OVERVIEW OF ARTICLE III
Blooming Mills, L-
● ARTICLE III or The Bill of Rights can be seen as a
reminder to the government that their vast powers are also
limited.
● The Bill of Rights can only be invoked against the
government
○ If a private person violates it, then the remedy is a civil
suit (Hing vs Choachuy G.R. No, 179736, &,
Yrasuegui vs PAL)
SECTION 1
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied
the equal protection of the laws.
Due Process:
Definition: Constitutional guarantee where the
government shall ensure rights owed to its citizens. Under
the 1987 Constitution, there are two types of due process,
procedural due process, and substantive due process.
● Civil and Political Rights are greater than
Property Rights. The reasoning behind this is that
the latter can be compensated while the latter
cannot. (PBMEO vs. Phil.
31195, June 5, 1973)
Procedural vs. Substantive Law
Procedural Due Process – procedures that the government
must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or
property
Substantive Due Process – asks whether the government
has an adequate reason for taking away a person’s life,
liberty, or property. It looks to whether there is a sufficient
justification for the government’s action.
● As a general rule, both are equally guaranteed by
due process
● But there are some cases where one must yield to
the other (Tupas v. Court of Appeals G.R. No.
89571, February 6,1991)
● E.g. The substantive rights of account owners
(you want their money to be protected from an
insolvent bank) are more important than the
procedural rights than Triumph Savings Bank is
invoking (Central Bank v. Court of Appeals)
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
The Essence of Procedural Due Process:
● Notice (right to be informed)
○ State has to show that they’ve made an effort to give
notice (e.g. Publish in newspaper). But, the person
does not necessarily have to receive the notice.
(Banco Espanol vs Valenzuela L-11390, March 26,
1918)
● Hearing (right to be heard)
○ The essence of due process is the opportunity to be
heard.
● Defect in Due Process can be cured when the aggrieved
party files an appeal in the court. (Shu vs. Dee G.R. No.
182573, April 23, 2014)
● In Labay v. Sandiganbayan, the Court held otherwise. They
required that the accused be furnished a copy of the
complaint
○ J. Leonen dissented, stating that this is inconsistent
with previous rulings where the defect in Hearing
was cured by the filing of a Motion for
Reconsideration
Exceptions to these indispensable requirements are closure
proceedings (Central Bank vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-45710,
October 3, 1985)
Procedural Due Process Requirements in a Judicial Proceeding
(Banco Espanol vs Valenzuela L-11390, March 26, 1918)
1. There must be a court of tribunal clothed with judicial power
to hear and determine the matter before it
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the
defendant or over the property which is the subject of the
proceeding
3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard
4. Judgment must rendered upon lawful hearing
Procedural Due Process Requirements in an Administrative or
Quasi-Judicial Proceeding (Ang Tibay v. National Labor Union,
G.R. No. 46496, February 27, 1940)
● The Primary Cardinal Rights that the Courts must adhere
to:
1. Right to a hearing;
2. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
3. The decision must have something to support its
decision;
4. Evidence must be substantial;
5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the
record and disclosed to the parties affected;
 6. The Court or any of its judges must act on its or his
own independent consideration of the law and facts
of the controversy, and not simply accept the views
of a subordinate in arriving at a decision;
7. The Court should render its decision in such a
manner that the parties to the proceeding can know
the various issues involved, and the reasons for the
decisions rendered.
Procedural Due Process in Academic Institutions (ADMU vs.
Capulong G.R. No. 99327, May 27, 1993)
● In consideration of Academic freedom, the Supreme Court
has formulated separate guidelines for the fulfillment of due
process in disciplinary proceedings. Academic bodies must
ensure that students:
1. Are to be informed in writing of the nature and cause
of the accusation;
2. Are given the right to answer charges against them
with counsel, if desired;
3. Shall be informed of the evidence against them
4. Shall have the right to adduce own evidence
5. The evidence must be duly considered
Administrative Agencies are not Quasi-Judicial Bodies (Shu v.
