POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

CASES in CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Syllabus based

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

De Leon v Esguerra

- By virtue of the provision of Article XVIII, Section 27 of the 1987 Constitution that it "shall take
effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the
purpose," the 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987, the date of its ratification in the
plebiscite held on that same date

Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS

- The provisions of the Constitution should be considered as self executing .
- The doctrine of constitutional supremacy : if a law or a contract violates any norm of the
Constitution that law will be considered as null and void without any force and effect. Since the
Constitution is the fundamental and supreme law it is deemed written in every state and every
contract.
- Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive command
which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for
its enforcement. From its very words the provision does not require any legislation to put it in
operation. It is per se judicially enforceable When our Constitution mandates that in the grant of
rights, privileges, and concessions covering national economy and patrimony, the State shall give
preference to qualified Filipinos, it means just that — qualified Filipinos shall be preferred.

Francisco v House of Representatives

- Principles of Constitutional Construction:
1. Verba legis: whenerver possible the words in the Constitution must be given their
ordinary meaning except when technical terms are employed. It is the language in the
most common use.
2. When there is ambiguity ratio legis et anima: the words should be interpreted in
accordance with the intent of the framers.
3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat: the constitution should be interpreted as a whole
- Impeachment
o Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated, another impeachment complaint may not
be filed against the same official within a one year period.
- Impeachment case v Impeachment Proceedings
o Impeachment case: legal controversy that must be decided by the Senate
o Impeachment proceeding: proceeding is initiated or begins when a verified complaint is filed
or referred to the Committee on Justice for action

AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS

1
Gonzales v COMELEC

- The power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments thereto is not included in the
general grant of legislative powers to Congress. It is part of the inherent powers of the people —
as the repository of sovereignty in a republican state, such as ours — to make, and, hence, to
amend their own Fundamental Law. Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution
merely because the same explicitly grants such power. Hence, when exercising the same, it is
said that Senators and Members of the House of Representatives act, not as members of
Congress, but as component elements of a constituent assembly. When acting as such, the
members of Congress derive their authority from the Constitution, unlike the people, when
performing the same function, for their authority does not emanate from the Constitution — they
are the very source of all powers of government, including the Constitution itself.
- The term "election," normally refers to the choice or selection of candidates to public office by
popular vote; and the word used in Article V of the Constitution, concerning the grant of suffrage
to women is, not "election," but "plebiscite."

Imbong v COMELEC

- Congress, when acting as a Constituent Assembly pursuant to Art. XV of the Constitution, has full
and plenary authority to propose Constitutional amendments or to call a convention for the
purpose, by a three-fourths vote of each House in joint session assembled but voting separately.
- The grant to Congress as a Constituent Assembly of such plenary authority to call a constitutional
convention includes, by virtue of the doctrine of necessary implication, all other powers essential
to the effective exercise of the principal power granted

Occena v COMELEC

- Whether made directly by Congress or through a Constitutional Convention is within the full
discretion of the legislature.

- Consensus should be understood as ¾ of Senate and ¾ of HOR

- Whether the Constitution is merely amended in part or revised or totally changed would become
immaterial the moment the same is ratified by the sovereign people

- The Interim Batasang Pambansa, sitting as a constituent body, can propose amendments. In that
capacity, only a majority vote is needed.

Tolentino v COMELEC
- When a constitutional convention is called for the purpose of revising the Constitution it may not
submit for ratification “piecemeal amendments”. All the amendments to be proposed by the same
Convention must be submitted to the people in a single "election" or plebiscite.
- In order that a plebiscite for the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution may be validly
held, it must provide the voter not only sufficient time but ample basis for an intelligent appraisal
of the nature of the amendment per se as well as its relation to the other parts of the Constitution
with which it has to form a harmonious whole.

2
Sanidad v COMELEC
- With the interim National Assembly not convened and only the Presidency and the Supreme
Court in operation, the urges of absolute necessity render it imperative upon the President to act
as agent for and in behalf of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution.
- Referendum: Simply a means of assessing public reaction to the given issues submitted to the
people for their consideration, the calling of which is derived from or within the totality of the
executive power of the President
- Plebiscite: Involves the constituent act of those "citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are eighteen years of age or over, and who shall have resided in the
Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six
months preceding the election Literacy, property or any other substantive requirement is not
imposed. It is generally associated with the amending process of the Constitution, more
particularly, the ratification aspect.

