Bernas Notes

Art. III., Sec. 1

1. Balancing of State authority and the liberty of the people
2. Police Power
a. Most essential, insistent, and least limitable power of the State
b. To make, alter, or repeal laws
c. Rests on
i. Public necessity
ii. Right to self-protection
d. Merely regulates, and cannot be outright prohibitions generally
3. Restrictions under the Bill of Rights are directed against the State
4. The State may interfere with personal liberty, property, and other matters to secure the
general welfare.
5. In life, liberty, and property, the last is inferior to the prior two
a. Hence, as in Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila, the
scope of regulatory measures anent property are wider
6. Property v. Human Rights (Life and Liberty); latter are imprescriptible
7. However, though inferior, property is intimately related to Life and Liberty
a. Bernas: “The poor are oppressed precisely because they are poor.”
8. Procedural Fairness:
a. “Law which hears before it condemns.”
b. Render judgment only after trial.

Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations (7 points of Procedural Due Process)

1 Right to hearing
2 Tribunal must consider the evidence presented
3 The decision must have something to support itself
4 Evidence must be substantiated
5 The deision must be based on evidence presented or on record
6 Tribunal/s’ own and independent considerations
7 Parties must know issues resolved and reasons therefore in decision

Procedural Due Process summarized: need for notice, and opportunity to be heard

Due Process – why?

a. Accuracy and minimizing of errors
b. Gives accused rational participation and enhances his dignity as a thinking person

Substantive Due Process

1. Compelling State Interest
a. When it is, or that which is, of such importance or priority for the State to take
legislative or positive action.
2. When the means are custom-suited or necessary
 3. Churchill v. Rafferty
a. Court Presumption of legislative validity (constantly held by jurisprudence)
b. Aesthetics are within the realm of public interest/welfare (in issue here is that
there are billboards deemed to be nuisances to the public’s view of the
surrounding environment and plaza, if I’m not mistaken)
c. Collector of Internal Revenue was deemed authorized to take down billboards
4. Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro
a. Remember the Mangyans in issue here
b. Manguianes questioning the policing and restriction of their liberty and
movement
c. Court, under Justice Malcolm, found there to be valid restraint of liberty to
insulate and uplift the Manguianes before exposure and integration with the
majority
d. Adherent to general welfare and public interest
5. People v. Pomar
a. In this case, the court held that freedom to contract is inviolable so long as it is
not for purposes contrary to law
6. Ermita-Malate v. City of Manila, supra
a. Issue of invasion to right of privacy must be raised by the customers themselves,
and not, as in this case, the establishment owners.
b. Presumption of validity of acts of legislature holds.
7. Morfe v. Mutuc
a. Issue of privacy of accounts and records of public officials
b. WoN this is violated
c. Court Holds: No. The measure (SALN being required by law) is constitutional, it is
not oppressive, and there is a compelling state interest and reasonable necessity
of means
i. CSI – Transparency and awareness anent the wealth and standard of
living of public officers and employees
ii. Reasonable necessity of means – SALN discloses precisely what are
enumerated in the title

Publication and Clarity under Due Process

1. Tanada v. Tuvera – due notice requirement
a. “ Those who must obey a command must first know the command.”
2. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
a. Challenge of validity of Plunder Law as being vague
i. Estrada failed to show/prove this, who is burdened with the need to
prove what he allefed
ii. “To doubt is to sustain” – Justice Malcolm, quoted in a case
iii. Test of Vagueness:
1. When it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its
application
 iv. Facial Challenge
1. When a Statute is overbroad, test of vagueness applies
2. Does not apply to Penal Statutes
v. Overbroad v. Vagueness Test
1. Overbreadth needs not lack of clarity or precision; issue is WoN
rights have been intruded upon
2. Vagueness needs lack of clarity or precision to be applied