Dee G.R. No. 182573. April 23, 2014 and Sibayan v Alda G.R. No.
233395. January 17, 2018.)
● Administrative agencies like the National Bureau of
Investigation, and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas are not quasi-
judicial bodies. Therefore, they can only investigate and
recommend but they cannot promulgate judgement in cases.
When is public hearing needed? (GMA v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014)
● If an admin rule is merely interpretative, public
hearing is not needed. It just needs to be issued.
● If an admin rule substantially adds to the burden of
the people, public hearing is needed.
○ This is so that those affected have a chance
to be heard
Extradition Proceedings (Gov’t of HK v. Olalia, G.R.
No. 153675, April 19, 2007)
● Extradition consists of deprivation to liberty. Thus,
it is bailable.
● For extradition to apply, what is criminal here must
only be criminal in the country seeking extradition.
● To be granted, it must be shown through clear and
convincing evidence that the accused is not a
flight risk.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (RCBC v. BDO G.R. No.
196171, December 10, 2011)
● An arbitration award is binding on the courts, as
long as there is no evident partiality.
 ● The courts may confirm or vacate the award. Things which are similar to a property right (Corona v.
UHPAP G.R. No. 111953. December 12, 1997 and
Deportation (Lao Gi v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
American Inter-fashion v. Office of the President, G.R.
81798. December 29, 1989)
No. 92422 ,May 23, 1991)
● Due process must be followed in a deportation
● Some professions, such as pilotage, have reached
proceeding since it involves a harsh deprivation of
the status of a vested property right
liberty.
○ To require renewal of license annually is
● Deportation may only be done once there is final
akin to depriving pilots of their property
judgment declaring that a person is an alien.
rights
○ CID is in charge of ruling on this.
○ What makes this as inhibitory to property
Right to Counsel in Administrative Proceedings: rights is the yearly examination
(Salaw v. NLRC, G.R. No. 90786, September 27, 1991) requirement
○ However, licensing is a valid regulation
● Right to counsel is not required in administrative
(See St. Luke’s NLRC and Remman
proceedings, but if the employee asks for such, he
Enterprises vs. PRC)
should be afforded one.
● An export quota allocation which was initially a
● Dismissal was invalid because the statement Salaw
privilege can evolve into some form of property
gave primarily was in the custodial
right which should not be removed arbitrarily and
investigation/interrogation (which was criminal in
without due process.
nature) WITHOUT counsel, anything used is
barred and inadmissible. Void for Vagueness (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
○ However, if the statements taken No. 148560, November 19, 2001 and People v. Nazario
WITHOUT counsel was for a criminal G.R. No. L-44143, August 31, 1988)
proceeding, it CANNOT be used in an
● Definition: A statute or act may be said to be vague when it
administrative proceeding. Even in the
lacks comprehensible standards that men of common
disposition in labor cases, due process must
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ
not be subordinated to expediency or
in its application.
dispatch.
 ● It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it
violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially
Two Standards for Police Power
the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid;
and (2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in
carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing
of the Government muscle
The Two Categories of Nuisance (Perez v. Madrona G.R. No.
184478, March 21, 2012)
● Nuisance per se – an act that is injurious to the public.
● Nuisance per accidens – an act that may be injurious to the
public. A hearing is required in order to prove that the
subject is under nuisance per se.
Rational Basis Test (British American Tobacco v.
Camacho, G.R. No. 163583. August 20, 2008.)
● As long as the classification is rationally related to
a legitimate state interest, it is valid.
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
Police Power in General
● One of the Three Great Powers of the State, aside
from Eminent Domain and Taxation
● Greatest Power of the Government
● Vested with the Legislative Branch
● Power of the Government to regulate for the
general welfare of the public and their rights
1. Lawful Purpose
● The interests of the public generally, as distinguished
from those of a particular class, require such
interference.
● If there is no discernable relationship between the
ordinance and public welfare, police power cannot be
exercised (Balacuit vs. CFI)
● E.g. Public Welfare, Public Health, Public Safety,
Public Order, Public Morals, Good Customs
2. Reasonable Means
● The means are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose, and not
unduly oppressive upon individuals.
