consideration

Presley v. Bel-Air Village Asso.

Miners Association v. Factoran

Ortigas v. Feati Bank

Goldenway Merchandising Corp v.

Equitable

SWS v. COMELEC

Section 2. “search”
Cases Issue/s and Doctrine
1 SJS v. DDB 570 SCRA 410 Issue: WON the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act is
unconstitutional?
Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act
- Senators (yes): Not within the constitution
- Criminals (yes): considered mandatory which is against the act
- Schools (no): schools act as loco parentis over students
- Private employees (no): within the company’s work rules and
regulations

- Schools: (1) locos parentis (2) students have fewer rights (3) duty
to safeguard as locos parentis (3) impose conditions on
applicants for admission that is fair, just and non-discriminatory

Section 2. Requisites of a valid warrant

Cases Issue/s and Doctrine
2 People v. Veloso - A search warrant must conform strictly to the requirements of
the constitutional and statutory provisions under which it is
 - Parliamentary Club as.a
gambling house
- Representative Veloso
- Warrant said John Doe
3 Stonehill v. Diokno
- 42 warrants to search
persons above and seize
personal properties
issued. Otherwise, it is void.
- John Doe is void without other further descriptions of the
person to be apprehended, and such warrant will not justify the
officer in acting under it
- Such warrant must, contain DESCRIPTIO PERSONAE possible to
be obtained of the person to be apprehended, and this
description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper
person or persons upon whom the warrant is to be served; and
should state his personal appearance and peculiarities, give his
occupation and place of residence, and any other circumstance
by means which he can be identified.
- Lawfulness of a seizure can be raised only by one whose rights
have been invaded
- No specific offense had been alleged in said applications
- It was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have
found the existence of probable cause, for the same
presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party
against whom it is sought has performed particular acts, or
committed specific omissions, violating a given provision of our
criminals

4 Central Bank v. Morfe

- First Mutual Savings and

Loan Organization:
encourage and
implement savings and
thrift among its
members, and to extend
financial assistance in
the form of loans
- These organizations
cannot engage in
banking businesses like
receiving deposits and
safekeeping
5 Bache & Co. v. Ruiz
- Search warrants on
documents, papers and
effects for tax
assessments

6 Soliven v. Makasiar
7 Lim, Sr. v Judge Felix

8 People v. Francisco

Section 2. Warrantless searches and seizures

Cases Issue/s and Doctrine
9 MHP v. CA

10 People v. CFI

Roan v. Gonzales

People v. Malmstedt

Posadas v. CA
Aniag v. COMELEC

Malacat v. CA

Asuncion v. CA

People v. Canton

Disini v. Sec of Justice

Saludat v. People (distinction

between reasonable search and
warrantless search)

Section 2. Searches and seizures “of whatever nature and for whatever
purpose”
Cases Issue/s and Doctrine
Material distributors v. Natividad
Camara v. Municipal Court

Section 2. Warrantless arrests

Cases Issue/s and Doctrine
Harvey v. Defensor Santiago

People v. Aminnudin

People v. Burgos

Umil v. Ramos

Go v. CA

People v. Mengote
Manalili v. CA

Section 12
Cases Issue/s and Doctrine
People v Camat (definition) - Appellants insist that the trial court cannot rely on the
extrajudicial confession of appellant Camat as a basis for their
- Camat and Willie conviction because such confession was obtained during
- Special complex crime of
custodial investigation in violation of their constitutional rights
robbery with homicide
and frustrated homicide - These rights begin to be available where the investigation is no
- Patrolman Carino, longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has began to
stated on the witness focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into
stand that Camat orally police custody, and the police carry out a process of
admitted to him his interrogation that lends itself to eliciting incriminating
participation in the statements
killing of the soldier - An extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the confessant
during interrogation at and is not admissible against his co-accused
the police precint

*Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436

(Miranda Rights)

Tanenggee v. People (when

presence of counsel is required)

People v. Sunga (Effective and

Vigilant Counsel- city legal
officer)
People v. Ibañez (Effective and
Vigilant Counsel- duty of
counsel to explain)

People v. Chavez (Voluntary

surrender)

Luspo v People (Administrative

investigation- PNP investigation)

Gamboa v Judge Cruz (Police

line-up)

People v Linsangan (Marked

money)

People v Ang Chun Kit (booking

sheets)

Macasiray v People (when must

the objection be raised)