Equal Protection
1. No discrimination due to who he is, what he is, or possesses.
2. 3 tests
a. Strict Scrutiny
i. Serves a compelling state interest
ii. Classification is necessary to serve that interest
iii. Applied to questions of fundamental classifications
b. Intermediate Scrutiny
i. Important State interest
ii. Classification as substantially related to said interest
iii. Applies to suspect qualifications like gender or illegitimacy
1. Food for thought: what about foundlings?
c. Rational Basis Scrutiny
i. Classification need only to be shown as rationally related to said interest
that is of the State, and is legitimate.
ii. Applies to all qualifications other than fundamental or suspect rights
iii. Most used test
3. Alienage as basis of valid classification/s
a. Smith, Bell and Co. v. Natividad
i. Issue: WoN exclusion of Non-Filipinos and Non-Americans from coastside
trade is constitutional
ii. Held: Yes. Under implied strict scrutiny and independent power of
Philippine Legislature to look after its own nationals’ interests as opposed
to foreigners’, said regulation is valid.
b. Ichong v. Hernandez
i. Issue: WoN Chinese dominance in the market of retail trade merits valid
State action anent exclusion of their participation in it?
ii. Held: Yes. The Compelling State Interest is to ensure local control and
insulation from alien dominance in the market.

(Landmark Case) J.M. Tuason v. LTA

1. Power of eminent domain cannot be limited except under the
limit or provisions of the Constitution.
2. Valid exercise of police power in deprivation of property so long
as the rule of just compensation is honored by the State
3. Principles of Law
 a. Presumptive validity of legislative action
b. Equal protection – In this case, as all lands may be subject
to eminent domain, and it was found that the taking of the
lands are in conformity with the necessity and germane to
the purpose of the law.

Gumabon v. Director of Prisons

1. In relation to People v. Hernandez
2. Same circumstances merits release of the accused under a ruling that was favorable to
the ones charged in an alike case.
Art. III, Section 2

1. Inviolability of the home; “Not even the king can simply enter a man’s castle”
2. Against physical, actual, intrusive searches
3. Probable cause: considers factual and practical considerations

Stonehill v. Diokno
1. Probable cause must be of something specific
2. Rule of “generality” is permissible;
a. The sufficiency of the description of an object of search is closely related with
the sufficient particularity of the averments of the offense
b. In short, there is no need for such technical particularity so as to encompass the
specific things themselves

Searches in flagrante delicto need not prior search warrant

Exceptions to prior need of a search warrant:
1. In flagrante delicto
2. Search of moving vehicles
3. Evidence in plain view
4. Customs searches
5. Waiver of the right to be safe and protected from such searches and seizures
6. Other matters; exigent circumstances, and stop-and-frisks
Art. III, Sec.4

Rule against prior restraint; must be effected, and a limitation is interposed to subsequent
punishment

Near v. Minnesota
1. Saturday Press newspaper
2. Maligning and uttering such things against the Jews
3. Malicious, scandalous, and defamatory remarks
4. On this issue the Saturday Press is further enjoined from publishing such kinds of articles
a. Court ruled against this, deeming it to be a form of prior restraint
b. Exceptions:
i. War or issues of national security
ii. Paramount public interest

NY Times v. United States

U.S policy and decisions anent Vietnam; publication of such material considers need to look
into national security

1. Court held there was prior restraint

2. Justice Black: in his opinion, there was no prior restraint
3. Brennan and Stewart: there must be a need to consider that this is an exception, being
that the State is in peril
4. White: irreparable and grave damage will be done by such publications
5. Marshall: let the executive powers do as needed in such circumstances
6. Burger, Blackmunn, Harlan: there must be a limit of intrusion into Executive Powers
7. Stewart: the only reasonable and granted check to the vast executive power is an
enlightened citizenry

Chavez v. Gonzalez
1. There was alleged cheating in 2004 elections
2. Wiretapped conversations between GMA and COMELEC commissioner Garcillano
3. Gov’t warned media not to publish the alleged wiretapped conversation
4. Court holds there was prior restraint