● The taking must not be confiscatory.
○ Police power only means that your
right is limited. If you can no longer
exercise your right, it is equivalent
to a taking.
○ The person should still be able to
use the property. They must not be
deprived of the use of their
property.
● Invalid Ordinances due to Unreasonable
Means
 ○ City of Manila v. Laguio: The
establishments were ordered to
either change their type of business
or move to a different area because
of perceived immorality of the
businesses.
■ This was unconstitutional.
The businesses were legal to
begin with. The Court
should not use their police
power based on
speculations.
■ There are less restrictive and
intrusive measures which
can be done to achieve the
purpose (i.e. Inspections)
○ MMDA vs. Viron and Lucena vs.
JAC Liners: Prohibition of bus
terminals is too oppressing for
being extreme on trying to congest
traffic.
Confiscation because a property was used as an instrument
for a crime is valid. (Bennis v. Michigan)
Substantive Requirements for a Valid Ordinance (City
of Manila v Laguio)
1. It must not contravene the Constitution or any
statute
2. Must not be unfair or oppressive
3. Must not be partial or discriminatory
4. Must not prohibit but may regulate trade
5. Must be general and consistent with public policy
6. Must not be unreasonable.
Writ of Amparo
● The Writ of Amparo is not an exercise of Police Power,
rather it is an order issued by the Supreme Court. Here, no
new rights are granted. It only enforces existing rights. (Sec.
of DND v. Manalo)
● “The petition for Writ of Amparo is a remedy available to
any persons whose right to life, liberty, and security is
violated or threatened with violation of by an unlawful act or
omission of a public officer, or employee, or of a private
individual or entity.
The Writ shall cover extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof.” [Sec. 1, Rule on the Writ
of Amparo] (Caram v. Segui)
● The requisites of an enforced disappearance are:
1. that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any
form of deprivation of liberty;
2. that it be carried out by, or with the authorization,
support or acquiescence of the State or a political
organization;
 3. that 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; and;
4. that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject
person from the protection of the law for a prolonged
period of time.
Writ of Habeas Data
● The writ of 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
engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or
information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party
The extraordinary writ of habeas data "provides a judicial
remedy to protect a person's right to control information
regarding oneself, particularly in instances where such
information is being collected through unlawful means in
order to achieve unlawful ends.”
*In both cases, substantial evidence of the violation or threatened
violation must be shown. The grant of these writs cannot be based
on speculation. (See Lee v. Ilagan)
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
Requisites for a valid classification
The classification must
1. Be germane to the purpose of the law
2. Rest on substantial distinctions
3. Not be limited to existing conditions
4. Apply to all members of the same class
SECTION 3
The privacy of communication and correspondence shall
be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or
when public safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
Codal Analysis
● Violation of privacy allowed when
○ There is a lawful order of the court
○ Public safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law
Not applicable to private persons (People v. Marti)
 ● Can only be invoked against the government Factual Circumstances should be considered in
● Evidence obtained by a private person in violation determining if there is a violation of privacy
of the right of privacy is admissible (?)
● In Hing v. Choachuy, there was a violation since
○ But they may be held civilly liable
there was malice behind the placing of the CCTV
Waiver of Rights (Damaso) ● If your street is small and you put a CCTV which
covers in its feed part of your neighbor’s house
● Waiver may be done by
○ If you can show that the capturing of your
○ Bearer of right
neighbor’s house is incidental, it will not be
○ One who is expressly authorized to do so
a violation
Inadmissible Evidence (Spouses Veroy)
SECTION 4
● Anything obtained from an illegal search or
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech,
seizure (no warrant) is inadmissible as evidence
of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people
● Exceptions:
peaceably to assemble and petition the government for
○ The search is incidental to an arrest
redress of grievances.
○ The search is done on a moving vehicle
○ The evidence seized was in plain view of General Notes on Section 4:
the authorities
● All in all, freedom of speech is a preferred right.
