II.

FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE (Week 2)

POLICE POWER 

A. Definition, Scope and Basis

1. Rights affected (human and property rights) 
B. Exercising Authority
1. National government
2. Administrative Agencies 3. Local governments 
a. General welfare clause
b. Ordinances and Resolutions pursuant General welfare clause 

C. Determination of the validity in the exercise of Police Power 

1. Presumption of validity and burden of proof to invalidate 
a. Presumption disputable 
2. Tests for validity 
a. In general
1) Rational relations test viz New Equal Protection Approach 
2) Void on its face 
b. Local governments
1) Requisites of valid ordinances 

3. Limitations 
a. In general 
1) Constitutional
a) Against due process and equal protection
b) As against non-impairment of contracts 
2) Reasonableness
a) Definitive studies not required
b) Need not be the “best” means, as long as not whimsical 
3) Reasonable relation of purpose and means 
b. Local governments 
1) Not contrary to Constitution and statutes
2) Regulation viz Prohibition, Regulation viz Confiscation 
a) Regulatory ordinance 
b) Zoning ordinance
3) Must establish a rule for impartial enforcement 

D. Purposes
1. Public health 
2. Public welfare 
a. Right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology
b. Theaters, theatrical performances, cinematographs, public exhibitions and 
all other performances and places of amusements 
1) If regulation of ticket pricing allowed under Charter
 2) Right of proprietor to fix ticket prices
3) Theaters not public utilities 
3. Public morals
a. Motels, nightclubs, massage parlors, etc. 
b. Gambling

POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN

A. Definition and Nature

1. Power of the government
2. Power not absolute
3. Power of eminent domain as against Procedure of expropriation
4. The general power to exercise the right of eminent domain and the right to exercise eminent
domain City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila, GR 14355, 31 October 1919 
5. Power of eminent domain different from police power 
City Government of Quezon City vs. Ericta, GR L-34915, 24 June 1983; 
6. Intermingling of police power and power of eminent domain; Determination 
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
GR 78742, 14 July 1989; En Banc

B. Limitations 
1. In general 
     a. Constitutional
          1) Article III, Section 9, 1987 Constitution
          2) Due Process and equal protection clauses (Article III, Section 1, 1987 Constitution) 
               a) Due Process
                  1] Specific to eminent domain 
                        a] the government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose 
                            what private property should be taken
                        b] Just compensation when private property taken for public use 
                  [2] In general
                        a) Equal protection clause 
             3) In relation to Non-impairment clause
                      a. Not merely for public convenience
                      b. Prohibition does not lie against expropriation 
Yusay vs. Court of Appeals, GR 156684, 6 April 2011; 
                       c. Eminent Domain Not Barred by Res Judicata 
Republic of the Philippines vs. de Knecht, GR 87335, 12 February 1990; 
2. Local government 

C. Construction and Burden of proof 

1. Construction
2. Burden of proof 
D. Stages for expropriation 
Municipality of Biñan vs. Garcia, GR 69260, 22 December 1989 xxxx Republic of the
Philippines [University of the Philippines] vs. Legaspi, GR 177611, 18 April 2012 
E. Judicial process
1. Role of court
2. Nature of proceedings 
3. Jurisdiction 
Barangay San Roque v. Heirs of Pastor, GR 138896, 20 June 2000 
4. Rule applicable 
a. Ordinary cases (Rule 67, Rules of Court) 
b. National Government Infrastructure Projects (RA 8974) 
5. Procedure

F. Authority to expropriate 
1. National government 
2. Local government 
a. In general (Local Government Code) b. Charters 
Philippine Columbian Association vs. Panis, GR 106528, 21 December 1993

3. Others 
a. President/Chief Executive 
Visayan Refining Company vs. Camus, GR l-15870, 3 December 1919; En Banc, Street [J] 
1) American regime 
(a) Conferred on the Government of the Philippine Islands, Delegated to the Governor- General
(b) Expropriation proceedings maintained upon the exclusive initiative of the Governor- General 
2) Marcos era: President had legislative powers 
b. Government Owned and Controlled Corporation 
(1) Basis of power (samples, e.g. NHA, PEZA) 
(2) Proof of Authority 

G. Requisites, local government 

Moday vs. Court of Appeals, GR 107916, 20 February 1997;
Municipality of Parañaque vs. VM Realty Corporation, GR 127820, 20 July 1998 
Heirs of Suguitan vs. City of Mandaluyong, GR 135087, 14 March 2000
1. Ordinance 
a. Distinction between RA 7160 and BP 337
(1) Review of ordinance/resolution under then BP 337 
b. Inconsistencies of IRR with the Code 
2. Public purpose
3. Just compensation
4. Valid and definite offer 
Jesus is Lord Christian School Foundation Inc. vs. Municipality [now City] of Pasig, Metro
Manila, GR 152230, 9 August 2005 