Secretary of Justice v. Sandiganbayan

1. Petitioners seek to allow coverage of trial of Erap Estrada
2. Court denied the petition:
a. Inherent denial of due process
b. Potential prejudice might be caused by way of impartiality resultant on judge,
witnesses, and defendant
c. Compromise of candor and sincerity would be caused
Ayer v. Capulong
1. Enrile was sought to act in the movie “The Four-Day Rebellion”
2. Freedom of Speech/Expression v. Right to Privacy
a. Limit: private affairs; unless one is a public figure
i. ENRILE IS A PUBLIC FIGURE –gasp-
b. Enrile not being a private figure, petition was granted
3. Objective requisite to portray or depict one’s life: truthfulness and veracity of the
statements

Subsequent punishment:
1. Schenck v. United States – clear and present danger (coined by Justice Holmes)
2. Dennis v. United States
a. Communist encouragement of a putsch (uprising, like coup) and of revolution
b. Suggestion of acts and promotion of stance against the State
c. According to Justice Learned Hand: Clear and Present Danger query is WoN
gravity of said evil justifies an invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the
danger

Seditious Speech:
1. People v. Perez
a. Inciting to commit or condone and seek acts against the State; specifically, harm
against Governor General Wood
b. Court found there to be “seditious tendency”
2. Gitlow v New York (hehe git low)
a. “dangerous tendency rule”
i. seditious as they tend to incite people to take up arms against the
constituted authorities and to rise against the established government

Landmark case: US v. Bustos

1st case US v. Bustos

1. libelous remarks against a judge and a fiscal
2. only protection in criticism re: private matters or affairs is if that speech was being done
in good faith; or else, malice and unjustifiable nature of utterance shall not find ground
anent this protection/defense
3. It is not an issue for the dissenting opinion of malice in fact; the dissent looks to
privileged communication, and good faith in the purpose or nature of the utterance (this
latter point being important for Justice Carson)
4. Point of the law is to ensure clean and professional and moral conduct of public officers

2nd case US v. Bustos

The remarks in the first case have now been found to have been based on actual and
factual bases with the support of affidavits
Anent Obscenity:
1. People v. Kottinger
a. Obscene – that which is offensive to chastity or decency or delicacy
b. Indecency – act against good behavior and a just delicacy

Obscenity Test:
1. WoN the tendency of the matter charged as obscene is to deprave or corrupt minds
open to such immoral influences and to which said minds may fall
2. WoN it shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency

Ginsberg v. New York: legislative determination of what may be harmful for minors is valid
Ginzberg v. US: While not an issue of content of publication, the manner of advertisement
focuses solely on the sexually provocative and offensive

Billboards, and other large and conspicuous material that advance even so far as political and
religious ideas are likewise protected (Bernas)
1. Billboards for commercial purposes – Obscenity Test
2. Religious and Political advances – clear and present danger test
Right of the People peaceably to assemble
1. Primicas v. Fugoso
a. Primicias sought to hold a rally in Plaza Miranda which Mayor Fugoso refused;
b. Court holds no such refusal may be sustained; the State can only merely regulate
and may only subject such regulation, or even prohibition, following the clear
and present danger test
2. Reyes v. Bagatsing
a. Justice JBL Reyes in a proposed to March for Philippine Sovereignty and
Independence following the Anti-Bases Act
i. Route would be Luneta-Roxas Blvd.-U.S. Embassy
ii. Mayor Bagatsing refused
iii. Court found for petitioner re:
1. Need to satisfy clear and present danger test
2. Prohibition under the Vienna Convention found not to have been
violated by the proposed March
3. Regulation can only be the recourse of the Executive
iv. Anent permits:
1. Petitioner needs only to:
a. Indicate when and where assembly will take place
b. Must be filed well ahead of time
Art. III Sec.5 – Free Exercise and non-establishment of religion

