CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

Atty. Butch Jamon

OUTLINE OF READINGS

I. PLACE OF JUDICIAL POWER

A. In General
1. Const. Art. VIII, sec 1

SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.

2. Const. Art. VIII, sec 2

SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and
apportion the jurisdiction of various courts but may not deprive the Supreme
Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.

3. Const. Art. VIII, sec 4.2

All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive
agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all
other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc,
including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members
who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon.

4. Const. Art. VIII, sec 5.2

Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or

the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:

(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.

(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation thereto.

(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
higher.

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

1
Cases:
Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Crunch) 137 (1803)

- SC has no jurisdiction on the writ of mandamus

- Lower courts have jurisdiction over original writ of mandamus

Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936)

- That in cases of conflict between the several departments and among the
agencies thereof, the judiciary, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, is the
only constitutional mechanism devised finally to resolve the conflict and allocate
constitutional boundaries.
- That judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review in actual and
appropriate cases and controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no
one branch or agency of the government transcends the Constitution, which is
the source of all authority.

Garcia vs. Board of Investments, 191 SCRA 288

The ponente, Justice Gutierrez, Jr., first stated the Court’s judicial power to settle
actual controversies as provided for by Section 1 of Article VIII in our 1987
Constitution before he wrote the reasons as to how the Court arrived to its
conclusion. He mentioned that nothing is shown to justify the BOI’s action in letting
the investors decide on an issue which, if handled by our own government, could
have been very beneficial to the State, as he remembered the word of a great Filipino
leader, to wit: “.. he would not mind having a government run like hell by Filipinos
than one subservient to foreign dictation”.

Justice Melencio-Herrera, in another dissenting opinion, stated that the Constitution

does not vest in the Court the power to enter the realm of policy considerations, such
as in this case.

Oposa vs. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792

- Legal standing
“Self-executing provision”

While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration
of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it
is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a
right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than
self-preservation and self-perpetuation. It is a self-executing provision for it can stand on
its own without the need of a legislative aid for its execution.

Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, 267 SCRA 402

“Self-executing provision”

SC ruled that when our constitution mandates that in the grant of rights, priveleges,
and concessions covering national economy and patrimony, the state shall give
preference to Qualified Filipinos

Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110

The petitioner seeks to restrain PCSO and PGMC from implementing the lottery system due
to moral and ethical considerations and that the contract of lease violates Section 1 of R. A.

2
 No. 1169, as amended by B. P. Blg. 42.Respondents question whether the petitioners possess
the legal standing necessary and that the issues of wisdom, morality and propriety of acts of
the executive department are beyond the ambit of judicial reviews

Petition to be of transcendental importance to the public. The issues it raised are of paramount
public interest and of a category even higher than those involved in many of the aforecited
cases. The ramifications of such issues immeasurably affect the social, economic, and moral
well-being of the people even in the remotest barangays of the country and the counter-
productive and retrogressive effects of the envisioned on-line lottery system are as staggering
as the billions in pesos it is expected to raise. The legal standing then of the petitioners
deserves recognition and, in the exercise of its sound discretion, this Court hereby brushes
aside the procedural barrier which the respondents tried to take advantage of.

Kilosbayan vs. Morato, 246 SCRA 540 (1 Bernas 571)

Tanada vs. Angara, 272 SCRA 18

Santiago vs. Bautista, 32 SCRA 188 (1 Bernas 498)

B. Case or Controversy Requirement: Elements

Alexander Bickel, The Supreme Court 1960 Term Foreword: The Passive Virtues, 75
HARV. L. REV 40 (1961)

Standing

PACU v. Secretary, 97 Phil 806, (1 Bernas 539)

Gonzalez v. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230
Gonzalez v. Marcos, 65 SCRA 624 (1 Bernas 540)
People v. Vera, 65 Phil 58
Flast v. Cohen, 392 US 83
Francisco vs. House of Representatives G.R. 160261 (November 2003)

Ripeness
Tan vs. Macapagal, 43 SCRA 678 (1 Bernas 537)
Poe vs. Ullman, 367 US 497 (1961)
US v. Richardson, 418 US 166 (1974)

Mootness

Sanlakas v. Exec. Sec, GR 159085, Feb 3, 2004

De Funis v. Odegaard, 416 US, 312 (1974)
II. DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

Const. Art III, sec. 1

1. Procedural Due Process

Banco Espanol Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil 921 (2 Bernas 4)
Ang Tibay vs. CIR, 69 Phil 635 (2 Bernas 6)
Ateneo vs. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 106
Non vs. Judge Dames, 185 SCRA 523 (2 Bernas 14)
Golberg vs. Kelly, 397 US 254 (1970)
UP vs. Hon Ligot- Telan 227 SCRA 342
DBP vs. NLRC, 183 SCRA 328
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394 (19 Nov 2001)

