SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY-PHINMA

College of Law
Cebu City
CLASS SYLLABUS

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW*

Materials:
1. Political Law Review by Nachura (latest edition)
(Also: Political law and Constitutional Law by Isagani Cruz; latest ed.
2. Supreme Court cases (citations will be provided herein below and given during
the class )

Course Requirements and Grading System:

1. Oral recitation in every meeting is expected
2. Attendance is not required but the moment you are called for an
oral recitation and you are absent that will automatically be considered as a grade
of 5.0 for your oral recitation on that day.
3. Coverage and cases scheduled for the oral recitation is always announced
during the class.
4. Your final grade will be taken from the following percentage: ¼ midterm grade;
¼ pre-final exam; ¼ final exam and ¼ oral recitation;

PART- I.A General Principles

1. Constitution; Definition, Nature and Concepts
a.-Characteristics of Philippine Constitution
-Essential parts of our Constitution

      b. Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution

            -  De Leon v. Esguerra, 153 SCRA 602
  Art. 10 Sec. 8 Art. 18, Sec. 3 ; Art

Amendment Procedure
            1. Proposal
                  a.  By Congress
Imbong vs. Comelec. ; RA 6132- Prohibition

                 b.  By a Constitutional Convention

                        
c.  By the People thru Initiative
                        RA 6735
   -  Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec, GR 127325, March 19, 1997
 
   2.  Ratification
                  Doctrine of Proper Submission
               -  Tolentino v. Comelec, 41 SCRA 702
Judicial Review of Amendments
            -  Sanidad v. Comelec, 73 SCRA 333
PART I-B

Self executing vs. non-self executing provisions of the constitution?

- Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, Feb. 3, 1997

1
 Pamatong vs. Comelec, April 13, 2004

National Territory

Art. 1 , 1987 Constitution;Archipelagic doctrine : Definition

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea defines the following terms:

-Territorial Sea; Contiguous Zone; Economic Zone or Patrimonial Sea; Continental
Shelf
-Internal waters (see the case of Magallona vs. Ermita, July 16, 2011
-Open Seas; Outer Space RA 9522

Can a state exist within a state?- The Province of North Cotabato vs. The Government of the
Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain- October 14, 2008

PART II- STATE

Principle of State Immunity from Suit

Basis: Art XVI, Sec. 3 of 1987 Constitution ; Par in parem no habet imperium.

Republic v.Sandiganbayan, 484 SCRA 119 (’06)

Begosa vs. Chairman, Phil. Veterans Administration, April 30,1970

Waiver of State Immunity:

Consent to be sued:
Express Consent (See Cruz, Phil. Political Law)
            -  Republic v. Feliciano, 148 SCRA 424                  General Law
                        -  CA 327; PD 1445; Art. 2180; Act No. 3038
                  Special Law
                        -  Meritt v. Gov't. of the Phil. Islands, 34 Phil. 311

Implied Consent:
Cases: Santos vs. Santos, Nov. 26, 1952
US vs. Ruiz, May 22, 1985

Immunity of Foreign States & Diplomats

          Applying the  Principle of par in parem non habet imperium
           process of suggestion
                   -  The Holy See v. RTC, GR 101949, Dec. 1, 1994
Determination of Immunity by the Department of Foreign Affairs
         -  Liang v. People, G.R. No. 125865, January 28, 2000
Immunity of International Organizations and Agencies
             -   Callado v. IRRI, 244 SCRA 210

Immunity of Government Agencies

            Incorporated
                  Municipal Corporations
                        -  Municipality of San Fernando v. Judge Firme, 195 SCRA 692 
            Unincorporated
                  If principal function is governmental
                        -  Farolan v. CTA 217 SCRA 298
                  If proprietary,   suable

Liability of Municipal Corporations for TORTS:

Palafox vs. Province of Ilocos Norte,

2
 Torio vs. Fontanilla
     
Suits against Public Officers
            -  City of Angeles v. CA, Aug. 28,1996
            -  Wylie v. Rarang, 209 SCRA 357

Suability not outright liability

                  -  Meritt v. Gov't. of the Phil. Islands, 34 Phil. 311
                  -  Fontanilla v. Maliaman, 194 SCRA 486