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (Vivares v. STC) And the aforementioned provision is construed in
favor of freedom instead of regulation. However,
● To invoke Sec. 3, there must be a reasonable
the rule on free speech is not absolute. There are
expectation of privacy with regard to the
situations where speech must be heavily restrained
information in question
or regulated and the determination of whether such
● There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on
speech must be restricted is dependent upon
social media
standards set forth by jurisprudence.
○ Unless you set who can see the posts to
● There are two types of restriction on speech,
“Only Me”
expression and press contemplated under section 4
namely:
○ Prior Restraint: censorship of speech and colonial government
expression prior to publication in the Philippines.
■ Prior restraint is heavily construed This test is now
against the government. Such therefore used less
restrictions can only be applied frequently in favor of
when there is clear and present the next two tests.
danger to the point where the ○ Used mainly on
speech is obscene, incites violence, cases involving
or reveals military secrets. (Near vs. seditious speech
Minnesota & New York Times vs. and contempt.
US) ● Clear and Present Danger
○ Subsequent Punishment: Penalizing Test
unwanted speech post-publication. ○ Words used are to
■ There are three tests to validate create a clear and
subsequent punishment present danger that
● Dangerous Tendency Test they will bring about
○ Speech may be substantive evil that
curtailed when it the congress has a
creates a dangerous right to prevent.
tendency which the ○ Difference from
state has a right to dangerous tendency:
prevent (People vs. This test has a
Perez & Gonzales qualifier where a
vs, COMELEC) question of
○ Dangerous Tendency proximity and
according to Bernas degree is asked.
is a hallmark of an ○ See Dennis vs. US
anxious American ● Balancing Interest Test
 ○ A conscious perception and election results from
consideration of the non-private individuals and entities
interplay of interests are subjected to proper regulation
observable in a given (SWS vs. COMELEC)
situation (Ayer vs. ● Please note that such
Capulong) expressions are merely
○ [EXAMPLE] limited and not restricted.
Balancing Privacy Restriction goes in
and Free Speech: the contravention of this
court warns that provision (Adiong vs.
there must be an COMELEC)
equilibrium between ■ A/N: I’m guessing that regulation of
freedom of speech political speech is a matter of
and right to privacy balancing different constitutional
in this context - that interests. But the jurisprudence
the film remains dictate that in the case of confusion,
faithful to the event regulatory bodies must lean on
on which the motion freedom
picture was inspired. ● In the ruling of Adiong
● Speeches and expressions are treated differently vs.COMELEC where
under this provision. Applying the balancing
○ Being a constitutionally protected right, interest test, the court ruled
political speech especially from those that that when faced with
are not candidates cannot be subject to borderline situations where
election paraphernalia regulations. freedom to speak by a
(Diocese of Bacolod vs. COMELEC) candidate or party and
■ Political expression however (i.e. freedom to know on the part
surveys) which may shape voter of the electorate are invoked
 against actions intended for
maintaining clean and free
elections, the police, local
officials and COMELEC,
should lean in favor of
freedom.
● Aside from this, any
regulation must be
consistent with the O’brien
test where a regulation of
political speech must be:
○ within the
constitutional power ○ In the obiter dicta of Gonzales vs. Kalaw-
of the government
○ substantial to gov’t
interest
○ gov’t interest is
unrelated to the
suppression freedom
of expression
○ If incidental
restriction on free
speech is no greater
than what is essential
in the furtherance of
interest. ○ In the realm of commercial speech, Rubin
○ In the case of Freedman vs Maryland, it
held that motion picture may be subjected
to censorship subject to certain procedural
safeguards namely:
■ the burden of proving that the film
is unprotected expression must rest
on the censor.
■ Censorship cannot be administered
in a manner which would lend an
effect of finality to the censor's
determination whether a film
constitutes protected expression.