H. Requisites, in general 
Manapat vs. Court of Appeals, GR 100478, 15 October 2007; 
1. Private property 
a. Whether tangible or intangible 
1) Tangible: Land 
a) Size of land
1] Land, not confined to landed estates 
JM Tuason vs. Land Tenure Administration, GR L-21064, 2/18/1970
2] Urban land reform 
b) Easement 
National Power Corporation vs. Tiangco, GR 170846, 6 February 2007
c) Soil and subsoil 
1] Excavated soil not separate from land 
2] Landowner's rights does not extend to sub-soil 
2) Intangibles: Interconnection
Rep. vs. PLDT, GR L-18841, 1/27/1969, En Banc
b. Other property 
1) Cemetery
2) National infrastructure projects 
3) Paraphernal property 
City of Baguio vs. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority, GR L-12032, 
                 8/31/1959
a) Determination whether property is paraphernal or public property of LGU 
Province of Zamboanga del Norte vs. City of Zamboanga, GR L-24440, 3/28/1968; 

2. Genuine Necessity to take private property 

De Knecht vs. Bautista, GR L-51078, 30 October 1980; 

3. Taking for public use 

    Republic of the Philippines vs. Vda. de Castellvi, GR L-20620, 15 August 1974; 
a. Taking 

1) Requisites
2) Deprivation of use 
People vs. Fajardo , GR L-12172, 29 August 1958; En Banc 
NPC vs. Gutierrez, GR L-60077, 18 January 1991 
      Philippine Press Institute v. Commission on Elections, GR L-119694, 5/22/1995
U.S. v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946)
a) Plaza view 
b) Easement of right-of-way 
c) Newspaper space 
Time of Taking
a) Ordinary circumstances
b) Hacienda Luisita
xxxx Hacienda Luisita Inc. vs. PresidentialAgrarianReform Council, GR 171101,
11/21/2011
Hacienda Luisita Inc. vs. PARC, GR 171101, 04/24/2012

b. Public use
Heirs of Ardona vs. Reyes, GR L-60549, 26 October 1983; En Banc, Gutierrez Jr. [J]
Sumulong vs. Guerrero, GR L-48685, 30 September 1987; En Banc, Cortez [J] 
Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals, GR 103125, 17 May 1993 
Manosca vs. Court of Appeals, GR 106440, 29 January 1996; 
Estate of Jimenez vs. Philippine Export Processing Zone, GR 137285, 01/16/2001
1) Tourism
2) Irrigation
3) Pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops and a housing 
project for provincial government employees

4) Land reform 
a)Urban land reform
1] Constitutional recognition 
2] Legal history
3] Socialized housing
4] Priority under RA 7279 
Filstream International Incorporated vs. Court Appeals, GR 125218, 01/23/1998
City of Mandaluyong vs. Aguilar, GR 137152, 29 January 2001; 
Lagcao vs. Labra, GR 155746, 13 October 2004; En Banc, Corona [J] 
[a] Purpose of the requirements under RA 7279
[b] Small landowners exempted under RA 7279
[c] Partition by co-owners
[d] Republic Act 7279 does not apply to expropriation cases before its 
enactment 
[e] Observation on the squatter problem 
b) Agrarian land reform 
[1] Legal history 
[2] Inclusion of private landholdings of CARP

4. Just compensation 
    Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Dulay, GR L-59603, 29 April 1987; 
a. Definition
b. Deposit upon taking?
c. Amount for the issuance of writ of possession 

1) Ordinary cases 
xxxxNational Power Corporation vs. Jocson, GRs 94193-99, 25 February 1992; 
En Banc,Davide Jr. 
Robern Development Corporation vs. Quitain, GR 135042, 9/23/1999
2) National infrastructure projects 
d. Full amount of "just compensation" 
Republic of the Philippines vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, GR 71176, 5/21/1990
Ansaldo vs. Tantuico, GR L-50147, 3 August 1990; First Division, Narvasa [J] 
Eslaban v. De Onorio, GR 146062, 28 June 2001 ; Second Division, Mendoza [J] 
NPC v. San Pedro, GR 170945, 26 September 2006 
NIA vs. Rural Bank of Kabacan Inc., GR 185124, 25 January 2012 

(1) Judicial determination 

(a) Ordinary cases and National infrastructure projects 
[1] In general 
[a] Trial by commissioners 
Manila Electric Company vs. Pineda, GR L-59791, 13 February 1992; 
Leca Realty Corporation vs. Republic of the Philippines, GR 155605, 
9/27/2006
[b] Commissioners' report 
National Power Corporation vs. dela Cruz, GR 156093, 2/2/2007
[2] National infrastructure projects
[a] Appointment of commissioners 
(b) Agrarian Reform 