 Consent to be sued does not include consent to execution

                  -  Republic v. Villasor, 54 SCRA 84
                  -  Municipality of San Miguel v. Fernandez, 130 SCRA 56

SOVEREIGNTY
Kinds of Sovereignty: Definition and Concept
Effects of Change in sovereignty
            -  People v. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887 a law repealed by Act. 277.
            -  Macariola v. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77
     
Doctrine of Jus Postliminium: Effect of Belligerent Occupation
Peralta vs. Dir. Of Prisons
Alcantara vs. Dir of Prisons

CITIZENSHIP

      Distinguished from nationality

      Modes of Acquiring citizenship
      Citizens of the Philippines
                Election of Philippine citizenship
            -  In re: Vicente Ching, Bar Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999 “reasonable time”
      Doctrine of implied election
            -  Co v. HRET, G.R. No. 92191-92, July 30, 1991
      Natural-born citizens
            -  Bengson v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001
      Dual citizenship & dual allegiance
            -  Mercado v. Manzano, GR 135083, May 26, 1999
      Loss of citizenship
            -  By naturalization in a foreign country
             -  Labo v. Comelec, 176 SCRA 1
            -  By express renunciation or expatriation
                  -  Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA 364
 
      Reacquisition of citizenship, RA 8171
            Retroactivity of Repatriation
                  -  Frivaldo v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727, June 28, 1996
 
      Suffrage
            -  Akbayan Youth v. Comelec, G.R. No. 147066, March 26, 2001
      Absentee Voting Act    
  -  Makalintal v. Comelec, GR 157013, July 10, 2003

PART III- GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

Meaning of democratic and republican state: Art II of the 1987 Constitution

3
Doctrine of Incorporation - Art II, Sec.2 Const.
Definition; Concept
Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155
Gonzales vs. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230
Doctrine of Transformation-
Agustin vs. Edu, Feb. 22, 1979
Civilian Supremacy: read also R.A. 7055; Art. VII Sec. 18 Constitution; Sec. 5 (1), Art. XVI C
Meaning and its concept:
Cases: IBP vs. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81
Gudani vs. Senga, August 15, 206
Gonzales vs. Gen. Abaya, G.R. No. 164007, Aug. 10, 2006

Separation of Church and State: Art. II, Sec. 6 of Constitution

Islamic Da’Wah Council of Phil. vs. Exec. Sec., July 9, 2003

Healthful and balanced ecology ; Art. II Sec. 16 of Constitution

Oposa vs. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792

Local Autonomy; Art. II, Sec. 25 of Constitution

See the case of Province of North Cotabato, supra.
Decentralization of Administration vs. decentralization of Power
                  -  Basco v. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 52
 
Political Dynasty/Equal Access of opportunities for public service-

Pamatong vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004

PART IV: DOCTRINES AND PRINCIPLES

SEPARATION OF POWERS:
Nature of this doctrine/principle:
Purpose of Separation of powers:

Corollary doctrines:
Principle of Blending of Powers:

CHECKS AND BALANCES:

Meaning of this principle of check and balance

a. Senate v. Ermita (E.O.464), G.R. No. 169777 (executive privilege)

b. Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability …..

DELEGATION OF POWERS:

What is the rule on delegation of powers?:

David vs. Ermita, April 20, 2006

Senate of the Phil. v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1 (’06)

Akbayan. Vs. Aquino

Exception to the general rule on delegation of powers:

Delegation of Powers:
Two test of a valid delegation:

4
 a. Completeness test- Pelaez v.s Auditor General , 122 Phil 965, 15 SCRA 569

b. Sufficient standard test

Abakada vs. Purisima, Aug. 14, 2008

Camid v. Office of the Pres 448 SCRA 711 (’05)

Permissible delegation in the following cases:

i. Sec. 32, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution (Initiative and referendum)
ii.Sec. 10, Art. X- (plebiscite re: LGU’s)
iii. tariff powers of the President (Sec. 28 par. 2 Art. VI)
iv. emergency power of the President (Sec. 23 par. 2 of Art. VI
v.local governments ( general welfare clause: Art. X
vi.administrative bodies (filling in the details/subordinate legislation

PART V: FUNDAMENTAL/INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE:

