1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Please note that the syllabus is subject to additional assigned readings and jurisprudence.
I. DUE PROCESS AND
EQUAL PROTECTION AS
LIMITATIONS ON POLICE
POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN
AND TAXATION
Civil liberties / Bill of Rights
ATTY. EDGAR B. PASCUA II
A. Fundamental Principles on Constitutional Law
and Bill of Rights
B. Basic Principles on the Fundamental Powers of
the State, their characteristics, similarities and
distinctions, and their limitations.
C. DUE PROCESS IN GENERAL – Article III, Section 1,
1987 Constitution
Annotation on Due process – 627 SCRA 558
Procedural and Substantive
Publication of Laws – TAÑADA RULINGS, E.O. 200
D. DUE PROCESS AND POLICE POWER
E. DUE PROCESS AND EMINENT DOMAIN
Article III, Section 9, 1987 Constitution
Set A
Cases: MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS. GSIS 267 SRA 408 (1997)
TAÑADA VS. ANGARA 272 SCRA 18 (1997)
DOMINO VS. COMELEC 310 SCRA 546 (1999)
PAMATONG VS. COMELEC 427 SCRA 96 (2004)
YRASUEGI VS. PAL 569 SCRA 467 (2008)
DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA vs. SENATE GR 196271 Feb. 28, 2012
PANGILINAN v. CAYETANO, G.R. No. 238875 (2021)
Serrano v. NLRC, G.R. No. 117040, January 27, 2000, 323 SCRA 445
(Additional readings for reference only
Juan Luna Subdivision vs. Sarmiento, 91 Phil. 371), G.R. Nos. L-49839-46 April 26, 1991
Jose B. L. Reyes Vs.Pedro Almanzor, (85 C.J.S. pp. 645-64.), G.R. No. 159694 January 27, 2006
Commissioner Of Internal Revenue, Vs. Azucena T. Reyes) ,
CHEVRON VS. BCDA 630 SCRA 519 (2010)
THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL vs. AYALA LAND INCORPORATED G.R. No. 177056 September
18, 2009
. G.R. No. 104768 July 21, 2003 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, MAJOR GENERAL
JOSEPHUS Q. RAMAS and ELIZABETH DIMAANO
Cases PEOPLE VS. SITON 600 SCRA 476 (2009)
DLSU VS. CA 541 SCRA 22 (2007)
ROMUALDEZ VS. COMELEC 573 SCRA 639 (2008)
GARCILLANO VS. COMMITTEES 575 SCRA 170 (2008)
PLACIDO VS. NLRC 600 SCRA 697 (2009)
MENDOZA VS. COMELEC 603 SCRA 692 (2009)
SURIGAO ELECTRIC VS. ERC 632 SCRA 96 (2010)
SOUTHERN VS. ANTI-TERRORISM 632 SCRA 146 (2010)
HERITAGE HOTEL VS. NUNHRAIN 639 SCRA 420 (2011)
James M. Imbong v. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 204819, 8 April 2014
Cases WHITE LIGHT CORP. VS. CITY OF MANILA 576 SCRA 1416 (2009)
BSP MB VS. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA 602 SCRA 638 (2009)
ROXAS VS. CO. VS. DAMBA-NFSW 607 SCRA 33 (2009)
Cases SOLGEN VS. AYALA LAND 600 SCRA 617 (2009)
ORTEGA VS. CITY OF CEBU 602 SCRA 301 (2009)
LBP VS. RUFINO 602 SCRA 399 (2009)
LBP VS. JOCSON 604 SCRA 373 (2009)
EUSEBIO VS. LUIS 603 SCRA 576 (2009)
CITY OF ILOILO VS. CONTRERAS-BESANA 612 SCRA 458 (2010)
REPUBLIC VS. MANGORATA 624 SCRA 360 (2010)
 2 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

REPUBLIC VS. MENDOZA 627 SCRA 443 (2010)

LBP VS. LIVIOCO 631 SCRA 41 (2010)
APO FRUITS VS. LBP 632 SCRA 727 (2010)
ABAD VS. FILHOMES REALTY 636 SCRA 247 (2010)
VDA. DE OUANO VS. REPUBLIC 642 SCRA 384 (2011)
NPC VS. HEIRS OF SANGKAY G.R. 165828 Aug. 24, 2011

F. EQUAL PROTECTION – Article III, Section 1, 1987

Constitution

1. Economic Equality – Art. II, Sec. 14

Art. III, Sec. 11 (free access)
Art. VIII, Sec. 5 [5] (legal aid)
Art. XII, Sec. 2 (Marine resources)
Sec. 10 (nationalization)
Art. XIII, Secs. 1-2 (social justice)
Sec. 3 (protection to labor)

2. Political Equality – Art. IX-C, Sec. 10 Cases – DUMLAO VS. COMELEC 95 SCRA 392 (1980)
(discrimination) QUINTO VS. COMELEC 606 SCRA 258 (2009) February 2010 Decision
Art. XIII, Sec. 1 (social justice) ANG LADLAD VS. COMELEC 618 SCRA 32 (2010)