1. Gerona v. Secretary of Education

a. Jehovah’s Witness assails policy of honoring the Philippine Flag under
compulsory flag ceremonies in all public schools
b. JW children who refused to salute the flag, sing the anthem, and take/pledge
allegiance were expelled
c. Court found for the appellant (State)
i. Separation of Church and State
ii. Flag is an exclusive symbol of the State
iii. The oath and the anthem pertains solely to and of the State
iv. In line with Constitutional duty to see to it that children are formed in
civic consciousness and conscience is this proviso for honoring the
symbols of the State
v. It is to the court’s mind its duty to determine WoN it is a religious or civic
ceremony (basically court claiming jurisdiction and authority)
2. Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu
a. Reverses Gerona
b. Freedom of Religion requires that protesting members be exempted from the
operation of law
3. Gerona case v. Ebralinag case
a. The court has adopted in both cases the necessity of balancing the legitimate
interests of the State and religious upbringing

Landmark Case – Estrada v. Escritor

 Case filed against a clerk of court with a man whom she was living without the benefit of
marriage
 Pledge of undying faithfulness under JW standards and doctrine
 Court remands in order to:
o Have SolGen
 Examine or investigate said pledge if it is really in line with Jehovah
beliefs
 Present on State’s compelling interest and evidence anent this and show
proof of sufficiency to override freedom of religion
 Show cause as to the reasonable necessity or least limitable nature of the
means adopted by the State
Non-Establishment Clause
 The State cannot sponsor or establish a religion
 Twin values of:
o Voluntarism (in State or religious participation)
o Separation of Church and State

Bernas on Government Neutrality

1. No preference over any religion (or of having a religion)
2. Insulation of religion or any like allocation object or institution of government funds to
avoid dissension
3. No direct Government aid anent religion
4. Prevent excessive entanglement between State and religious affairs

Pamil v. Teleron
1. Admin Code Section 2175 preventing ecclesiastics from appointment or election into
municipal office
2. 7 Justices ruled for free-exercise; 5 on separation of Church and State
a. Justice Fernandez re free exercise: 2175 is inconsistent with freedom of religion
b. Justice Makasiar: to allow an ecclesiastic to head an executive department is to
permit erosion of the separation of Church and State

Lemon v. Kurtzman test

1. Is there a secular purpose
2. WoN said purposes advances the purpose of a religion
3. Excessive entanglement between the Church and State

Intramural Religious Disputes

1. Fonacier v. CA
a. Court cannot rule on matters doctrinal in nature of the religion concerned, hence
it is exclusively a question within the sole purview of the Church/Congregation
Art. III, Section 6 – Liberty of abode and right to travel

Impairment may only issue upon finding under lawful order by the court or, national security,
public health, public safety interests as may be provided by law
 Always subject to judicial review

Marcos v. Manglapus
 Marcos wants to go home
 Challenges the ban of his return as unconstitutional
 Residual Powers as a guide under Art. II Sections 4 and 5
 “sui generis” disclaimer by the Court that this case decision is only applicable to Marcos
Art. III, Section 7 –Right of the people to information

Chavez v. PCGG
 Limits to right to information
o National Security Matters
o Track secrets and banking transactions
o Criminal matters or classified law enforcement matters
o Diplomatic correspondence, closed-door Cabinet meetings
 In this case, PCGG sought to recover ill-gotten wealth;
o PCGG may divulge definite propositions of government; hard on-the-ground
facts are necessary

Art. III, Section 8 – Right of Association

1. People all have the right to associate, WoN they are employed
2. For purposes NOT contrary to law; the law then may regulate such right
3. Right to unionize is limited by law as not granting the right to strike for government
employees
4. Right to organize is not equal to having the right to strike

People v. Ferrer
- “Conspiracy” statute
- Looks to the mere agreement to associate with the outlawed party or organization
- This is the case anent Communists

Art. III, Section 9 – Private Property

 Eminent domain
 Ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate public and private property
 Just compensation
o Just and complete equivalent of the loss which the owner of the thing
expropriated was to suffer by reason of the expropriation