3
 2. Old Substantive Due Process: Protection for Property Interests
Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905)
NDC and AGRIX vs. Phil Veterans, 192 SCRA 257 (2 Bernas 48)
Balacuit v. CFI, 163 SCRA 182 (2 Bernas 41)

3. “New” Substantive Due Process: Protection for Liberty Interest in Privacy

Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890)
Cortes, I, Constitutional Foundations of Privacy , in EMERGING TRENDS IN LAW,
1-70 (1983)

Olmstead vs. US, Brandeis dissenting, 277 US 438

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 US 535 (1942)
Griswold vs. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965)
Eisenstadt vs. Baird, 405 US 438
Roe vs. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973)
Bowers vs. Hardwick, 106 S Ct. 2841 (1986)
Laurence vs. Texas, 02-0102 (26 June 2003)
Board of Education vs. Earls, 01-332 (27 June 2002)
Ople vs. Torres, 141 SCRA 293
Duncan Assoc vs. Glaxo Welcome, GR No. 162994, Sept 17, 2004

4. Protected Interests in Property

“Mere Regulation” under the Due Process Clause versus “Taking of Property via the
Power of Eminent Domain

Const. Art. III, Sec. 9

Churchill vs. Rafferty, 32 Phil 580
US vs. Toribio, 15 PHIL 85
People vs. Fajardo, 100 Phil 443
Ynot vs. Court of Appeals, 148 SCRA 659
US vs. Causby, 328 US 256
Republic vs. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620
Republic vs. Castelvi, 58 SCRA 336
Bel-Air Association vs. IAC, 176 SCRA 719
EPZA vs. Dulay, 149 SCRA 305
NPC vs. CA , 129 SCRA 665

“Takings” under Eminent Domain Clause

“Takings” under the Social Justice Clause

De Knecht vs. Bautista, 100 SCRA 660

Republic vs. De Knecht, 182 SCRA 141
Manotok vs. NHA, 150 SCRA 89
Ermita Malate Hotel and Motel Operators vs. City of Manila, 20 SCRA 849
Assoc. of Small Landowners vs. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343
Luz Farms vs. Secretary, 192 SCRA 51
Cariday vs. CA (Note: Gutierrez J., dissenting), 176 SCRA 31

III. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

Art. III, Sec. 1

Art. II, Secs. 14 and 22

Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155

Korematsu v. U.S. 323 U.S. 214 (1944)

4
 Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Brown vs. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Univ. of California v. Bakke,438 U.S. 265 (1978)
Gratz v. Bollinger / Grutter v. Bollinger, 02-516 (23 June 2003)
Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1873)
Goesart v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 (1948) (2 Bernas 76)
Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484(1974)
Mississippi Univ. School for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982)
Michael M. v. Superior Court, 450 U.S. 464 (1981)
Personnel Administrator v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979)
Yick Wo. v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 365 (1886)
Fragante v. City and County of Honolulu, 888 F. 2d 591 (1989);
Fragante v. City and County of Honolulu, 110 S. Ct. 1811 (1990)

Defensor-Santiago, The New Equal Protection, 58 Phil. L. J. 1

(March 1993)

International School Alliance v. Quisumbing, 333 SCRA 13 (June 2000)

Board of Directors v. Rotary Club, 481 U.S. 537
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, No. 99-699 (28 June 2000)

Goodridge v. Dep’t of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941
(Nov. 18, 2003)
Tecson v. Comm’n on Elections, G.R. No. 161434, Mar. 3, 2004

IV. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Art. III, Sec. 4

A. Protected Speech

1. Prior Restraint
Near v. Minnesota, 238 U.S. 697
New York Times v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713
Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51

2. Subsequent Punishment
People v. Perez, 45 Phil. 599
Dennis v. U.S., 341 U.S. 494
Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.s. 616 (1919)
Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans, 137 SCRA 628

3. “Speech Plus”: Symbolic Speech

U.S. v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)
Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

4. Assembly and Petition

PBM Employees v. PBM, 51 SCRA 189
Primicias v. Fugoso, 80 Phil. 78 (Hilado, dissenting)
Navarro v. Villegas, 31 SCRA 731
JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553
Malabanan v. Ramento, 129 SCRA 359

5. Free Speech and Suffrage

Gonzalez v. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835

5
 Sanidad v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 529
National Press Club v. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 1
Adiong v. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 712

6. Use of private property as a forum for others’ speech

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980)