Province of Cotabato v Government of the RP Peace Panel

- Association is formed when two states of unequal power voluntarily establish durable links. In the
basic model, one state, the associate, delegates certain responsibilities to the other, the principal,
while maintaining its international status as a state.
- President may also submit her recommendations to the people, not as a formal proposal to be
voted on in a plebiscite
- These recommendations, however, may amount to nothing more than the Presidents suggestions
to the people, for any further involvement in the process of initiative by the Chief Executive may
vitiate its character as a genuine peoples initiative.
- The only initiative recognized by the Constitution is that which truly proceeds from the people.
- Given the limited nature of the President’s authority to propose constitutional amendments, she
cannot guarantee to any third party that the required amendments will eventually be put in place,
nor even be submitted to a plebiscite. The most she could do is submit these proposals as
recommendations either to Congress or the people, in whom constituent powers are vested.

Santiago v COMELEC
- System of initiative under Sec 2 of Art 17 is NOT self executory
- RA 6735: initiative in the Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND. The people are
NOT accorded the power to directly propose, enact, approve or reject in whole or in part the
Constitution through the system of initiative. They can only do so with respect to laws, ordinances
or resolutions.
- COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right
of the people to directly propose amendments to the constitution through the system of initiative
- The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initative only AFTER its filing.
- COMELEC’s participations are:
1. to prescribe the form of the petition
2. to issue through its Election Records and Statistics Office a certificate on the total number
of registered voters in each legislative district
3. to assist, through its election registrars, in the establishment of signature station
4. to verify, through its election registrars, the signatures on the basis of the registry list of
voters, voters' affidavits, and voters' identification cards used in the immediately preceding
election

3
Lambino v COMELEC
- Revision v Amendment
1. Revision:
 change that ALTERS the basic principles in the
constitution
 generally affects SEVERAL provisions of the
Constitution
2. Amendment:
 a change that adds, alters, reduces or deletes
WITHOUT altering the basic principle involved
 generally affects only the SPECIFIC provision being
amended
- 2 part test
1. Quantitative test: substance entirety; the deletion or alteration of numerous provisions
and not the degree of change
2. Qualitative test: whether the change will accomplish far reaching changes in the
nature of our basic governmental plan
- Lambino’s proposal is a REVISION because it involved a change in the form of government from
presidential to parliamentary and a shift from bicameral to unicameral.
- The essence of amendments "directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition" is
that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. Two essential elements must be
present:
1. The people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative
can sign on their behalf.
2. The proposal must be embodied in a petition.
- An amendment is "directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition" only if the
people sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments.
- A people's initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an amendment of the Constitution
and not to its revision. In contrast, Congress or a constitutional convention can propose both
amendments and revisions to the Constitution.

Art XVII
RA 6735 : An act providing for a system of initiative and referendum
- Initiative: power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose and
enact legislation through an election called for the purpose
- 3 systems of initiative
1. Initiative on the Constitution on Statutes : petition proposing to enact a national
legislation
2. initiative on local legislation: petition proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city or
municipal law, resolution or ordinance
3. Indirect initiative: exercise of initiative by the people though a proposition sent to
Congress or the local legislative body for action
THE CONCEPT OF THE STATE
CIR v Rueda

4
 - Pound: State politically organized sovereign community independent of outside control bound by
penalties of nationhood, legally supreme within its territory, acting through a government
functioning under a regime of law
- Esmein: Juridical personification of the nation
- Laksi: a territorial society divided into government and subjects claiming within its allotted area a
supremacy over all other institutions
- McIver: power entrusted to its government to maintain within its territory the conditions of a legal
order and to enter international relations
- International law does not exact independence as a condition of statehood.