■ There must be a prompt judicial
review
Katigbak, the court opined that where
television is concerned: a less liberal
approach calls for observance. This is so
because unlike motion pictures where the
patrons have to pay their way, television
reaches every home where there is a set.
Children then will likely will be among the
avid viewers of the programs therein
shown. It cannot be denied though that the
State as parens patriae is called upon to
manifest an attitude of caring for the
welfare of the young.
vs. Coors Brewing ruled that such
expressions are subjected to regulation for
 the furtherance of substantial state interest.
To determine if a regulation is valid, the
court referenced the Central Hudson Test:
■ Speech concerns lawful activity and
not misleading;
■ There must be substantial
government interest;
■ The regulation directly advances the
governmental interest; and,
■ Regulation is not more extensive
that is necessary to serve that
interest
○ Speech that are obscene, and derogatory are
classified under unprotected speech and
therefore may not be protected under this
provision. There are however standards for
qualifying a speech or expression under
this category.
■ For speech to be considered
obscene, the court relies on the
Miller doctrine.
● whether 'the average person,
applying contemporary
community standards' would
find that the work, taken as
a whole, appeals to the
prurient interest;
● whether the work depicts or
describes, in a patently
offensive way, sexual
conduct specifically defined
by the applicable state law;
and
● whether the work, taken as a
whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, or
scientific value."
■ For derogatory speech, it becomes
an unprotected speech if done in
bad faith. Under the RPC, there is
always a presumption that it was
done in bad faith. (Policarpio vs.
Manila Times)
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 required for
the exercise of civil or political rights.
General Rule on Section 5:
● Two Aspects of Section 5:
 ○ Non-Establishment Clause: No law shall be
made favoring the practice or establishment
of one religion
○ Free Exercise Clause: No religion shall
interfere with the exercise of one religion.
● General rule is that the separation of church and
state shall be inviolable.
○ Exceptions: In case of general concessions
and accommodations.(i.e. Exemption from
property tax, religious holidays, and certain
crimes)
● The provision also respects 2 rights namely:
○ Right to believe: A state of mind and
cannot be regulated by law.
○ Right to act upon one’s belief: The physical
manifestation of one’s belief that may be
regulated by law.
Jurisprudence on the Provision
● In Aglipay vs. Ruiz, the issuance of stamps
commemorating a religious event is not in
violation of the provision on non-establishment.
○ So long as funds are not appropriated in
favor of the religion, and the purpose of
such stamp issuance is for the advantage of
the government
○ As an obiter dicta of the case, celebration
of religious holidays and the penalizing of
certain religious worship are consistent
with the constitutional provision on non-
establishment and free worship.
● In Board of Education vs Allen, the primary test of
determining whether an act of law is consistent
with non-establishment is hinged on the Everson
doctrine where a law must have a secular purpose
and a primary effect that does not advance one
religion nor inhibit it.
○ In the case of Allen, the purpose of the law
is to merely further educational
opportunities of youth.
○ This includes students who study in a
parochial church.
● The test applied in Board of Education vs. Allen
was further expounded in the case of Lemon vs.
Kurtzman where the determination of an act’s
validity is dependent on whether:
○ the statute has a secular legislative purpose;
○ the principal or primary effect does not
advance not inhibit a religion; and
○ The statute does not foster an excessive
government entanglement with religion.
● Applying the expanded test on Lemon vs.
Kurtzman shows that a law providing state aid for
teachers teaching secular subjects in a parochial
school is constitutionally infirm.
 ○ Because the statute provides an excessive
entanglement between state and religion. A
violation of the 3rd element under
kurtzman test
○ Unlike in the case of Allen, it is easy to
regulate that books because content has
already been regulated. It is however harder
for teachers because what must be
regulated is not only what must be taught
but also how is the subject taught
○ This will result in the state being heavily
vested in religious education.
● In the case of County of Allegheny vs ACLU, the
court ruled that the display of a manger in a
government building is unconstitutional because it
proclaimed glory to God for the birth of Jesus
Christ, and there was nothing surrounding the
crèche that detracted from its purely religious
message.