3. Social Equality – Art. XIII, Sec. 1 Annotation – SOCIAL JUSTICE 645 SCRA 401 (2011)

OTHER CASES
TRILLANES VS. PIMENTEL 556 SCRA 471
BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO VS. CAMACHO 562 SCRA 511
ABAKADA VS. PURISIMA 562 SCRA 251
BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO VS. CAMACHO 585 SCRA 36 (2009)
SORIANO VS. LAGUARDIA 587 SCRA 79 (2009)
LEAGUE OF CITIES VS. COMELEC 608 SCRA 636 (2009) 628 SCRA 819 (2010)
CHAMBER OF REAL VS. ROMULO 614 SCRA 605 (2010)
BIRAOGO VS. PHIL TRUTH 637 SCRA 78 (2010)
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION vs. TEVES GR 181704 Dec. 6, 2011
DEL CASTILLO VS. PEOPLE GR 185128 Jan. 30, 2012
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. HYPERMIX FEEDS GR 179579 Feb. 1, 2012
G.R. No. 179267 June 25, 2013 JESUS C. GARCIA vs. THE HONORABLE RAY ALAN T. DRILON
G.R. No. 197676 February 4, 2014 REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. and CREBA vs. PROFESSIONAL
REGULATORY BOARD OF REAL ESTATE SERVICE & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION

II. REQUIREMENTS OF A. Arrests, Searches and Seizures, 1. Requirements for Search Warrants
FAIR PROCEDURE
Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution See rule 126 of the revised rules on Criminal Procedure
Article III, Section 3, 1987 Constitution Cases IN RE MORALES 571 SCRA 361 (2008)
PEOPLE VS. NUÑEZ 591 SCRA 394 (2009)
DEL ROSARIO VS. DONATO SR. 614 SCRA 332 (2010)
PEOPLE VS. TUAN 628 SCRA 226 (2010)
PEOPLE VS. MAMARIL 632 SCRA 369 (2010)
 3 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

TAN VS. SY TIONG GUE 638 SCRA 601 (2010)

TY VS. DE JEMIL 638 SCRA 671 (2010)
POLLO vs. CONSTANTINO-DAVID GR. 181881 Oct. 18, 2011

ANNOTATION – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – 291 SCRA 418

WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF
PROHIBITED DRUGS 610 SCRA 670 (2010)
SEARCH AND SIEZURE 643 SCRA 637 (2011)

RA 10175 – Anti – Cybercrime Law Sections 15 and 16 – Search and Seizures of computer data

2. Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizure

(A) Search of Moving Vehicles
Cases ANIAG VS. COMELEC 237 SCRA 424 (1994)
EPIE VS. ULAT-MARREDO 518 SCRA 641 (2007)
PEOPLE VS. TUASON 532 SCRA 152 (2007)
PEOPLE VS. MAMACOS 621 SCRA 327 (2010)
MARIO VERIDIANO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 200370

(B) Search Incident to a Valid Arrest

See Rule 126, Section 12, Rules on Criminal Procedure
PEOPLE VS. AGULAY 566 SCRA 571 (2008)
Cases CHING VS. PEOPLE 569 SCRA 711 (2008)
PEOPLE VS. RACHO 626 SCRA 633 (2010)
PEOPLE VS. ARANETA 634 SCRA 475 (2010)
ONG v. PEOPLE GR 197788 Feb. 29, 2012

(C) When things seized are within plain view of a searching party
Cases ABENES VS. CA 515 SCRA 690 (2007)
ESQUILLO VS. PEOPLE 629 SCRA 370 (2010)
PEOPLE VS. MARTINEZ 637 SCRA 791 (2010)

Annotation: PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE 609 SCRA 434 (2009)

(D) Stop and Frisk

Cases POSADAS VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 188 SCRA 288 (1990)
PEOPLE VS. MENGOTE, 210 SCRA 14 (1992)
MANALILI VS. CA 280 SCRA 400 (1998)
ESQUILLO VS. PEOPLE 629 SCRA 370 (2010)

(E) Express Waiver

Cases VEROY VS. LAYAGUE, 210 SCRA 14 (1992)
PEOPLE VS. NUEVAS 516 SCRA 463 (2007)
PP VS. DEQUINA 640 SCRA 111 (2011)
PEOPLE VS. UYBOCO 640 SCRA 146 (2011)

(F) Search of Warehouse in Violation of Customs and Tariff Code or to enforce customs laws
Cases BUREAU OF CUSTOMS VS. OGARIO 329 SCRA 289 (2000)
RIETA VS. PEOPLE 436 SCRA 237 (2004)
 4 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

SALVADOR VS. PEOPLE 463 SCRA 489 (2005)

(G) Exigency
Case: PEOPLE VS. DE GRACIA, 233 SCRA 716 (1994)