.a. Eminent Domain--- vs. Sec. 9 of Art. III, Sec. 18 of Art XII and Sec. 22 of Art. XVIII
of the 1987 Constitution

Cases: Inherent Definition/Concept :

- Republic vs. Vda de Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336, 350-352

SEE ALSO CASES : (Supra)

-Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 484 SCRA 119 (’06)

-Republic vs. Lim, 462 SCRA 215 (’05)see also Makati vs.
CA

b. Police Power (meaning and concept)

Constitution

Cases: Definition/Concept:

- Ermita-Malate Hotel vs. Manila Mayor – L-24693,

7/31/’67
- MMDA vs. Bel-Air Assoc. G.R. No. 135962, 3/27/ 2000
- Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties, 234 SCRA 255

c. Power of Taxation

PART VI- LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Legislative power; definition and its scope:

Congress:
       Exception: powers reserved to the people thru systm of   Initiative, referendum and
Recall
                  -  Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec, GR 127325, March 19, 1997
                 
   Regional/Local Legislative Power: ( Sec. 48. LGC of 1991)
   nature of legislative power of local government unit-
Lina vs. Pano, Aug. 30,2001

Recall

5
                  -  Garcia v. Comelec, Oct. 5, 1993

  Senate (Composition; Qualifications; Term of office)

 
   House of Representatives
            Composition (District Representatives; Party-list Representatives)
 
            Party-list Representatives
                  -Partido Manggawa vs. Comelec, 484 SCRA 671 (’06)
-CIBAC vs. Comelec- G.R. No. 172103, April 13, 2007

Distinguish to the 2009 case of Banat vs. Comelec, GR. No. 179271, April 21, 2009;

Apportionment of Legislative Districts

                  -  Mariano v. Comelec, 242 SCRA 211
                  -  Montejo v. Comelec, GR 118702, Mar. 19, 1995
                   Gerrymandering
                  Doctrine of Equal Representation
 
  Qualifications
                   Natural-born
                        -  Bengson v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001
        Term of office
 
  Privileges

                  Freedom from Arrest

                  Parliamentary Immunity
                       
                        -  Jimenez v. Cabangbang, 17 SCRA 714
Pp vs. Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 689

Quorum:
Santiago vs. Guingona, 298 SCRA 756
Pp vs. Jalosjos (supra)

Disqualifications and Inhibitions

                  Effect of Imprisonment
                        -  People v. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76, February 3, 2000     
 
Discipline of members
                  Suspension vs. Preventive Suspension
     Osmena vs. Pendatun
Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055.  April 18, 2001
 
Electoral Tribunals
                  Composition
                        -  Bondoc v. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792
                  Powers
                        -  Aquino v. Comelec, Sept. 18, 1995
                        -  Sampayan v. Daza, 213 SCRA 807
                 
  Commission on Appointments (CA)
                Nature of CA and Composition
                        -  Guingona v. Gonzales, 214 SCRA 789
                  Powers and Function
                        -  Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549

6
 
Power of Legislative Investigation in aid of legislation
                  -  Senate v. Ermita (E.O.464), G.R. No. 169777
                  -  Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA 767
- Gudani vs. Senga
Neri vs. Senate (supra)

Oversight function of Congress (Sec.22 Art. 6 , 1987 Constitution)

Principle of Question hour

Power to declare existence of state of war vs. emergency power

                  -  Sanlakas vs. Executive Secretary
David vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006 (supra)

 
PART VII- EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Executive power; definition and scope

i. Privileges, Inhibition and Disqualifications
Presidential Immunity: meaning and scope
Estrada vs. Desierto, March 2, 2001
Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, July 29, 2004
Non-sitting President’s immunity: In re: petition for writ of amparo and habeas data of
Noriel Rodriguez etc. vs. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, et.al., November 15, 2011

Presidential/Executive Privilege
Definition/scope
Kinds of executive privilege
Neri vs. Senate (supra)
Senate vs. Ermita (supra)

ii. Executive and Administrative Powers in General of a President

Distinguish exec.power from admin. Power
(Art.VII, Sec.1 and Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution)

iii. Power of Appointment; Definition in general

Kinds of Presidential appointments-

Cases and legal basis : Sec. 14, Art.VII;
General vs. Urro, March 29,2011
Sana vs. Career Exec. Service Board, Nov. 15 2011
Appointments solely made by President- read Sec. 16, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution

Role of Commission on Appointments over appointments made by President

-(See Sec. 16, Art.VII, 1987 Constitution)
- Sarmiento vs. Mison, Dec.17, 1987
- Sec.8(2), Art VIII, 1987 Constitution
- Sec, 1(2), Art.IX-B
- Quintos-Deles vs. Commission on Appointments, Sept. 4, 1989
Sec. 9, Art. VIII
Sec. 9 Art. XI
Soriano vs. Lista, March 24, 2003

Appointment: Sec.15, Art.VII, 1987 Constitution

Read the case of De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council, April 20,
2010. Re: Midnight Appointment

7
 By-passed appointment and its effect: see the case of Matibag vs. Benipayo, April 2,
2002

iv. Power of Control and Supervision-

Mondana vs. Silvosa, May 30, 1955

v. Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency

Villena vs. Sec. of Interior, April 21, 1939
Lacson-Magallanes vs. Pano, Nov. 17, 1967
vi. Military Powers

vii. Pardoning powers: Nature and limitations

Different forms of executive clemency
Pardon vs. amnesty
Other forms of executive clemency
viii. Diplomatic power

ix. Delegated power of the President

emergency power; scope;nature and conditions

PART VIII- JUDICIARY

   i.   Judicial Supremacy vs. Constitutional Supremacy

         -  Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona, GR 134577, Nov. 18, 1998 
      -  Francisco v. House of Representatives, GR 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
 

    ii.   Political vs. Justiciable Question

           
            -  Estrada v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001
            -  Brillantes v. Concepcion, GR 163193, June 15, 2004
 
    iii.   Presumption of Constitutionality
            -  Lim v. Pacquing, GR 115044, Jan. 27, 1995
 
REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW:
 Concepts:
a. What is Judicial Power?
Concept of this power
b. What is Judicial Review? Concept and its requisites

1. Actual Case or Controversy

      -  Board of Optometry v. Colet, GR 122241, July 30, 1996
      -  Mariano v. Comelec, 242 SCRA 211
         
     
      Ripeness
           
      Mootness- Concept of moot questions and its rules
Deutsche Bank AG vs. CA , Feb. 27, 2012
Exception on the mootness rule
Navarro et.al. vs. Exec. Secretary, April 12, 2011
            David v. Macapagal-Arroyo (PP1017), GR 171396, May 3, 2006
           
2.  Proper Party
       
      Transcendental importance to the public

8
            -  Tatad v. Garcia, 243 SCRA 436
            -  Kilosbayan v. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110
            
      Standing of members of Congress
          - Senate vs. Ermita

      Standing of Integrated Bar of the Philippines

            -  IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000
 
      Standing of the Government to question its own laws
            -  People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56
 
      Taxpayer’s Suits
            -  Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000
            -  Gonzales v. Narvasa, G.R. No. 140835, August 14, 2000
 
3.  Question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity
 
4.  Constitutional question must the very "lis mota" of the case
 
 Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality
            Doctrine of Operative Fact
Republic v. CA, GR 79732, Nov. 8, 1993

PART IX- BILL OF RIGHTS

Significance of Bill of Rights:

Powers of gov’t limited by bill of rights /inherent powers
Who exercises these gov’t powers;
Cases:
Ermita- Malate Hotel vs. Mayor of Manila, L-24693, July 31, 1967
Acebedo Optical Co. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100152, March 31, 2000
MMDA vs. Bel-Air Vill. Assoc. , G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000
Sec. 1 of Art. 3; Scope of protected life, liberty and property
Read also Art. 11, Sec. 12.
Cases:
American Inter-Fashion Corp. vs. Office of the President, 197 SCRA 409
Phil. Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs. Phil. Blooming Mills Co.,Inc.
50 SCRA 189, 202-203

TWO KINDS OF DUE PROCESS in rel. to Sec. 1

Procedural due process: definition: (non-criminal); criminal due process is in Sec. 14
Cases:
Banco-Espanol-Filipino vs. Palanca
People vs. De la Piedra, G.R. No. 121777, Jan. 24, 2001

ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS:

Ang Tibay vs. CIR, 69 Phil 635
Mercury Drug Corp. vs . Serrano, March 10, 2006

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS (meaning of substantive due process)

United States vs. Toribio, 15 Phil. 85 (1910)
Ynot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659
Lupangco vs. CA, 160 SCRA 848
Balacuit vs. CFI, 163 SCRA 182

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE: (definition)

9
People vs. Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 689
Ormoc Sugar Central vs. Ormoc City, L-23794, Feb. 17, 1968
Trillanes IV vs. Pimentel, G.R. No. 179817, June 27, 2008

Section 2 of Art. 111 ( Rights against unreasonable searches and seizure

Purpose of this provision:

Valmonte vs. General de Vila, G.R. No. 83988, Sept. 29, 1989
Probable Cause: (definition)
Microsoft Corp. vs. Maxicorp, G.R. No. 140946, Sept. 13, 2004 (evidence required to
establish probable cause)
Conduct of checkpoints:
Valmonte vs. General de Villa, supra

PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE (valid warrantless search):

People vs. Evaristo, 216 SCRA 413

Manalili vs. CA, 280 SCRA 400
People vs. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915, April 3, 1998 (instances of a valid warrantless search)
Salvador vs, People, July 15, 2005 ;
Pacis vs. Pamaran 56 SCRA 16 (custom search in the conduct of its duty)

STOP and FRISK rule: read the case of Malacat vs. CA, G.R. No.
WARRANTLESS ARREST
Board of Commissioners (CID) vs. de la Rosa, 197 SCRA 853, 879
People vs. del Rosario, 30 SCRA 740
VALIDITY OF A WARRANT ISSUED BY THE JUDGE:
People vs. Tee , G.R. No. 140546-47, January 20, 2003

Examination of Bank Accounts/Deposits:

Read R.A. 1405 RA 6426
Case: PNB vs Gancayco
Marquez vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 135882, June 27, 2001;

Sec. 3: Privacy of communication and correspondence:

Reason of this provision

Is the rule of valid warrantless search and arrest applicable in this case?
Private and Public Communication
-When can there be a valid intrusion of this right?
Coverage of this protection
Forms of Correspondence covered
RA 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Law)
Writ of Habeas Data
Exclusionary Rule (Sec. 3(2)) in relation to Sec. 2 of Article III.

Sec. 4: Free speech, expression and press

Concept and Scope
Coverage/Inclusion/Components
Prohibition: No Prior Restraint
Gen. Rule:
Cases:

Adiong vs. Comelec (1992)

Chavez vs. Comelec (2006)

10
 Gonzales vs. Comelec (1969)
National Press Club vs. Comelec (March 5,1992) See also Osmena vs. Comelec

No Subsequent Punishment: Concept

Valid subsequent punishment
1. Libel. (Alonzo vs. CA (1995); Art. 354 of the RPC
2. Obscenity (Pita vs. CA (1989)
3. Contempt ( People vs. Alarcon 1939)
4. Lagunzad vs. Gonzales (1979)
5. Merriam College Foundation vs. CA (2000)
Exceptions: Fair comment; Criticisms of official conduct

Overbreadth Doctrine

Test of Valid Interference of this right/freedom

1. Dangerous tendency
2. Clear and present danger
3. Balancing of Interest
Censorship: Is this valid? Movie, Radio and Television Censorship

Ayer Productions vs. Capulong

MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN (2005)
Secretary of Justice vs. Sandiganbayan (2001)
Heckler’s Veto

Sec. 5: Religious Freedom:

Non-Establishment Clause
Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union (1974)
Basis: Sec. 2 (5), Art. IX-C; Sec. 5(2), Sec. 29(2) Art.VI of 1987 Constitution
Case: Violation of Non-establishment clause
1. Engel vs. Vitale
Acts Not in Violation of the Non-establishment clause
a. Tax exemption (Sec. 28(3), Art. 6 ; Sec. 4(2), Art. 14; Sec. 3(3) Art.14 of 1987
Constitution.
b. Civil Code, Art. 359
c. Art. 6 Sec. 29(2) 1987 Constitution
d. Aglipay vs. Ruiz (64 Phil, 201)
e. Garces vs. Estenzo
Test for no violation of this clause: LEMON TEST; Elements
Free Exercise Clause
Dual Aspect of Free Exercise Clause
Cases:
Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent of Cebu
American Bible Society vs. City of Manila
Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, supra.
Pamil vs. Teleron
Sec. 6: Liberty of Abode and Freedom of Movement
Limitations on Right to travel
Manotok vs. CA (1986)
Re: Return to One’s Country
Marcos vs. Manglapus (1989)
Sec. 7: Right to Information
Also: Art. II Sec. 28; Art 16, Sec. 10 of the 1987 Constitution
Limitations : Chavez vs. PEA supra
Valmonte vs. Belmonte (1989)
Baldoza vs. Dimaano

11
Re: Publication of laws and Regulations; See Tanada vs. Tuver case
Access to Court Records : (See AM No. 03-06-13-SC) ; Confidential Information
Hilado, et.al vs. Judge (2006)
Limitations to this right:
Sec.8: Right to Association
Also: Sec. 2(5) Art. IX-B; Sec. 3 Art. XIII of the 1987 Constitution
Case: Gonzales vs. Comelec supra
Application: Labor Unionism;Communist and Similar Organizations; IBP (In Re: Edillon, 84
SCRA 554)

Sec. 9: Eminent Domain

Who may exercise?
Necessity of exercise- City of Manila vs. Chinese Community, 40 Phil. 349
Concept: Municipality of Paranaque vs. VM Realty (1998)
Taking; Requisites for valid taking- Republic vs. Castelvi, 58 SCRA 336
Instances of Taking, as recognized by the Courts:
People vs. Fajardo
Ayala de Roxas vs. City of Manila
Philippine Press Institute vs. Comelec, 244 SCRA 272
OSG vs. Ayala land, Sept. 18, 2009
Hacienda Luisita Inc. vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, April 24, 2012
Fernando vs. St. Scholastica’s College, March 12, 2013
Due Process
Expansive concept of “Public Use”-
Association of Small Landowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
Reyes vs. NHA, 395 SCRA 494

Just Compensation
Land Bank of the Phil. vs. Escandor, Oct. 11, 2010
Association of Small Landowners’ case; supra

Miscellaneous Application; Art. XII, Sec.18; Art. XIII Sec. 4 ; Art. XIII Sec. 9; Art. XIV Sec. 13
Sec. 10: Non-impairment clause
General Rule:
Exception: Tan vs. Director of Forestry, 125 SCRA 302
Republic of the Philippines vs. Pagadian City Timber Con., Inc. Sept. 16, 2008
Chinabanking Corp. vs. ADB Holdings (2008)
BPI vs. SEC (2007)
Chavez vs. Comelec (2004)

Sec. 11: Legal Assistance and Free Access to Courts.

See: Rule 141, Sec. 8 of the Rules of Court; Rule 3, Sec. 21
Case: Martinez vs. People (2000)
Sec. 12: Rights of Suspects
Miranda rights:
Availability of these rights; When?
Read: R.A. 7438- includes invitation
Requisites if available:
People vs. Agustin (1995)
Right to counsel in relation to R.A. 7438
Cases: Gamboa vase; infra.
People vs. Compil, 244 SCRA 135
People vs. Bokingo, Aug. 10, 2011
Police line-up;
People vs. Macam 238 SCRA 306
Gamboa vs. Cruz (1988) see also People vs. Lamsing, 248 SCRA 471
Re-enactment of the crime: People vs. Suarez, 267 SCRA 119

12
Cases: People vs. Andan, March 3, 1997; People vs. Mayo, Sept. 26, 2006 ; People vs. Gil, Oct.
15, 2008
Ho Wai Pang vs. People, Oct. 19, 2011
Waiver: Requirements:
When waiver not available:
Sec. 13: Rights of the Accused
Criminal due process: Patanao vs. Enage, 121 SCRA 228; Lim vs. DOJ, Feb. 11, 2013
Bail- Read also Rule 114 Sec. 17
Pantilo vs. Canoy, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2262, Feb. 9, 2011
Dericto vs. Bautista, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1205, Nov. 29, 2000
Dela Rama vs. People’s Court, 77 Phil 461