○ However, it must be noted that in
Philippine jurisprudence, the holding of
masses in a court building is not
unconstitutional. The court held that
allowing religion to flourish is not contrary
to the principle of separation of Church and
State (RE: Valenciano).
○ The State adopts a policy of
accommodation - a recognition of the
reality that some governmental measures
may not be imposed on a certain portion of
the population for the reason that these
measures are contrary to their religious
beliefs. As long as it can be shown that the
exercise of the right does not impair the
public welfare, the attempt of the State to
regulate or prohibit such right would be an
unconstitutional encroachment (RE:
Valenciano).
● Capitol Advisory Board vs. Pinette ruled that
private religious activities are not protected under
the non-establishment clause. Instead, such
activities are protected under free speech and may
be subjected to content-neutral regulations.
● In balancing free exercise of religion and the right
to form and join lawful associations, Victoriano vs.
Elizalde, is enlightening. Religion does not
necessarily disallow a person from joining a lawful
association. It does not prohibit the members of
said religious sects from affiliating with labor
unions. It still leaves to said members the liberty
and the power to affiliate, or not to affiliate, with
labor unions. If, notwithstanding their religious
beliefs, the members of said religious sects prefer
to sign up with the labor union, they can do so.
● If a statute conflicts with religious practice, free
practice of religion prevails unless such is
 detrimental to public welfare and safety.The Court
also held that while the maintenance of public
order was a valid state interest, it could not be used
to justify the suppression of "free communication
of views." (Cantwell vs. Connecticut).
SECTION 6
The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the
limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon
lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel
be impaired except in the interest of national security,
public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
General Notes on Section 6:
● Rights Protected under Section 6 are:
○ Liberty of Abode: Liberty of abode and
changing the same within the bounds of
law shall not be impaired.
■ EXCEPTION: Upon a lawful court
order. (See in conjunction with
Section 2)
○ Right to Travel: To travel within the
Philippines and outside the Philippines
■ Right to travel under the Philippine
constitution does not cover the right
to return to the Philippines. The
state has the right to bar the entry of
individuals who are perceived as a
danger to the state. (Marcos vs.
Manglapus)
■ Right to travel may also be
impaired for the interest of national
security, public safety, public health
and as may be provided by law.
SECTION 7
The right of the people to information on matters of public
concern shall be recognized. Access to official records,
and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions, or decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy development, shall
be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may
be provided by law.
General Notes on Section 7:
● Provision contemplates the right of access to:
○ Official Records
○ Documents and papers pertaining to official
acts, transactions, or decisions
○ Government research data used as basis for
policy dev’t
○ Any other information of public concern
● WHY? The right to information has a fundamental
role in the free exchange of information in a
democracy. It’s objective is to promote
 transparency in policy making and in the
operations of the government.
● Who can invoke this right? A citizen of the
Philippines has standing to invoke this right. Right
can be invoked by filing a request to the concerned
agency or through the filing of an action of
mandamus. (Legaspi vs CSC).
○ In case of a denial of access, the agency has
the burden of proving that the information
is not of public concern. Denial shall be
subject to review by the courts (Legaspi vs
CSC)
● What are matters of Public Concern? There is
On Government Institutions:
no rigid test to classify which information is of
public concern. It is for the courts to determine on
a case by case basis what are embraced under this
classification (Legaspi vs. CSC)
SECTION 8
The right of the people, including those employed in the
public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or
societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be
abridged.
On Associations in General:
● All associations are under the protection of this
provision so long as they are for the pursuit of a
lawful purpose
● Even political parties furthering a belligerent
political ideology are protected.
○ The Communist Party of the Philippines is
a lawful association upon the repeal of the
Anti-Subversion Act (RA 1700). However,
its militant arm, the New People’s Army is
considered as an unlawful one in
consideration of the acts of rebellion it has
conducted.
● The case of Social Security Systems Employees
Association vs. Court of Appeals ruled that
government employees are free to organize but are
barred from mass striking due to it being contrary
to the civil service law (Civil Service
Memorandum Circular no. 6).