(H) Search and seizure by private persons

Cases PEOPLE VS. MARTI, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
WATEROUS DRUG CORP VS. NLRC 280 SCRA 735
PEOPLE VS. MENDOZA 301 SCRA 66 (1999)
PEOPLE VS. BONGCARAWAN 384 SCRA 525 (2002)

(I) AIRPORT SECURITY

Cases PEOPLE VS. JOHNSON 348 SCRA 527 (2000)
PEOPLE VS. JOHNSON 394 SCRA 478 (2002)
PEOPLE VS. CANTON 394 SCRA 478 (2002)

(J) Jail Safety

Case: PEOPLE VS. CONDE 356 SCRA 525 (2002)

3. Constitutionality of checkpoints and “areal target zonings”

Cases VALMONTE VS. DE VILLA, 170 SCRA 256 (1989)
VALMONTE VS. DE VILLA, 185 SCRA 665 (1990)
PEOPLE VS. EXALA 221 SCRA 494 (1993)
GUANZON VS. DE VILLA, 181 SCRA 623 (1990)
ABENES VS. CA 515 SCRA 690 (2007)

4. What may be seized

RULE 126, sec. 2

5 Remedies in Cases of Violation

A. Exlusionary rule
Art. III sec. 3(2)
Cases STONEHILL VS. DIOKNO, 20 SCRA 383 (1967)
Waiver – PASTRANO VS. CA 281 SCRA 254 (1997)

B. Civil Action for damages (Art. 32, NCC)

Cases ABERCA VS. VER, 160 SCRA 590 (1988)
FORBES VS. CHUOCO TIACO, 16 PHIL. 534 (1910)

C. Criminal Cases Under Revised Penal Code

Articles 128, 129 and 130

6. Rules on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the Execution of Warrants, A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC
 5 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

Set B
6. Requirements for Issuance of Warrants of Arrest
Section 6, Rule 112 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
Compare with Section 4, Rule 126

Cases PEOPLE VS. DELA CRUZ 571 SCRA 469 (2008)

PEOPLE VS. AGOJO 585 SCRA 652 (2009)
PEOPLE VS. TAN 608 SCRA 85 (2009)
ONG VS. GENCO 609 SCRA 188 (2009)
PEOPLE VS. PEPINO 622 SCRA 293 (2010)
REBELLION VS. PEOPLE 623 SCRA 343 (2010)
PINEDA-ANG VS. JOSON 634 SCRA 736 (2010)
IMPERIAL VS. JOSON 635 SCRA 71 (2010)
PEOPLE VS. MARTINEZ 637 SCRA 791 (2010)
RODEL LUZ Y ONG V. PEOPLE GR 197788 FEB. 29, 2012

7. When arrest may be made without a warrant

Rule 113, Sec. 5

(a) Cases
Cases PEOPLE VS. QUEBRAL 606 SCRA 247 (2009)
PEOPLE VS. AVA 609 SCRA 309 (2009)
ESQUILLO VS. PEOPLE 629 SCRA 370 (2010)
LUMANOG VS. PEOPLE 630 SCRA 42 (2010)
PEOPLE VS. ARANETA 634 SCRA 475 (2010)
PEOPLE VS. UYBOCO 640 SCRA 146 (2011)

ANNOTATION – WARRANTLESS ARREST – 283 SCRA 190

WARRANTLESS ARREST AND WARRANTLESS
SERACH IN BUY BUST 607 SCRA 830 (2009)

(b) Exceptions to strict enforcement

(1) Illegal Possessions of guns or drugs
PEOPLE VS. PEÑAFLORIDA 551 SCRA 111 (2008)
PEOPLE VS. SEMBRANO 628 SCRA 328 (2010)
(c) Waiver of Illegality of Arrest
Case G.R. No. 186529 August 3, 2010 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JACK RACHO

(d) Effect of declaration of Illegal Arrest

Cases PEOPLE BS. BIYOC 532 SCRA 528 (2007)
VALDEZ VS. PEOPLE 538 SCRA 611 (2007)
PEOPLE VS. SANTOS 555 SCRA 578 (2008)

8. Immunity from arrest of members of Congress

Art. VI, sec. 11, 1987 Constitution
 6 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

B. Privacy 1 Privacy (Art. III, Section 2)

Cases: OPLE VS. TORRES 293 SCRA 201 (1998)
IN RE: CAMILO SABIO 504 SCRA 704 (2006)
SJS VS. DDB 570 SCRA 410 (2008)
LEE VS. CA 625 SCRA 66 (2010)
MANILA ELECTRIC VS. LIM 632 SCRA 195 (2010)
REPUBLIC vs. ON. ANTONIO M. EUGENIO, JR G.R. No. 174629 February 14, 2008