(2) Reckoning period 

(a) From time of taking or time of filing of complaint, whichever comes first. 
(b) “Actual taking or time of the judgment of the court, whichever is first” 
(3) Basis of amount for just compensation 
(a) Classification of property during time of taking 
National Power Corporation vs. Henson, GR 129998, 12/29/1998
(b) Value 
[1] Ordinary cases
[a] Not necessarily zonal value
[b] Not set by judicial notice
[c] Various considerations; Market value 
[2] National Government Infrastructure Projects (RA 8974) 
(4) Estoppel, as to amount of just compensation 
City of Cebu vs. Dedamo, GR 142971, 7 May 2002
(a) On the part of the landowner(s)
(b) On the part of the government 
(5) Reasonable time to pay
(a) Ordinary cases
(b) National Government Infrastructure Projects (RA 8974) 
(6) Manner of payment 
xxx Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary 
of AgrarianReform, GR 78742, 14 July 1989; En Banc, Cruz [J] (supra., ) 
Landbank vs. CA, GR 118712, 10/06/1996
a) On agrarian reform
[1] Deposit in cash and LBP bonds
            (7) Interest
National Power Corporation vs. Angas, GRs 60225-26, 8 May 1992; 
                  Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Wycoco, GR 140160, 13 January 2004; 
(a) In the form of indemnity for damages (6%) 
(b) In the form of forbearance of money due to delay (12%)
5. Due process 
I. Incidents to the expropriation process
1. Uncertain owner
2. Opposition by owner of expropriated property 
a. Form of opposition 
b. Appropriate action by Court as to defenses and objections 
3. Validity of mortgage while expropriation pending
4. Order of expropriation, writ of execution, and writ of possession 
City of Manila vs. Serrano, GR 142304, 20 June 2001
              Rep. vs. Gingoyon, GR 166429, 19 December 2005; En Banc, Tinga [J] 

a. Ordinary cases
(1) Writ of execution and subsequent determination of other requirements 
for expropriation 
(2) Effect of order 
b. National Government Infrastructure Projects (RA 8974) 
(1) Full payment before issuance of writ of possession 
(2) Effect of order 
5. Withdrawal of amounts 
a. Ordinary cases
b. Agrarian reform 

6. Appeal 
Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, GR 161219, 
    10/6/2008
a. Record of appeal
b. Judicial Review 
7. Claim for compensation 
8. Execution 
a. Exception to general rule 
Coscuella vs. Court of Appeals, GR 77765, 15 August 1988
 9. Transfer of title
10. Withdrawal by government from expropriation case 
        NHA vs. Heirs of Guivelondo, GR 154411, 19 June 2003 
a. Dismissal of action to expropriate, when allowed
b. Dismissal of action to expropriate, when not allowed 
(1) When landowner already prejudiced 
11. Recovery 
Air Transportation Office vs. Gopuco, GR 158563, 30 June 2005
a. Recovery due to non-payment; Recovery of property and rentals 
         REP. vs. Hidalgo, GR 161657, 4 October 2007; 
b. When not possible 
(1) When order of expropriation has long become final and executory 

POWER OF TAXATION
A. Definition
1. Classification 
The Apostolic Prefect of the Mountain Province vs. El Tesorero de la Ciudad de Baguio,
GR L- 47252, 18 April 1941; En Banc, Imperial [J] 
B. Purpose 
1. Taxes 
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Algue, GR L-28896, 17 February 1988
a. Taxation as implement of Police Power 
[1] License fees for regulation viz taxes for revenue 
[a] Amount allowed 
2. Tariffs and Custom duties 
 Commissioner of Customs vs. Makasiar, GR 79307, 29 August 1989 
C. Exercising Authority 
1. National Government 
2. Local Government 

D. Limitations 
1. Constitutional guarantees 
a. Equal protection 
2. Double taxation 
Punsalan vs. Municipal Board of the City of Manila, GR L-4817, 26 May 1954; 
E. Tax exemptions 
1. Nature of use (actually, directly, and exclusively) 
xxxxHerrera vs. Quezon City Board of Assessment Appeals, GR L-15270, 30 
September 1961; En Banc, Concepcion [J] 
Province of Abra vs. Hernando, GR L-49336, 31 August 1981; 
Abra Valley College Inc. vs. Aquino, GR L-39086, 15 June 1988.   
2. Institutions 
a. Under the Constitution 
(1) Religious 
Roman Catholic Bishop of Nueva Segovia vs. Provincial Board of Ilocos
Norte, GR 27588, 31 December 1927; 
III. License fees 
American Bible Society vs. City of Manila, GR L-9637, 30 April 1957
(b) Assessment for gift tax 
Lladoc vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, GR L-19201, 16 June 1965; 
(2) Charitable 
 Lung Center of the Philippines vs. Quezon City, GR 144104, 29 June 2004; 
En Banc, Callejo Sr. [J] 
(a) Hospitals
(b) Donations for charitable institutions 
xxxxCommissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Bishop of the Missionary 
District of the Philippine Islands for the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
the USA, GR L-19445, 31 August 1965; En Banc, Regala [J] 
[1] Non-essential goods as donation 
(3) Educational 
 (4) Combination

III. THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 1
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE(Week 3)

Constitution ART III, Sec 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law, nor shall any person be denied of the equal protection of the laws.

A. Definition and Hierarchy

PBM Employees v. PBM, 51 SCRA 189 (2 Bernas 423)

Ermita Malate Hotel, Motel Assoc. v. City of Manila 20 SCRA 849 (2 Bernas 34)

Who Are Protected

Smith Bell Co. v.Natividad 40 Phil 163
Villegas v. HuiChiong G.R. 112801

Meaning
Life
Teodoro v. Manalo G.R. No. 186050 (2011)
Pestaño v. GRP-Human Rights Committee CCPR/C/98/D/1619/2007
Marcellana v. Republic of the Philippines UNHRC CCPR/C/94/D/1560/2007
ds of R.C.C. No. 85 09-17-1986&
1986 Constitutional Commission Proceedings R.C.C. No. 86 09-18-1986
The Rule on the Writ of Amparo A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC
Burgos v. Arroyo G.R. No. 183711
G.R. No. 187652 &
CA-G.R. SP No. 00034
Buck v. Bell 274 US 200 
Imbong v. Ochoa GR No. 204819
Liberty
Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro 39 Phil 660

Property
Terrace v. Thompson 263 US 197

Exclusion
Nunez v. Averia 57 SCRA 726
Crespo v. Provincial Board 16 SCRA 66
JMM Promotion v. CA G.R. No. 120095 1996
Pedro v. Rizal G.R. No. 34163
Libanan v. Sandiganbayan 233 SCRA 163
B. Aspects of Due Process

Police Power
Kwongsing v. City of Manila 41 Phil 103
Yu Eng Cong v. Trinidad 271 US 500
Layno v. Sandiganbayan 136 SCRA 536
Deloso v. Sandiganbayan 173 SCRA 409

Procedural
Impartial Court
Javier v. COMELEC 144 SCRA 194
Galman v. Sandiganbayan 144 SCRA 43
Marcos v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 126995 (1998)
Rivera v. Civil Service 240 SCRA 43
Banco Español Filipino v. Palanca 37 Phil. 921 (2 Bernas 4)
AngTibay v. CIR 69 Phil. 635 (2 Bernas 6)
PHILCOMSAT v. Alcuaz 180 SCRA 218 (2 Bernas 8)
Ateneo v. CA 145 SCRA 106
Alcuaz v. PSBA 161 SCRA 7
Non v. Judge Dames 185 SCRA523 (2 Bernas 14)
Goldberg v. Kelly                                                          397 US 254 (1970)
Petitioners are NYC residents receiving financial aid under the federally assisted
programs that were terminated or about to be terminated without prior notice or hearing.
Due process requires an adequate hearing before, not after, the termination of welfare
benefits.

Bell v. Burson 402 US 535 (1971)

Bell, a clergyman who travels as part of his ministerial duties, was involved in an
accident when a child hit his car; he was sued for damages and his license was revoked,
but he was only allowed to present evidence on his behalf during appeal, which violated
due process. Except in emergency situations, the State affords notice and opportunity for
hearing appropriate to the nature of the case before terminating an interest.

UP v. Hon. Ligot-Telann 227 SCRA 342

STFAP; Ramon Nadal.
DBP v. NLRC 183 SCRA 328
Laborers filed individual complaints for backwages and separation pay from RHI whose
assets were foreclosed by DBP; the latter was ordered by the Labor Arbiter, affirmed by
the NLRC, to pay RHI’s debts. Despite lack of formal hearing, DBP was given
opportunity to be heard and in fact filed MFRs and appeals.