○ In addition, the source of benefits and
privilege granted to government employees
are different from their private peers.
○ Source of benefits for government
employees arise from law while benefits
from private employees arise from
collective bargaining
 ■ Because of this, government
employees cannot resort to a
concerted action for the redressing
of their grievances.
■ Instead, they must appeal for a
change of legislation or through the
filing of an action to the Civil
Service Commission.
● However, this rule may have an exception. The
dissenting opinion of Guttierez, J. in the case of
Manila Public School Teachers Association vs
Laguio Jr, opined that though the ruling of SSSEA
vs CA is still a good law, he considered that when
the bureaucracy denies to our government
employees the timely payment of the pittances
provided by law, then free speech should outweigh
all considerations which ban strikes on such
employees.
○ Free speech however is not an absolute
right and can be limited when there is a
clear and present danger.
○ In this case, clear and present danger is
present when a strike results in the
deprivation of classes for students.
● Not all mass actions are equivalent to a strike. It is
considered as a strike when there is a stoppage of
work to coerce the employer to give in to a union’s
demands (Manila Public School Teachers Assoc.
vs. Laguio Jr.)
Can membership be transferred to a successor in
interest?
● The case of Padcom Condominium Association
vs. Ortigas Center answers this question. In this
case, the court held that if a contract stipulates
automatic membership for the transferee and his
successors-in-interest, then the transferee and his
successors shall become members without the need
for application. The court further ruled that such
automatic membership does not equate to a lack of
consent to join as the transferee and the successor-
in-interest can opt not to pursue the contract.
○ The annotation at the back of the title
grants a transferral of rights, and liabilities.
It is bound on the title and not on the
person.
SECTION 9
Private property shall not be taken for public use without
just compensation.
Defining Eminent Domain:
● One of the three powers aside from Taxation and
Police Power
 ● Eminent Domain refers to the power of the state to
expropriate property.
Limitations of Eminent Domain:
● Private property must be taken for a public
purpose; and
● Private property must be justly compensated.
○ Shall be determined by the courts
Rules of Eminent Domain
● Property can be repurchased (with legal interest)
and reconveyed by the original owner when the
expropriated property becomes abandoned or the
original public purpose behind such lapses. (Vda.
Ouano vs. Republic)
● A government instrumentality whose existence
lapses can be substituted with its parent, the
Government. Provided that legislation has
delegated the power to expropriate to the parent. In
this case, the Revised Admin Code of 1916 and
1987 delegates the power to expropriate to the
Office of the President on behalf of the
Government. (Iron and Steel Authority vs. CA)
● Before the finality of expropriation, the private
owner cannot be deprived of his rights over the
land (Greater Balanga Development Corporation
vs. Municipality of Balanga)
● In the case of Republic vs. Vda. Castellvi, the court
lists what must occur for taking to be present:
a. Expropriator must enter the private
property
b. Entry must not be for a momentary period
c. Entry must be under warrant or color of
legal authority
d. Property must be devoted for public use
e. Utilization of the property must be in such
a way that it ousts the owner or deprives
him of the enjoyment to his property.
● There is a taking even if there is no transfer of
ownership. A “partial taking” may warrant
compensation when such taking results in a
deprivation to the enjoyment of property (US vs
Causby)
● In the case of Republic vs PLDT, the court held
that the power to expropriate also includes the
power to require telecommunication companies to
permit interconnection with government telephone
services subject to payment of just compensation.
○ Telephone connections can be given right
of way and easement when public need
dictates
● Reasonable restriction on property does not equate
to taking. So long as reasonable enjoyment and
benefit on the property exists, there is no taking.