ANNOTATION – Right to Privacy – 293 SCRA 201

CONCEPT OF PRIVACY – ZONES OF PRIVACY

2 Privacy of Communications
Art. III, Section 3, 1987 Constitution
Cases ZULUETA VS. CA 253 SCRA 699 (1996)
OPLE VS. TORRES 293 SCRA 141 (1998)
IN RE ALEJANO 468 SCRA 188 (2005)
KMU VS. DIRECTOR 487 SCRA 623 (2006)
IN RE SABIO 504 SCRA 214 (2006)
RAMIREZ vs. CA G.R. No. 93833 September 28, 1995
G.R. No. 160792 August 25, 2005 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF
CAPT. GARY ALEJANO, et al

4. Wire tapping
REP. ACT NO. 4200
Case: GAANAN VS. IAC, 145 SCRA 112 (1986)

5. RA 10173 (Data Privacy Act)

III. FREEDOM OF A. Philosophic Basis of Guarantee (Freedom of Bishop Vicente M. Navarra v. G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015
EXPRESSION / Expression)
PRESS /
ASSEMBLY 1. For the discovery of political truth
/INFORMATION 2. For self government
Art. III, sec. 4 3. For individual perfection
Id., sec. 18(1)
B. Prior restraints/Subsequent Punishment Cases – CHAVEZ VS. GONZALES 545 SCRA 441 (2008)
NEWSOUND BROADCASTING VS. DY 583 SCRA 333 (2009)
SORIANO VS. LAGUARDIA 587 SCRA 79 (2009), 615 SCRA 254 (2010)
ANG LADLAD VS. COMELEC 618 SCRA 32 (2010)

C. Content-based Restrictions

1. Some Tests of Validity of content-based restrictions

Dangerous tendency: When the legislative body has determined generally that utterances of a certain kind involve such danger of substantive evil that they may be
punished, the question whether any specific utterance coming within the prohibited class is likely, in and of itself, to bring about the substantive evil is not open to
consideration. In such cases the general provision of the statute may be constitutionally applied to the specific utterance if its natural and probable effect was to bring about
the substantive evil that the legislative body might prohibit. (Gitlow vs. New York, 286 U.S. 652 [1952])
Clear-and-present danger: The question in every case is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present
 7 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

danger that they will bring about the substantive evil that the state has a right to prevent. (Schenck vs. United States, 249 U.S. 47 [1919])
Balancing of interest: The court must undertake the delicate and difficult task of weighing the circumstances and appraising the substantiality of the reasons advanced in
support of the regulation of the free enjoyment of rights. (American communication Ass’n vs. Doubs, 339 U.S. 383, cited in Gonzales vs. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835 (1969)
Direct incitement: The guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or prescribe the advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where
such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. (Brandenburg vs. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969); cited
Salonga vs. Cruz Pano, 134 SCRA 438 [1985])
Grave-but-improbable danger: Whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such an invasion of speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.
(Dennis vs. United States, 341 U.S. 494 [1951])

2. Applications of tests in various contexts a. Freedom of expression and national security

b. Freedom of expression and criticism of official conduct: The Test of “Actual Malice” Read Rev. Penal Code,
Arts., 353-354 and 361-362 Compare Act No. 2928, March 26, 1920 Com. Act No. 382, Sept. 6, 1938

Cases – SOLIVEN VS. MAKASIAR; BELTRAN VS. MAKASIAR, 167 SCRA 393 (1988)
BORJAL VS. CA 301 SCRA 1 (1999)
VASQUEZ VS. CA 314 SCRA 460 (2000)
PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTICS, INC. VS.THEONEN 477 SCRA 485 (2005)
TULFO VS. PEOPLE 565 SCRA 283 (2008)
READ – ANNOTATION – 301 SCRA 34

c. Freedom of expression and the right of privacy

Cases – AYER PRODUCTIONS VS. CAPULONG, 160 SCRA 861 (1988)
PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC. VS. THEONEN 477 SCRA 482 (2005)

d. Freedom of expression and the administration of

Justice (contempt of court)
Cases – IN RE PUBLISHED 385 SCRA 285 (2002)
IN THE MATTER – MACASAET 561 SCRA 395 (2008)
LEJANO VS. PEOPLE 638 SCRA 104 (2010)
RE: LETTER OF THE UP FACULTY 644 SCRA 543 (2011)

e. Symbolic Expression – The Flag-burning case

Cases TEXAS VS. JOHNSON, 491 U.S. 109 S. Ct. 2533 (1989)
Cf. Act No. 2928, March 26, 1920;
Com. Act No. 382, Sept. 5, 1938
Adm. Code of 1987, Bk. I, Ch. 4, secs. 12-13
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8491 "Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines." (1998)

f. Freedom of Expression and Public Service

Section 2(4), Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution
QUINTIO vs COMELEC. G.R. No. 189698, February 22, 2010
OCA vs. Atillo, A.M. No. RTJ-21-018. September 29, 2021