Estrada v. Sandiganbayan 369 SCRA 394

 No circumvention of presumption of innocence, even in plunder cases. Guilt must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt, even if only for a number of acts sufficient to form a
combination or series of activities involving an amount of P 50M.
Read: separate opinion by Ynares-Santiago
Reyes v. COMELEC G.R. No. 207264

Jurisdiction
Ynot v. IAC 148 SCRA 659 (2 Bernas 21)
Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans 137 SCRA 628 (2 Bernas 261)
Tatad v. Sandiganbayan 159 SCRA 70
Gonzales v. SCS 226 SCRA 66

C. “Old” Substantive Due Process: Protection for Property Interests

Calder v. Bull 3 US (3 Dall.) 386 (1978)
Lochner v. New York 198 US 48 (1905)
Lochner is charged for permitting (note: not requiring) an employee (baker) to work more
than 60 hours a day; question on what two rights shall prevail, police power or freedom
to contract. Police power requires the limit for health considerations, which do not apply
to the present case, thus it cannot prevail over freedom to contract. 
People v. Pomar 46 Phil 440
Pomar found guilty of refusing to grant maternity leave with pay to pregnant employees.
The law was found to be unconstitutional, in violation of freedom to contract.
Pakistan International Airlines v. Ople 190 SCRA 90 (1990)
NDC and AGRIX v. Phil Veterans                              192 SCRA 257 (2 Bernas 48)

People v. Nazario 165 SCRA 182 (2 Bernas 41)

Balacuit v. CFI 163 SCRA 182 (2 Bernas 41)
Agustin v. Edu 88 SCRA 195 (2 Bernas 43)

D. “New” Substantive Due Process: Protection for “Liberty” interests 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 (1983), pp 1-70

Olmstead v. US (Brandeis Dissent)* 277 US 438

Skinner v. Oklahoma* 316 US 535 (1942)
Griswold v. Connecticut* 381 US 479 (1965)
Eisenstatd v. Baird* 405 US 438
Poe v. Ullman*             367 US 479
Roe v. Wade*             410 US 113 (1973)
Bowers and Hardwick             106 S. Ct. 2841 (1986)
Lawrence v. Texas* 02-0102 (26 June 2003)
US v. Windsor*             570 U.S. ___ (2013)
Board of Education v. Earls 01-332 (27 June 2002)
Ople v. Torres             141 SCRA 293
Bayan Muna v. Ermita,             G.R. No. 167930 (2006)
Duncan Assoc v. Glaxo Welcome* G.R. 162994, (17 September 2004)
David v. Arroyo             489 SCRA 160

E. Protected Interests in Property

Mere “Regulation” under the Due Process Clause versus “Taking” of Property via the
Power of Eminent Domain
Churchill v. Rafferty 32 Phil 580 (2 Bernas 26)
US v. Toribio        15 Phil 85 (2 Bernas 19)

F. Judicial Due Process

G. Administrative Due Process
H. Due Process in School Disciplinary Proceedings
I. Void for Vagueness Doctrine
J. Overbreadth Doctrine
K. Cases
Ichong v. Hernandez, GR No. L-7995, (May 31, 1957)
Ynot v. IAC, GR No. 74457, (March 20, 1987)
PCSC v. Alcuaz, GR NO. 84818, (Dec. 18, 1989)
Ang Tibay v. CIR, GR No. 46496, (Feb. 27, 1940)
Ateneo de Manila v. Capulong, GR No. 99327, (May 27, 1993)
Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, GR No.
178552, (Oct. 5, 2010)
Mosqueda v. PBGEA, GR No. 189185 & 189305, (Aug. 16, 2016)

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE(Week 3)

A. Concept
B. Classification; Requisites
C. Analytical Tool in Determining Reasonableness of Classification

 Constitution ART III, Sec 1. No person shall be deprive of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied of the equal protection of the
laws.

 Constitution ART II, Sec 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building,
and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.
 Constitution ART II, Sec 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of
indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and
development.

 Constitution ART IV.

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority; and
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth
without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those
who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be
deemed natural-born citizens.
Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless
by their act or omission, they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt
with by law.

 Constitution ART XII, Sec 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or
timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State.
With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be
alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be
under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake
such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per
centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a
period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five
years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of
water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the
grant.

The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial
sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to
Filipino citizens.

The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by

Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence
fishermen and fish- workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
 The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving
either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and
utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general
terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic
growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall
promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.

The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance
with this provision, within thirty days from its execution.

 Constitution ART XII, Sec 14.2. The practice of all professions in the Philippines
shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.