Magallona v Ermita
- Baselines are nothing but STATUTORY MECHANISIMS for UNCLOS III states parties with
precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves. It GIVES NOTICE to the rest
of the international community of the scope of the maritime space and submarine areas which
States parties exercise TREATY BASED RIGHTS
- Exercise of sovereignty over TERRITORIAL waters
- Jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration and sanitation laws in the CONTIGIOUS
zone
- The right to exploit the living and non living resources in the EEZ and CONTINENTAL
SHELF
- The fact of sovereignty, however, does not preclude the operation of municipal and international
law norms subjecting the territorial sea or archipelagic waters to necessary, if not marginal,
burdens in the interest of maintaining unimpeded, expeditious international navigation, consistent
with the international law principle of freedom of navigation.
- The right of innocent passage is a customary international law, thus automatically incorporated in
the corpus of Philippine law. No modern State can validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely
forbid innocent passage that is exercised in accordance with customary international law without
risking retaliatory measures from the international community.
- Validity of RA 9522: It is NOT inconsistent with the Philippine claim of sovereignty the use of the
Regime of Islands to determine the maritime zone of KIG and Scarborough Shoal. It added that
the country’s statutory claim over Sabbah under RA 5446 is RETAINED because RA 9533 does
NOT repeal RA 5446. UNCLOS III and RA 9522 are not incompatible with the Constitutions
delination of internal waters because current norms of international law, the right of innocent
passage is RECOGNIZED over archipelagic waters or internal waters

Bacani v NACOCO
- Functions of the Government – Constituent and Ministrant. To begin with, we state that the term
"Government" may be defined as "that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an
independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable
men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those
who possess the power or authority of prescribing them" (U.S. vs. Dorr, 2 Phil., 332). This
institution, when referring to the national government, has reference to what our Constitution has
established composed of three great departments, the legislative, executive, and the judicial,
through which the powers and functions of government are exercised. These functions are
twofold: constituent and ministrant. The former are those which constitute the very bonds of

5
 society and are compulsory in nature; the latter are those that are undertaken only by way of
advancing the general interests of society, and are merely optional.
- 5 most important ministrant functions are:
1. public works
2. public education
3. public charity
4. health and safety regulations,
5. Regulations of trade and industry.
- 8 Constituent Functions
1. The keeping of order and providing for the protection of persons and property from
violence and robbery.
2. The fixing of the legal relations between man and wife and between parents and children.
3. The regulation of the holding, transmission, and interchange of property, and the
determination of its liabilities for debt or for crime.
4. The determination of contract rights between individuals.
5. The definition and punishment of crime.
6. The administration of justice in civil cases.
7. The determination of the political duties, privileges, and relations of citizens.
8. Dealings of the state with foreign powers: the preservation of the state from external
danger or encroachment and the advancement of its international interests.
- Principles determining whether or not a government shall exercise certain of these optional
functions are:
1. that a government should do for the public welfare those things which private capital
would not naturally undertake
2. that a government should do these things which by its very nature it is better equipped to
administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals
- There are functions which our government is required to exercise to promote its objectives as
expressed in our Constitution and which are exercised by it as an attribute of sovereignty, and
those which it may exercise to promote merely the welfare, progress and prosperity of the people.

PVTA v CIR
- The growing complexities of modern society, however, have rendered this traditional classification
of the functions of government quite unrealistic, not to say obsolete. The areas which used to be
left to private enterprise and initiative and which the government was called upon to enter
optionally, and only "because it was better equipped to administer for the public welfare than is
any private individual or group of individuals", continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and
to be absorbed within activities that the government must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it
is to meet the increasing social challenges of the times.

Govt of the Philippine Islands v Monte de Piedad

- While there is a total abrogation of the former political relations of the inhabitants of ceded
territory, and an abrogation of laws in conflict with the political character of the substituted
sovereign, the great body of municipal law regulating private and domestic rights continues in
force until abrogated or changed by the new ruler. Laws conferring upon the Government power

6
 to supervise and control special charities are not in conflict with the political character,
constitution or institutions of the United States

Co Kim Cham v Valdez Tan Keh

- all acts and proceedings of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of a de facto
government are good and valid
- Classification of Government
1. De Jure
 has a rightful title but no power or control, either because the same has been withdrawn
from it or because it has not yet actually entered into the exercise thereof.
 Established by authority of legitimate sovereign
 a government established according to the Constitution of the State, and lawfully entitled
to recognition and supremacy and the administration of the State but is actually ousted
from power or control
 it is the true and lawful government
2. De Facto
 actually exercises power without legal title
 government which unlawfully gets the possession and control of the rightful legal
government, and maintains itself there by force and arms against the will of the rightful
legal government, and claims to exercise the powers thereof
 It is a government of fact.
3 Kinds of De facto Government
1. De Facto proper - government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or
by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal government and maintains itself against the
will of the latter.
2. De facto of paramount force – established and maintained by military forces who invade
and occupy a territory of enemy in the course of war
3. Independent government – established by inhabitants of the country who rise in
insurrection against the parent state (ex: government of the Southern Confederacy in revolt
against the Union during the war of secession)