D. Content-neutral restrictions
1. National Security
O’Brien Test: A government regulation is sufficiently 2. Assembly and Petition
justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Case: – DELA CRUZ VS. CA 305 SCRA 303 (1999)
government; if is furthers an important or substantial
 8 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

governmental interest; if the governmental interest is

unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if
the incidental restriction on alleged freedom of
expression is no greater than is essential to the
furtherance of that interest. (United States vs.
O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), adopted, in Adiong
vs. Comelec, 207 SCRA 712 [1992])
1. Regulation of political campaign/election activity
Cases – OSMEÑA VS. COMELEC, 288 SCRA 447 (1998)
ABS-CBN VS. COMELEC, 323 SCRA 811 (2000)
SWS VS. COMELEC, 357 SCRA 497 (2001)
2. Freedom of Assembly
LAW – BP Blg. 880 9Public Assembly Act of 1985)
Cases – BAYAN VS. ERMITA 488 SCRA 226 (2006)
SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR A.M. 98-7-02-SC
IBP VS. ATIENZA 613 SCRA 518 (2010)

3. Freedom of association and the right to strike

In the public sector
Art. III, sec. 8
Art. IX, sec. 2(5)
Art. XIII, sec. 3, par. 2
Cases – GSIS VS. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA 510 SCRA 622 (2006)
GSIS VS. VILLARIZA 625 SCRA 669 (2010)

4. Movies Censorship
Cases – GONZALES VS. KALAW KATIGBAK, 137 SCRA 356 (1985)
IGLESIA NI CRISTO VS. CA 259 SCRA 529 (1996)

5. Radio broadcast
Case: – EASTERN BROADCASTING CORP. (DYRE) VS. DANS, 137 SCRA 647 (1985)

g. Freedom of Information
Art. III, sec. 7
Cases – SENATE VS. ERMITA 488 SCRA 1 (2006)
HILADO VS. REYES 496 SCRA 282 (2006)
BANTAY RA 7941 VS. COMELEC 523 SCRA 1 (2007)
ANNOTATION – 299 SCRA 782
NERI VS. SENATE 564 SCRA 152 (2008)
CPEG VS. COMELEC 631 SCRA 41 (2010)

E. The cybercrime law G.R. No. 203335 February 11, 2014 JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR., ROWENA S. DISINI, LIANNE IVY P.
Republic Act No. 10175 MEDINA, JANETTE TORAL and ERNESTO SONIDO, JR., vs. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE,

F. Academic Freedom CASES – GARCIA VS. FACULTY OF ADMISSION, 68 SCRA 277 (1975)
ANNOTATION – 313 SCRA 428
DLSU VS. CA 541 SCRA 22 (2007)
CSC VS. SOJOR 554 SCRA 160 (2008)
MERCADO VS. AMA 618 SCRA 218 (2010)

IV. FREEDOM OF A. Non-establishment Clause Cases –

RELIGION The establishment clause prohibits (1) excessive Bishop Vicente M. Navarra v. G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015
Art. III, sec. 5 governmental entanglement with religious institutions RE: REQUEST OF MUSLIM 477 SCRA 648 (2005)
and (2) government endorsement or disapproval of TARUC VS. DELA CRUZ 453 SCRA 123 (2005)
 9 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

religion. ESTRADA VS. ESCRITUR 408 SCRA 1 (2003), 492 SCRA 1 (2006)
SORIANO VS. LAGUARDIA 587 SCRA 79 (2009), 615 SCRA 254 (2010)
A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC RE: LETTER OF TONY Q. V ALENCIANO,
G.R. No. 217453 ALMORES vs. DR. CRISTINA ACHACOSO, (MSU)

1. Operation of Sectarian Schools

Art. XIV, sec. 4(2)

2. Religious institutions in public schools

Art. XIV, sec. 3(3)
Rev. Adm. Code, sec. 928
Civil Code, Art. 359 (1)

3. Tax exemption
Art. VI, sec. 28(3)
CASES – BISHOP OF NUEVA SEGOVIA VS. PROVINCIAL BOARD, 51 Phil. 352 (1927)
TOLENTINO VS. SECRETARY, 235 SCRA 632 (1994)

4. Public aid to religion

Art. VI, sec. 29 (2)
CASES – AGLIPAY VS. RUIZ, 64 Phil. 201 (1937)
IGNACIO VS. ELA, 99 Phil. 346 (1956) (Concepcion, J., dissenting)

B. Free Exercise Clause 1. Flag salute

Cases – Ebralinag vs. Division Sup’t of Schools, 219 SCRA 256 (1993)

2. Freedom to propagate religious doctrines

Cases – AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY VS. CITY OF
MANILA, 101 Phil. 386 (1957)
CENTENO VS. VILLALON, 236 SCRA 197 (1994)
IGLESIA NI CRISTO VS. CA 259 SCRA 529 (1996)

3. Exemption from union shop

Cases – VICTORIANO VS. ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS UNION,

4. Disqualification from local government office

Case – PAMIL VS. TELERON, 86 SCRA 413 (1978)
Note: election of Gov. Fr. Among Ed Panlilio