Cases
Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. v. Treasurer of Ormoc City 22 SCRA 603 (2 Bernas 78)

Dumlao v. COMELEC                         96 SCRA 392 (2 Bernas 72)

People v. Cayat                         68 Phil 12 (2 Bernas 58)

Ichong v. Hernandez                         101 Phil 1155 (2 Bernas 61)
Korematsu v. US                         323 US 214 (1944)

The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 

102 Stat. 904, 50aU.S.C. § 1989b et se (Presidential Medal of Freedom to Fred Korematsu by
Bill Clinton)

Plessy v. Ferguson             163 US 537 (1896)

University of California v. Bakke 438 US 265 (1978)
Gratz v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003)
Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003)
Bradwell v. Illinois 83 US 103 (1873)
Goesart v. Cleary 335 US 464 (1948) (2 Bernas
76)
Geduldig v. Aiello 417 US 484 (1974)
Mississippi Univ. School for Women v. Hogan 458 US 718 (1982)
Michael M. v. Superior Court 450 US 464 (1981)
Personnel Administrator v. Feeney 442 US 256 (1979)
YickWo v. Hopkins 118 US 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 1983)

International School Alliance v. Quisumbing 33 SCRA 14 (June 2000)

Board of Directors v. Rotary Club* 481 US 537
 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale* No. 99-699 (28 June 2000)
Sombilon v. Romulo, G.R. 176051 (2009)

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health 440 Mass 309, 793 NE 2d

941 (18 Nov 2003)
Tecson v. COMELEC G.R. No. 161434 (2004)
Garcia v. Hon. Drilon* G.R. No. 179267 (June 25,
2013)

Section 2

RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE

SEARCHERS & SEIZURES(Week 4-5)

A. Concept
B. Private Intrusion
C. Search Warrant& Warrant of Arrest; Requisites
D. Warrantless Arrest
E. Warrantless Search
F. Exclusionary Rules
G. Cases
People vs. Marti [G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991]
Stonehill vs. Diokno [ G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967]
Katz v. US, 394 US 347
     Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1
Soliven vs. Makasiar [G.R. No. 82585, November 14, 1988]
Silva vs. Presiding Judge of RTC, Negros Oriental [G.R. No. 81756, October 21, 1991]
Morano vs. Vivo [G.R. No. L-22196, June 30, 1967]

Harvey vs. Santiago [G.R. No. 82544, June 28, 1988]

Alvarez vs. CFI [ G.R. No. 45358, January 29, 1937]
Mata vs. Bayona [G.R. No. 50720, March 26, 1984]
People vs. Del Rosario [G.R. No. 109633, July 20, 1994]
Umil vs. Ramos [G.R. No. 81567, July 9, 1990]
People vs. Sucro [G.R. No. 93239, March 18, 1991]
People vs. Rodrigueza [G.R. No. 95902, February 4, 1992]
Go. Vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 101837, February 11, 1992]
Posadas vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 89139, August 2, 1990]
People vs. Mengote [G.R. No. 87059, June 22, 1992]
Malacat vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 123595, December 12, 1997]
Salazar v. Achacoso, GR No. 81510,(3/14/1990)
Macad v. PP., GR No. 227366, (8/1/2018)
Pp. v. Gerente, GR No. 95847-48, (3/10/1993)
Luz v. Pp., GR No. 197788, (2/29/2012)
United Laboratories v. Isip, GR No. 163958, (6/28/2005)
PP v. O’Cochlain GR No. 229071, 12/10/2018)
People vs. Aminnudin [G.R. No. L-74869, July 6, 1988]
People vs. Malmstedt [G.R. No. 91107, June 19, 1991]
Espano vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 120431, April 1, 1998]
Papa vs. Mago [G.R. No. L-27360, February 28, 1968]
People vs. Musa [G.R. No. 96177, January 27, 1993]
Valmonte vs. De Villa [ G.R. No. 83988, September 29, 1989]

Rules 113 and 126 of the Revised Rules of Court

Section 3

RIGHT TO PRIVACY (Week 5)

A. Concept
B. Zones of Privacy
C. Privacy of Communications
D. RA 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Act)
E. RA 10173 (Data Privacy Act)

Section 4

FREEDOM OF SPEECH, EXPRESSION

PRESS, ASSEMBLY & PETITION (Week 6)

Constitution ART III, sec 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.

A. Protected Speech

Prior Restraint
Near v. Minnesota 238 US 697 (2 Bernas 238)
New York Times v. US 403 US 713 (2 Bernas 243)
Freedman v. Maryland 380 US 551 (2 Bernas 251)
Chavez v. Gonzales G.R. No. 168338
Estrada v. Desierto

Subsequent Punishment
People v. Perez 45 Phil 599 (2 Bernas 288)
Dennis v. US 341 US 494 (2 Bernas 290)
Abrams v. US 250 US 616 (1919)
Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans supra

“Speech Plus”: Symbolic Speech

US v. O'Brien 391 US 367 (1968)
 Tinker v. Des Moines School District 393 US 503 (1969)
Texas v. Johnson 491 US 397 (1989)