(Penn Transportation Co. vs. New York)
● Expropriation is not limited to vast tracts of land
and landed estates. (J.M. Tuason vs Land Tenure
Administration)
○ Expropriation of property must also be not
arbitrary (cited as obiter dicta in De Knecht
vs Republic)
■ If two different properties meet the
criteria of the government for
expropriation, the reckoning point
shall be the functionality, social
impact and cost that the
expropriation will bring. (De
Knecht vs. Republic)
■ You don’t choose progress over
social impact
● Expropriation of property must be exercised with
due process. An Executive Order cannot overrule
What is Public Use?
this requirement (Manotok vs. NHA)
○ In this case, it is essential that expropriation
be started through a filing of a complaint
under Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of
Court.
○ Law can give a price but it should not be
final. Resort to judicial review must be
necessary as the courts is the final arbiter of
just compensation.
■ Exception is f the owner decides to
What is Just Compensation?
negotiate with the government
○ In addition, just compensation must be
determined by the court.
● Republic vs. De Knecht ruled that an expropriation
proceeding that was determined by a final
judgment of this Court may be the subject of a
subsequent legislation for expropriation.
○ This is because the right of the government
to take private properties for public use
upon the payment of the just compensation
is so provided in the Constitution and our
laws.
○ Such expropriation proceedings may be
undertaken by the petitioner not only by
voluntary negotiation with the land owners
but also by taking appropriate court action
or by legislation.
● Public Use to the literal import of the term
signifying strict use or employment by the public
now includes the expanded notion of indirect
public benefit or advantage. (Sumulong vs.
Guerrero)
○ Court reasoned that public use is an
evolving concept influenced by changing
conditions.
● General Rule: Market value of the land taken is
the just compensation that the owner of the
condemned property is entitled to under the law
(City of Manila vs. Sarmiento)
○ Market value according to the courts is the
price it will bring when it is offered for sale
by one who desires, but is not obliged to
sell it, and is brought by one who is under
no necessity of having it.
○ Therefore, the market value of a property is
gained not from evidence influenced by
partisan zeal of one. .
● The case of Sumulong vs Guerrero also clarified
that just compensation equates to a fair and full
OPTIONAL: Rule on Laches (i.e. if the government
equivalent to the loss that is to be sustained.
delays to annotate pending expropriation of land in the
However, individual differences from one property
TCT or fails to pay condemned owners)
to another are not taken into account.
● Republic vs Bank of the Phlippine Islands ruled
that just compensation include the consequential
damages incurred by such expropriation suffered
by the condemned owner on the remainder of his
property.
○ Just compensation is the value of what is
sought to be lost by the condemned
● NPC vs Manalastas ruled that "just compensation
is the value of the property at the time of taking." It
shall not take into account inflation but instead,
legal interest shall be placed from the forbearance
of the compensation by the state.
○ Legal interest is “simple interest”
○ Compounded interest must be stipulated by
agreement
● San Roque Realty Development Corporation vs.
Republic ruled that a transfer of property from the
owner to the government cannot take place unless
just compensation was given.
○ In other words, no expropriation of
property cannot be completed until the
owner of the condemned land has been
justly compensated.
● San Roque Realty Development Corporation vs.
Republic ruled that though the government is
immune from estoppel or laches resultant of its
mistakes, such immunity is not absolute. If it
cannot correct it’s mistake within 20 years, then
the government cannot claim immunity.
○ In the case, the government has failed to
correct the mistake in 55 years.
SECTION 10
 No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be ○ Exception: In the exercise of legitimate
passed. police power
Overview of Section 10:
● Not all laws modifying obligations existent are
barred by this provision
● In a long line of cases, the supreme court has stated
that only those that diminish or enlarge substantial
rights of parties are not allowed under this
provision.
○ Laws which modify the remedy of a
contract in the name of police power as
long as it does not diminish or enlarge
substantial rights granted to the parties to a
mortgage (Home Loan Assn. vs Blaidsell);
■ An example of a modified remedy
which affect substantial rights of
the parties in a contract is in the
case of Rutter vs Esteban where the
court found that an 8-year
moratorium in the redemption of
mortgage contracts was
unreasonable. The court ruled that
such extension deprives the
creditors from the opportunity of
rehabilitating themselves. This is
aggravated by the fact that debtors
are not required to pay interest.