People v Gozo
- The Philippines being independent and sovereign, its authority may be exercised over its entire
domain. There is no portion thereof that is beyond its power. Within its limits, its decrees are
supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws govern therein, and everyone to whom it applies
must submit to its terms. That is the extent of its jurisdiction, both territorial and personal.
- Principle of auto-limitation: It is to be admitted any state may, by its consent, express or implied,
submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise is
a power plenary in character.

Laurel v Misa
- Political laws except for treason are suspended

7
 - The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy of
their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy occupation,
because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby to the
occupier
- Sovereignty itself is not suspended and subsists during the enemy occupation, the allegiance of
the inhabitants to their legitimate government or sovereign subsists, and therefore there is no
such thing as suspended allegiance
- Political laws which prescribe the reciprocal rights, duties and obligation of government and
citizens, are suspended or in abeyance during military occupation, for the only reason that as
they exclusively bear relation to the ousted legitimate government, they are inoperative or not
applicable to the government established by the occupant

Ruffy v Chief of Staff

- The suspension of political laws during belligerent occupation does NOT apply to the
enemies in arms
- The rule invoked by counsel, namely, that laws of political nature or affecting political
relations are considered superseded or in abeyance during the military occupation, is
intended for the governing of the civil inhabitants of the occupied territory. It is not
intended for and does not bind the enemies in arms. This is self- evident from the very
nature of things.
- Under the petitioners' theory the forces of resistance operating in an occupied territory
would have to abide by the outlawing of their own existence. They would be stripped of
the very lifeblood of an army, the right and the ability to maintain order and discipline
within the organization and to try the men guilty of breach thereof.
Preamble
Article I

DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

Sec 3 Art XVI

Sanders v Veridiano

Republic v Sandoval

8
 Festejo v Fernando

US v Guinto

Veterans Manpower v CA

Merritt v Government of the Philippine Islands

Amigable v Cuenca

Republic v Sandiganbayan

China National Machinery v Santamaria

Republic v Feliciano

US v Ruiz

Holy See v Rosario

Republic v Villasor

Department of Agriculture v NLRC

PNB v Pabalan

Rayo v CFI of Bulacan

Bureau of Printing v Customs Arrastre Service

Mobil Phils Exploration v CA

Civil Aeronautics Administration v CA

9
 Air Transportation Administration v CA

Mun of San Fernando v FIrme

Mun of San Miguel v Fernandez

Mun of Makati v CA

City of Caloocan v Judge Allarde

ART II FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

Sec 1
Villavicencio v Lukban

Sec 2
Kuroda v Jalandoni

Agustin v Edu

Ichong v Hernandez

Gonzales v Hechanova

IN RE: Garcia

Sec 4
People v Lagman

Sec 6
Aglipay v Ruiz

Graces v Estenzo

10
 Taruc v Dela Cruz

Estrada v Escritor

Sec 10
Calalang v Williams

Almeda v CA

Ondoy v Ignacio

Salonga v Farrales

Sec 11
Secretary of National Defense v Manalo

Sec 12
Imbong v Ochoa

Virtouso v Municipal Judge

Obergefell v Hodges

Sec 16
Oposa v Factoran

Laguna Lake Development Authority v CA

Sec 19
Tanada v Angara

Garcia v Board of Investments

11
Sec 21
Association of Small Landowners of the Phil v Sec of DAR

Hacienda Luisita v Presidential Agrarian Reform Council

Sec 25
Basco v PAGCOR

Limbona v Mangelin

Sec 26
Pamatong v COMELEC

Sec 28
Legaspi v CSC

Valmonte v Belmonte

Aquino – Sarmiento v Morato

SEPARATION OF POWERS
In Re Manzano

Angara v Electoral Commission

Casibang v Aquino

Tanada v Cuenco

12
 Sanidad v COMELEC

Daza v Singson

DELEGATION OF POWER
Garcia v Exec Sec

Araneta v Dinglasan

Rodriguez v Gella

Eastern Shipping Lines v POEA

United States v Ang Tang Ho

Ynot v IAC

Tablarin v Gutierrez

Pelaez v Auditor General

CASES in CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

POLICE POWER
Philippine Association of Service Exporters v Drilon

Ichong v Hernandez

Lutz v Araneta

13
 Assoc of Small Landowners v Sec of Agrarian Reform

Lozano v Martinez

DECS v San Diego

Ynot v IAC

City Government of Quezon City v Ericta

Manila Memorial Park v Sec of DSWD

Mosqueda v Philippine Banana Growers Assoc.

POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
City of Manila v Chinese Community of Manila