Assembly and Petition

Primicias v. Fugoso (Hilado, Dissent) 80 Phil 78
Navarro v. Villegas 31 SCRA 731 (2 Bernas 423)
PBM Employees v. PBM 51 SCRA 189 (2 Bernas 425)
JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing 125 SCRA 553 (2 Bernas 430)
Malabanan v. Ramento 129 SCRA 359 (2 Bernas 437)
IBP Cadiz, Roque, Butuyan v. Atienza, G.R. No. 172591

Free Speech and Suffrage

Gonzalez v. COMELEC 27 SCRA 835 (2 Bernas 296)
Sandidad v. COMELEC 181 SCRA 529 (2 Bernas 304)
National Press Club v. COMELEC 207 SCRA 1 (2 Bernas 307)
Adiong v. COMELEC 207 SCRA 712 (2 Bernas 317)
Bayan v. Ermita G.R. No. 168338

Use of Private Property as a forum for others’ Speech

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins 447 US 74 (1980)

B. Unprotected Speech
Defamatory Speech

Pre-Sullivan in Philippine Jurisprudence

Policarpio v. Manila Times 5 SCRA 148 (2 Bernas 343)
Lopez v. CA 34 SCRA 116 (2 Bernas 345)
US v. Bustos 37 Phil 371

Sullivan
New York Times v. Sullivan 376 US 254 (2 Bernas 350)
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia 403 US 29 (2 Bernas 355)
Garrison v. Louisiana 379 US 64
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts 388 US 130
In Re: IML v. Utah No. 20010159 (15 Nov 2002)

Sullivan in Philippine Jurisprudence

Borjal v. CA 301 SCRA 1
Vasquez v. CA G.R. No. 118971 (1999)
Guingguing v. CA 471 SCRA 196
Soliven v. Makasiar 167 SCRA 394 (2 Bernas 147)
Ayer Production v. Judge Capulong 160 SCRA 865 (2 Bernas 254)

Reversion to Pre-Sullivan in Philippine Jurisprudence

Fermin v. People G.R. No. 157643 (2008)
Diaz v. People G.R. No. 159787 (2007)
 Libel in UN Human Rights Committee
Adonis v. The Philippines CCPR/C/103/D/1815/2008

Supreme Court and Freedom of Speech

In Re Jurado
In Re Macasaet

“Fighting Words”, Offensive Words

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 US 568 (1942)
Cohen v. California 403 US 15 (1971)
MVRS v. Islamic Da’wah of the Philippines G.R. No. 80892 (1989)
Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox

Obscenity
Roth v. US 354 US 476 (1957)
Miller v. California 37 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1973) (2 Bernas
368)
Gonzalez v. Kalaw-Katigbak 137 SCRA 717 (2 Bernas 377)
Pita v. CA 178 SCRA 362 (2 Bernas 381)
Reno v. ACLU 521 US 844 (26 June 1997)
Ashcroft v. ACLU No. 00-1293 (13 May 2002)
Regina v. Hicklin L.R. 3 Q.B. 360 (1868)

Privacy
Hannover v. Germany* [2004] EMLR 379; (2005) 40 EHRR
1
Campbell v. Mirror Group Newspapers* [2004] UKHL 22 

Section 5

FREEDOM OF RELIGION (Week 7)

Constitution ART II, sec 6

Constitution ART III, sec 5
Constitution ART VI, sec 29(2)

Establishment Clause
Aglipay v. Ruiz 63 Phil 201 (2 Bernas 444)
Garces v. Estenzo 104 SCRA 510 (2 Bernas 446)
Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 US 602 (2 Bernas 464)
Board of Education v. Allen 392 US 236 (2 Bernas 459)
County of Allegheny v. ACLU 57 LW 5045 (2 Bernas 482)

Lynch v. Donnely 465 US 668 (1984)

 Epperson v. Arkansas 393 US 97 (1968)
School District v. Schempp 374 US 203 (2 Bernas 449)
Engel v. Vitale 370 US 421 (1962)
Tilton v. Richardson 403 US 672 (2 Bernas 470)

Newdow v. US Congres    No. 00-16423, 9thCir., June 26, 2002 (amended Feb 28, 2003)
Glassroth v. Moore 335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003)
Martin v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop     434 Mass. 141, 727 N.E. 2d 131

Free Exercise Clause

American Bible Society v. City 101 Phil 386 (2 Bernas 515)
Gerona v. Secretary of Education* 106 Phil 2 (2 Bernas 518)

Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent* 219 SCRA 256 (2 Bernas 518)