V. LIBERTY OF ABODE Cases – SALONGA VS. HERMOSO, 97 SCRA 121 (1980)

AND OF TRAVEL MARCOS VS. MANLAPUS, 177 SCRA 668 (1989) & 178 SCRA 760 (189)
Art. III, sec. 6 SILVERIO VS. CA, 195 SCRA 760 (1991)
CONJUANGCO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 300 SCRA 367 (1998)
YAP JR VS. CA 358 SCRA 564 (2001)
MIRASOL VS. SPWH 490 SCRA 318 (2006)
REYES VS. CA 606 SCRA 580 (2009)
 10 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

Set C
VI. RIGHTS OF PERSONS Source : MIRANDA VS. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
UNDER CUSTODIAL Cases – PEOPLE VS. REYES 581 SCRA 691 (2009)
INTERROGATION / PEOPLE VS. TUNIACO 610 SCRA 350 (2010)
INVESTIGATION LUMANOG VS. PEOPLE 630 SCRA 42 (2010)
LAW – Art. III, sec. 12 HO WAI PANG vs. PEOPLE GR 176229 Oct. 19, 2011
Rep. Act No. 7438
Annotation – EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION 649 SCRA 649 (2011)

1. Miranda rule not applicable to confessions Cases – PEOPLE VS. RIBADAJO, 142 SCRA 637 (1986)
Executed before Jan. 17, 1973 FILOTEO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 263 SCRA 222 (1996)
SANTOS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 347 SCRA 386 (2000)

2. Not applicable to res gestae Cases – PEOPLE VS. DANO 339 SCRA 515 (2000)
statements/spontaneous statements PEOPLE VS. ENDINO 352 SCRA 307 (2001)
PEOPLE VS. ARONDAIN 366 SCRA 98 (2001)
PEOPLE VS. TABOGA 376 SCRA 505 (2002)
PEOPLE VS. BALOLOY 381 SCRA 31 (2002)
JESALVA VS. PEOPLE 640 SCRA 253 (2011)
G.R. No. 226145 PEOPLE vs. ROMEO D. CALINA WAN

3. Not applicable to statements
Administrative investigations
given in Cases – SEBASTIAN VS. GARCHITORENA 343 SCRA 463 (2000)
REMOLINA VS. CSC 362 SCRA 304 (2001)
PEOPLE VS. SALONGA 359 SCRA 310 (2001)
PEOPLE VS. TIN LAN UY 475 SCRA 248 (2005)
ASTUDILLO VS. PEOPLE 509 SCRA 509 (2006)

4. Custodial Phase of Investigation – Police lineups Cases – DELA TORRE VS. CA 294 SCRA 196 (1998)
PEOPLE VS. PAVILLARE 329 SCRA 684 (2000)

5. Tests of validity of Waiver of Miranda rights “To be informed”

Cases PEOPLE VS. CASIMIRO 383 SCRA 390 (2002)
PEOPLE VS. SAYABOC 419 SCRA 659 (2004)
PEOPLE VS. BAGNATE 428 SCRA 633 (2004)

a. Pre-Galit rule (Jan. 17, 1973 to March 20, 1985)

b. The Galit rule (March 20, 1985 to February 2, 1987)

Cases – PEOPLE VS. GALIT, 135 SCRA 465 (1985)

DOES THE GALIT RULE HAVE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION?

c. New rule on Waiver (Feb. 2, 1987)

Art. III, sec. 12(1); Waiver must be in
 11 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

writing and made in the presence

of counsel of choice

Cases – SANTOS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 347 SCRA 386 (2000)

PEOPLE VS. MENDOZA 365 SCRA 289 (2001)
PEOPLE VS. GONZALEZ 382 SCRA 714 (2002)

6. The burden of proving voluntariness of waivers is Cases – PEOPLE VS. JARA, 144 SCRA 516 (1986)
on the prosecution PEOPLE VS. TOLENTINO, 145 SCRA 597
PEOPLE VS. ENAMORIA, 209 SCRA 577
PEOPLE VS. BACOR 306 SCRA 522 (1999)

7. What may be waived: The right to remain

silent and to counsel, but not the right
to be given “Miranda warnings.”

8. Exclusionary rule Cases – PEOLE VS. ANDAN 269 SCRA 95 (1997)

Art. III, sec. 12 (3) MARCELO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 302 SCRA 102 (1999)
PEOPLE VS. JANSON 400 SCRA 584 (2003)

9. Right Against Torture REPUBLIC ACT N0. 9745 - AN ACT PENALIZING TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DEGRADING
TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFOR

10. The Right against enforced disappearances REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10353 - AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING ENFORCED OR INVOLUNTARY
DISAPPEARANCE