Presumption of Innocence; People vs. Labara, April 20, 1954; People vs. Isang, Dec. 4, 2008;
Trillanes vs.
Pimentel, June 27, 2008
Right to be heard
Assistance of Counsel; Elements of the Right to Counsel
People vs. Lino, 196 SCRA 809; People vs. Rio, 201 SCRA 702; People vs. Parazo
Right to be informed; Soriano vs. Sandiganbayan, 131 SCRA 184; People vs. Ramirez, 69
SCRA 144;
People vs. Abino, 372 SCRA 50
Right to Speedy, Impartial and Public trial
Right to Confrontation/Right to cross-examine; Is this indispensable?; Equtable PCI Bank
vs. RCBC, Dec. 18, 2008; People vs. Seneres, 99 SCRA 92; People vs. Gorospe, 129
SCRA 233
Right to Compulsory process-
2 rights involved
Right to trial- People vs. Presiding Judge, 125 SCRA 269; Peole vs. Macaraeg, 141 SCRA 37
Read also Rule 114, Sec. 21
Trial in Absentia- People vs. Prieto, 84 SCRA 198

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS- definition

Sec. 15, Art. III in relation to Art. VII, Sec. 18 of the 1987 Constitution.
Cases:
Caunca vs. Salazar, 82 Phil 851
Zafra vs. City Warden, 97 SCRA 771
Manalo vs. Calderon, Oct. 15, 2007
In the matter of petition of Habeas Corpus of Eufemia Rodriguez- G.R. No.
169482, January 29, 2008
WRIT OF AMPARO- definition
Sec. 5, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution
Cases:
Salcedo vs. Bollozos, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2236, July 5, 2010
Tapuz vs. del Rosario, G.R. No. 182484, June 17, 2008
Roxas vs. Macapagal-Arroyo,G.R. No. 189155, Sept. 7, 2010
Canlas vs. Napico, June 5, 2008
Boac vs. Cadapan, May 31, 2011
Sec. 17: Right Against Self-Incrimination:
Applicability?- Villaflor vs. Summers 41 Phil 62
When Available: Senate vs. Ermita, April 20, 2006;
Sabio vs. Gordon, Oct. 17, 2006;
Standard Chartered Bank vs. Senate Committee etc., Dec. 27, 2007

Alih vs. Castro, 151 SCRA 279; Beltran vs. Samson, 53 Phil 570 but Note: Social
Justice Society vs. DDB, Nov.3, 2008.

Sec. 18: Right Against Involuntary Servitude and Political Prisoners:

13
Read Art. 247 RPC
Exceptions: Art. 3 Sec. 18; See also Art. II Sec. 4 of 1987 Constitution

Se. 19: Excessive Fines and Cruel and Inhuman Punishments:

read R.A. 9346 (June 24, 2006); People vs. Echegaray , 1997

Sec. 20: Non- Imprisonment for Debts:

Debt- refers to any civil obligation arising from contract, expressed or implied.

Lozano vs. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323

Sec. 21: Double Jeopardy;

Application:
Termination of Jeopardy
Castro vs. People, July 23, 2008
Lasam vs. Ramolet, Dec. 18, 2008- Re: Admin case

Requisites :
a. Herrera vs. Sandiganbayan, Feb. 13, 2009
b. De Guzman vs. Escalona, 98 SCRA 619
c. People vs. Balisacan, 17 SCRA 119
d. People vs. Ylagan;also People vs. Pilpa, 76 SCRA 81
Rule 117, Sec. 9 of the Rules of Court
Appeal of Prosecution- effects:
Doctrine of Supervening Event:
Laws and Ordinances- Yap vs. Leuterio, April 30, 1959; People vs. Relova, 148 SCRA 292

Sec. 22: Ex post Facto and Bill of attainder;

Definition
Instances of existence of ex post facto
Cases:
PNB vs. Ruperto (1960)

Not Ex Post Facto:

Montenegro vs. Castaneda, 91 PHIL 882
People vs. Estrada, April 2, 2009
Bill of Attainder-defined
People vs. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382
Read R.A. 9335- a bill of attainder or not? Misolas vs. Panga, January 30, 1990; BOC
Employees Assoc. vs. Teves, December 6, 2011

14