Republic v PLDT

People v Fajardo

Republic v Vda De Castellvi

Amigable v Cuenca

Philippine Press Institute v COMELEC

Sumulong v Guerrero

Manosca v CA

EPZA v Dulay

Municipality of Paranaque v V.M Realty Corp

14
 Republic v Lim

Rule 67, ROC

Sec 9, Art III , 1987 Constitution

POWER OF TAXATION
Sison v Ancheta

Pascual v Sedc of Public Works

Punsalan v Municipal Board of Manila

Lladoc v CIR

Abra Valley College v Aquino

Sec 28, Art VI 1987 Constitution

Sec 4(3) Article XIV, 1987 Constitution

ART III: BILL OF RIGHTS

Sec 1
Due Process of Law
Ichong v Hernandez

Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corp v Torres

Ynot v IAC

Alonte v Savellano

Aniag v COMELEC

15
 Sps Romualdez v COMELEC

PCSC v Alcuaz

Ang Tibay v CIR

Ateneo de Manila v Capulong

Southern Hemisphere Engagement v Anti-Terrorism Council

Mosqueda v Philippine Banana Growers & Exporters

Equal Protection of the Laws

People v Vera

Ichong v Hernandez

Villegas v Hiu Chiong

People v Cayat

Dumalao v COMELEC

PASE v Drilon

Himagan v People

Quinto v COMELEC

Birago v PTC

Almonte v Vasquez

Ormoc Sugar Co v Treasurer of Ormoc

16
Sec 2: Searches and Seizures
People v Marti

Stonehill v Diokno

Mantaring v Judge Roman

Soliven v Makasiar

Silva v Presiding Judge of Negos Oriental

Morano v Vivo

Harvey v Santiago

Salazar v Achacoso

Alvarez v CFI

Mata v Bayona

People v Del Rosario

People v Gerente

Umil v Ramos

People v Sucro

People v Rodrigueza

Go v CA
People v Aminnudin

17
 People v Malmstedt

Luz v People

Espano v CA

United Laboratories v Isip

Papa v Mago

People v Musa

People v Peralta

Valmonte v De Villa

Rules 113 and 126 of ROC

Sec 3: Privacy of Communication and Correspondence
Ople v Torres

Disini v Sec of Justice

Vivares v St Theresa’s College

Zulueta v CA

Ramirez v CA

Navarro v CA

Sec 4:
Freedom of Expression
Diocese of Bacolod v COMELEC

18
 United States v Bustos

People v Alarcon

Ayer Productions v Capulong

Borjal v CA

Reyes v Bagatsing

Pita v CA

Social Weather Station v COMELEC

Assembly and Petition

Primicias v Fugoso

Malabanan v Rameto

Dela Cruz v CA

PBM Employees Association v Philippine Blooming Mills

Bayan v Ermita
Batas Pambansa Blg 880
Sec 5: Freedom of Religion
Aglipay v Ruiz

Garces v Estenso

American Bible Society v City of Manila

Iglesia ni Cristo v City of Manila

19
 INC v CA

Ebralinag v Division Superintendent of Cebu

Estrada v Escritor

Imbong v Ochoa

Sec 6 : Liberty of Abode and Travel

Marcos v Manglapus

Manotoc v CA

Silverio v CA

Genuino v Delima

Leave Division v Heusdens

Sec 7: Right to Information

Legaspi v CSC

Valmonte v Belmonte

Province of Cotabato v Govt of the RP Peace Panel

Echagaray v Sec of Justice

Chavez v PCGG

In Re: Production of Court Records and Documents

20
Sec 8: Right to Form Association
SSS Employees Association v CA

Victorino v Elizalde Rope Workers Union

In Re: IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty Marcial Edillon

Sec 10: Non Impairment Clause

Rutter v Esteban

Ortigas & Co Partnership v Feati Bank

Lozano v Martinez

Ganzon v Inserto

Sec 11 : Free Access to the Courts

In Re: Query of Mr Rogers Prioreschi

Sec 12: Custodial Investigation

Ho Wai Pong v People of the Philippines

Gamboa v Cruz

People v Macam

People v Judge Ayson

People v Pinlac

People v Bolanos

People v Andan

21
 Navallo v Sandiganbayan
People v Dy

People v Alicando

RA 7438

Sec 13: Right to Bail

Basco v Raptalo

People v Judge Donato

People v Fortes

Comendador v De Villa

Baylon v Judge Sison

Manotoc v CA

Government of the US v Judge Puruganan

Government of Hong Kong v Hon Olalia

Enrile v Sandiganbayan

Rule 114, ROC

Sec 14
Criminal Due Process
Tatad v Sandiganbayan

Galman v Sandiganbayan

22
 Alonte v Savellano

Presumption of Innocence
People v Dramayo

Dumlao v COMELEC
Marquez v COMELEC

Corpus v People

Feeder International Line v CA

Rule 133, ROC

Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel

People v Holgado

People v Agbayani

Aminon v Judge Chiongson

Rule 115, ROC

Right to be Informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation

People v Quitlong
Pecho v People

Soriano v Sandiganbayan

Borja v Mendoza

Sec 4 & 5, Rule 120 Criminal Procedure

Right to Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial

23
 People v Tee

Flores v People

Conde v Rivera

Mateo v Villaluz

Garcia v Domingo

People v Tehankee

In Re: Request for Live Radio and TV Coverage of the Trial against President Estrada

In Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of Multiple Murder Case against Maguindanao

RA 8493

Right of Confrontation
US v Javier

Talino v Sandiganbayan

Compulsory Processes
Roco v Contreras

Trial in Absentia
People v Mapalao

People v Valeriano

Sec 15: Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Lansang v Garcia

24
 Jackson v Macalino

In Re: The Issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus of Dra Aurora Parong v Ponce Enrile

Lagman v Medialdea

Lagman v Pimentel

Padilla v Congress

Rules on Habeas Data

Rules on Writ of Amparo

Sec 16: Right to a Speedy Disposition of Cases

Padua v Ericta

Flores v People

Sec 17: Right against Self Incrimination

US v Tan Teng

Villaflor v Summers

Beltran v Samson

Chavez v CA

People v Gallarde

Pasucal v BME

Mapa v Sandiganbayan
Sec 18: Right Against Involuntary Servitude

25
 Philippine Refining Company Workers’ Union v Philippine Refining

In the Matter of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus of Segifredo Aclaracion

RA 10364
Sec 19: Prohibited Punishment
People v Estoista

People v Esparas

Echagaray v Sec of Justice

Sec 20: Non Imprisonment for Debt

Serafin v Lindayag

Lozano v Martinez

Sec 21: Double Jeopardy

PSB v Bermoy

People v Obsania

Paulin v Gimenez

Icasiano v Sandiganbayan

Lejano v People of the Philippines

People v Balisacan

People v City Court of Silay

Esmena v Pogoy

26
 People v Pineda

People v Tampal

Melo v People

People v Adil

People v Relova

Sec 7, Rule 117 ROC

Sec 22: Ex Post Facto Law and Bill of Attainder

US v Conde

Conception v Garcia

Nasi Villar v People

Salvador v Mapa

ART IV : CITIZENSHIP
Poe – Llamansares v COMELEC

David v SET

Tecson v COMELEC

Republic v Lim

Co v HOR

In Re: Application for Admission to the Bar of Vicente Ching

27
 Cabiling Ma v Fernandez

Yu v Defensor Santiago

Maquiling v COMELEC

Frivaldo v COMELEC

Republic v De La Rosa

Labo v COMELEC

Aznar v COMELEC

Mercado v Manzano

Bengzon III v HRET

Mo Ya Lim Yao v Commissioner of Immigration

Altajeros v COMELEC

28