Newdow v. US Congress 00-16423 (26 June 2002)
Anucension v. NLU 80 SCRA 350
Iglecia ni Cristo v. CA 259 SCRA 529 (26 July 1996)
Pamil v. Teleron 86 SCRA 413 (2 Bernas 533)
McDaniel v. Paty 435 US 618 (2 Bernas 542)
German v. Barangan 135 SCRA 514
Cantwell v. Connecticut 310 US 163 (2 Bernas 512)
Commonwealth v. Twitchell 416 Mass. 114 (1993)
Cassius Clay v. US 403 US 698 (1971)
Estrada v. Escritor* 492 SCRA 1

Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices

Wisconsin v. Yoder 406 US 205 (2 Bernas 524)
US v. Ballard 380 US 163 (1965)
US v. Seeger 380 US 163 (1965)
Clay v. US supra

Section 6

LIBERTY OF ABODE (Week 8)

 Extent of the Right; Limitations
 Right to Travel v. Right to return to one’s country
 Cases:
Marcos v. Manglapus, GR No. 88211, (09/15/1989)
SPARK v. Quezon City, GR No. 2255442, (8/8/2017)
Manotoc v. CA, GR No. L6200, (5/30/1986)
Genuino v. Delima, GR No. 197930 (4/17/2018)

Section 7

RIGHT TO INFORMATION (Week 8)

 Cases:
Legaspi v. CSC, GR No. 72119, (05/29/1987)
Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., GR No. 74930, (02/13/1989)
Manotoc v. CA, GR No. L6200, (5/30/1986)
Genuino v. Delima, GR No. 197930 (4/17/2018)
Province of Cotabato v. The Gov’t. of the RP Peace Panel Ancestral Domain, GR No.
183591, (10/14/2008)
Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, GR No. 132601, (10/12/98)
Chavez v. PCGG, GR No. 130716, (12/09/98)

Section 8

RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION (Week 9)

 Extent of the Right

 Valid Limitation
 Cases:
SSSEmployees Association v. CA, GR No.85279, (7/28/1989)
Victorianov. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union, GR No. L-252246, (09/12/1974)
In re: IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MarcialEdillon, A.C. No. 1928,
(8/3/1978)

Section 10

NON-IMPAIRMENT OF OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS (Week 9)

 Essence of the Guarantee

 Background Reading: Padilla IV-A CIVIL LAW 11-42 (1988) Discussion of ART
1306
 Civil Code ART 1306
 Cases
Home Builders and Loan Association v. Blaisdell 290 US 398 (2 Bernas 684)
Rutter v. Esteban 93 Phil 68 (2 Bernas 690)
Ortigas v. Feati 94 SCRA 533 (2 Bernas 702
Juarez v. CA 214 SCRA 475 (2 Bernas 706)
Caleon v. Agus Development 207 SCRA 748

Section 11

FREE ACCESS TO COURT AND ADEQUATE LEGAL ASSISTANCE(Week 9)

  Essence of the Guarantee
 Background Reading: Padilla IV-A CIVIL LAW 11-42 (1988) Discussion of ART
1306
 Civil Code ART 1306
 Cases
           Home Builders and Loan Association v. Blaisdell 290 US 398 (2 Bernas 684)
Rutter v. Esteban 93 Phil 68 (2 Bernas 690)
Ortigas v. Feati 94 SCRA 533 (2 Bernas 702
Juarez v. CA 214 SCRA 475 (2 Bernas 706)
Caleon v. Agus Development 207 SCRA 748

Section 12

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION (Week 10)

 Concept
 Exclusionary Rule
 Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
 Cases
Ho Wai Pang v. People GR No. 176229, (10/19/2011)
Gamboa v. Cruz GR No. L-56291, (6/27/1988)
Pp. v. Macam GR No. 91011-12, (11/24/1994)
Pp. v. Judge Ayson GR No. 85215, (7/7/1989)
Pp. v. Bolaños GR No. 101808, (7/3/1992)
           Pp. v. Andan GR No. 116437, (3/3/1997)
Navallo v. Sandiganbayan GR No. 97214, (6/18/1994)
Pp. v. Dy GR No. 75417, (2/23/1988)
           Pp. v. Alicando GR No. 117487, (12/12/1995)

Section 13

RIGHT TO BAIL(Week 10)

 Concept
 Bail as a matter of right
 Bail as a matter of discretion
 Cases
Basco v. Rapatalo Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1335, (3/5/19970)
                    Pp. v. Donato GR No. 79269, (6/5/1991)
              Pp. v. Fortes GR No. 90643, (6/25/1993)
              Comendador v. Sison Adm. Matter No. 92-7-360-0, (4/6/1995)
              US v. Puruganan GR No. 148571, (9/24/2002)
              Hong Kong v. Hon. Olalia GR No. 153675, (4/19/2007)
              Enrile v. Sandiganbayan GR No. 213847, (8/18/2005)