VII. RIGHT TO BAIL 1. When right may be invoked Cases – GOVERNMENT VS. PURGANAN 389 SCRA 623 (2002)
Art. III, sec. 13 – Rule PEOPLE VS. FITZGERALD 505 SCRA 573 (2006)
114 Revised Rules on RODRIGUEZ VS. PRESIDING JUDGE 483 SCRA 290 (2006)
Criminal Procedure GOVT. OF HONG KONG VS. OLALIA 521 SCRA 470 (2007)
PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 529 SCRA 764 (2007)
VALERO VS. CA 535 SCRA 453 (2007)
TRILLANES VS. PIMENTEL 556 SCRA 471 (2008)

2. When bail is a matter of right, when it is a matter See Sections 4 and 5, rule 114, rules on Criminal Procedure
of discretion GACAL VS. JUDGE INFANTE AM-RTJ-04-1845 Oct. 5, 2011

3. Bail in military courts Cases – COMENDADOR VS. DE VILLA, 200 SCRA 80 (1991)
ASWAT VS. GALIDO, 204 SCRA 205 (1991)

4. Standards for fixing bail Cases – VILLASENOR VS. ABANO, 21 SCRA 312 (1967)
Rule 114, sec. 10 DE LA CAMARA VS. ENAGE, 41 SCRA 1 (1971)
YAP JR VS. CA 358 SCRA 564 (2001)

5. Right to bail and right to travel abroad Cases – MANOTOK VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 142 SCRA 149 (1986)
SANTIAGO VS. VASQUEZ, 217 SCRA 633
SILVERIO VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 195 SCRA 760

6. Waiver of the Right to Bail Cases – PEOPLE VS. DONATO, 198 SCRA 130 (1991)

7. READ: ANNOTATION ON BAIL 260 SCRA 161
VIII. RIGHTS DURING 1. Due Process in Criminal
TRIAL
Art. III, sec. 14
2. Presumption of innocence
3. Right to be heard personally or by counsel
4. Right to free legal assistance
5. Right to be informed of nature and cause of
accusation
6. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial
12 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
LARDIZABAL VS. REYES, 238 SCRA 640 (1994)
PEOPLE VS. PANES 303 SCRA 231 (1999)
RIGHT TO BAIL 647 SCRA 613 (2011)
Cases ALONTE VS. SAVELLANO 287 SCRA 245 (1998)
PEOPLE VS. MACARANG 424 SCRA 18 (2005)
ANNOTATION – DUE PROCESS – 287 SCRA 314
DIMARUCUT VS. PEOPLE 630 SCRA 659 (2010) – Appeal
Cases – EUGENIO VS. PEOPLE 549 SCRA 433 (2008)
BIRAOGO VS. PHIL TRUTH 637 SCRA 78 (2010)
LEJANO VS. PEOPLE 638 SCRA 104 (2010)
DEL CASTILLO VS. PEOPLE GR 185128 Jan. 30, 2012
ANNOTATION – 569 SCRA 903
Cases – CALLANGAN VS. PEOPLE 493 SCRA 269 (20060
PEOPLE VS. SIONGCO 623 SCRA 501 (2010)
MILLA vs. PEOPLE GR 188726 Jan. 25, 2012
Art. III, sec. 11
Cases – PEOPLE VS. RIO, 201 SCRA 702 (1991)
MARTINEZ VS. PEOPLE 332 SCRA 694 (2000)
Cases – PEOPLE BS. TABIO 544 SCRA 156 (2008)
PEOPLE VS. AURE 569 SCRA 836 (2008)
PEOPLE VS. GUEVARRA 570 SCRA 288 (2008)
PEOPLE VS. BARTOLINI 626 SCRA 527 (2010)
A) Speedy trial
Cases – PEOPLE VS. MENDOZA 573 SCRA 616 (2008)
TAN VS. PEOPLE 586 SCRA 139 (2009)
OLBES VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 635 SCRA 94 (2010)
JACOLO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 635 SCRA 94 (2010
MARI VS. PEOPLE GR 187728 Sept. 12, 2011
(B) Public trial
Case – GARCIA VS. DOMINGO, 52 SCRA 143 (1970)
(C) Impartial trial
Cases – RE: REQUEST RADIO-TV COVERAGE OF THE ESTRADA PLUNDER CASE – JUNE 29,
2001 (360 SCRA 248) AND SEPTEMBER 12, 2001
(365 SCRA 62)
(D) Right to an impartial tribunal and trial of civilians by military courts
Cases – ANIMAS VS. MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, 146 SCRA 406 (1986)
OLAGUER VS. MC NO. 34, 150 SCRA 144 (1987)
CRUZ VS. PONCE ENRILE, 160 SCRA 702 (1988)
 13 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

7. Right to confront witnesses Cases – HO WAI PANG vs. PEOPLE GR 176229 Oct. 19, 2011

8. Right to secure attendance of witnesses – Sec.

10, Rule 21

9. Trial in absentia Cases – GIMENEZ VS. NAZARENO 160 SCRA 1 (1988)

Rule 115, sec. 1 (c) PARADA VS. VENERACION 269 SCRA 371 (1997)
BERNARDO VS. PEOPLE GR 166980 April 4, 2007