B. Unprotected Speech

1. Defamatory Speech
Policarpio v. Manila Times, 5 SCRA 148
Lopez v. CA, 34 SCRA 116
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29
Ayer Production v. Judge Capulong, 160 SCRA 865
Soliven v. Hon. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 394
MVRS v. Islamic Da’wah Council, G.R. 135306, 28 January 2003
US vs. Bustos, 37 Phil 731

2. “Fighting Words”, Offensive Words

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)

3. Obscenity
Roth v. U.S., 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
Miller v. California, 37 L. Ed. 419 (1973)
Gonzalez v. Kalaw Katigbak, 137 SCRA 717
Pita v. CA, 178 SCRA 362
Mideo Cruz Controversy – “Polytheism” (August 15, 2011)

4. “Defamation and Discrimination” in C. MacKinnon, ONLY WORDS

Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (26 June 1997)
Ashcroft v. ACLU, No. 00-1293 (13 May 2002)

V. CHURCH AND STATE: THE WALL OF SEPARATION

Art. II, Sec. 6

Art. III, Sec. 4
Art. VI, Sec. 29(2)

A. Establishment Clause
Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201
Garces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602
Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236
County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 57 LW 5045, in relation to
Lynch v. Donnely, 465 U.S. 668 (1984)
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, No. 1751, 27 June 2002
Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672

6
 Velarde v. Society for Social Justice, G.R. No. 159357, 28 April 2004
Marcelino C. Arias v. University of the Philippines Board of Regents, Regional Trial
Court, CC Case No. 47696 RTC-QC (Branch 27)

B. Free Exercise Clause

American Bible Society v. City, 101 Phil. 386
Gerona v. Secretary of Education, 106 Phil. 2
Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent, 219 SCRA 256
Pamil v. Teleron, 86 SCRA 413
McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618
German v. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 163
Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 00-16423 (26 June 2002)
Anucension v. NLU, 80 SCRA 350
Iglesia Ni Cristo v. CA, 259 SCRA 529 (26 July 1996)
Commonwealth v. Twitchell, 416 Mass. 114 (1993)
Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, 408 SCRA 1, Aug. 4, 2003

C. Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205
U.S. v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78
U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965)
Cassius Clay a.k.a. Muhammad Ali v. United States, 403 U.s. 698 (1971)

VI. Unlawful Searches and Seizures

Art. III, Sec. 2

David vs. Macapagal (2006)
Katz vs. US (1967)
Papa vs. Mago (1968)
People vs. Marti (1991)
Stonehill vs. Diokno (1967)
Terry vs. Ohio (1967)

VII. ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Background reading: Byrne: Academic Freedom: A “Special Concern” of the First

Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 25 (1989)

Art. XIV, Secs. 1, 5(5)

Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee, 68 SCRA 277

Isabelo v. Perpetual Help, 227 SCRA 591
Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 402
U.P. v. Court of Appeals, 218 SCRA 728 (9 February 1993)
DECS v. San Diego, 180 SCRA 534, and
Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 154 SCRA 730

VII. PROTECTED INTERESTS IN LIBERTY

A. Non-Impairment of Obligations of Contracts

Background reading: Padilla IV-A CIVIL LAW 11-42 (1988)
(discussion of Art. 1306)

7
 Art. III, Sec. 10
Civil Code Art. 1306

Home Builders and Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398

(2 Bernas 684)
Rutter v. Esteban, 93 Phil. 68
Ortigas v. Feati, 94 SCRA 533
Juarez v. CA, 214 SCRA 475
Caleon v. Agus Development, 207 SCRA 748

B. Involuntary Servitude
Art. III, Sec. 18(2)
Rubi v. Provincial Board, 39 Phil. 660
Kaisahan v. Gotamco, 80 Phil. 521

C. Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt

CONST. art. III, sec. 20
Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 232

D. Right Against Self-incrimination

U.S. v. Navarro, 3 Phil. 143
Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62
People v. Vallejo, G.R. 144656, 9 May 2002
Beltran v. Samson, 53 Phil. 570
Cabal v. Kapunan, 6 SCRA 1059
Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA 767
Galman v. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294

VIII. SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION

A. Who are entitled to Constitutional Protection

Citizenship and Alienage

Board of Commissioners (CID) v. Dela Rosa et. al., 197 SCRA 853
Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 9 SCRA 27
Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago, 162 SCRA 840
Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA 364
Labo v. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1
Aznar v. COMELEC, 185 SCRA 703

Juridical Persons
Stonehill v. Diokno, supra
Central Bank v. Morfe, 20 SCRA 507

B. Who are subject to Constitutional Prohibitions

State Action Requirement

People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, supra
Borjal v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 1, 23, G.R. No. 126466, Jan. 14, 1999

######