10. When presence of the accused is a DUTY

a. Arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of

guilt
Rule 116, sec. 1 (b)

b. During trial, for identification

CASE – PEOPLE VS. SALAS, 143 SCRA 163 (1986)

c. Promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light

offense, in which
case accused may appear by counsel, or a
representative (Rule 120, Sec. 6)

IX. RIGHT AGAINST 1. Scope --- Applies only to compulsory testimonial Cases – UNITED STATES VS. TAN TENG, 23 Phil. 145 (1912)
SELF-INCRIMINATION self-incrimination VILLAFLOR VS. SUMMERS, 41 Phil. 62 (1920)
Art. III, sec. 17 PEOPLE VS. YATAR 428 SCRA 504 (2004)
IN RE SABIO: 504 SCRA 704 (2006)
SJS VS. DDB 570 SCRA 410 (2008) – “drug-testing”
PEOPLE VS. GAMIH 621 SCRA 159 (2010)
LUMANOG VS. PEOPLE 630 SCRA 42 (2010)

JAIME D. DELA CRUZ VS. PEOPLE, GR No. 200748, Jul 23, 2014

2. In what proceedings available Cases – PASCUAL VS. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS,

28 SCRA 344 (1969)
GALMAN VS. PAMARAN, 138 SCRA 274 (1985)
Compare PEOPLE VS. AYSON, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)
Legislative Inquiry – IN RE SABIO, 504 SCRA 704 (2006)

3. “Use Immunity” vs. “Transactional Immunity” a. Transactional Immunity

Art. XIII, sec. 18(8)
Rep. Act No. 1379, sec. 8
Rep. Act No. 6832, sec. 8 (Davide Commission)

b. Use and Fruit Immunity

Case – GALMAN VS. PAMARAN, 138 SCRA 274 (185)
P.D. No. 1886

Note – Executive Order No. 1 – “The Truth Commission”

 14 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

4. Exclusionary rule - Art. III, sec. 12 (3)

5. Effect of denial of privileges by court Cases – CHAVEZ VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 24 SCRA 663 (1968)

X. RIGHT TO SPEEDY Cases – HEIRS OF PIEDAD VS. ESTRERA 608 SCRA 268 (2009)
DISPOSITION OF CASES ROQUERO VS. CHANCELLOR 614 SCRA 723 (2010)
Art. III, sec. 18 ALFONSO VS. ANDRES 626 SCRA 149 (2010)
Art. VIII, sec. 15 DIMARUCOT VS. PEOPLE 630 SCRA 659 (2010)
Art VII, sec. 18, par.3 ANGELES VS. SEMPIO-DIY 631 SCRA 456 (2010)
Art. IX, A, sec. 7 AYMUNDO VS. ANDOY 632 SCRA 218 (2010)
ANNOTATION – 307 SCRA 116

XI. SUBSTANTIVE A. What acts cannot be criminalized 1. Mere beliefs and aspirations
RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE Art. III, sec. 18(1)
PROCESS CLAUSE
2. Debts and civil obligations
Art. III, sec. 20
Cases – LOZANO VS. MARTINEZ, 146 SCRA 323 (1986)
AGBANLOG VS. PEOPLE, 220 SCRA 530 (1993)
PEOPLE VS. NITAFAN, 202 SCRA 726 (1992)
VERGARA VS. GEDORIO, JR. 402 SCRA 520 (2003)

3. Acts which when done were innocent (Ex Post Facto Laws)
Art. III, sec. 22
Cases – KAY VILLEGAS KAMI, 35 SCRA 429 (1970)
SALVADOR VS. MAPA 539 SCRA 37 (2007)
PEOPLE VS. CASTA 565 SCRA 341 (2008)
NASI-VILLAR VS. PEOPLE 571 SCRA 202 (2008)

Bills of attainder – Legislative adjudications of guilt

Cases – PEOPLE VS. FERRER, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)
REPUBLIC VS. RMDC 426 SCRA 517 (2004)

B. What punishment cannot be imposed 1. Involuntary servitude

Art. III, sec. 18(2)
Case – SARMIENTO VS. TUICO 162 SCRA 676 (1988)

2. Excessive fines
Art. III, sec. 19(1)
Cases – PEOPLE VS. DELA CRUZ, 92 Phil. 906 (1953)
PEOPLE VS. DACUYCUY, 173 SCRA 901 (1989)
AGBANLOG VS. PEOPLE, 220 SCRA 530 (1993)

3. Cruel, degrading and inhuman punishments

Art. III, sec. 19(1)
Id., sec. 12(2)
Cases – PEOPLE VS. ECHEGARAY 267 SCRA 682 (1997)
PEOPLE VS. TONGKO 290 SCRA 595 (1998)
 15 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

ECHEGARAY VS. SECRETARY 297 SCRA 754 (1998)

LIM VS. PEOPLE 390 SCRA 194 (2002)
PEREZ VS. PEOPLE 544 SCRA 532 (2008)

ANNOTATION – DEATH PENALTY – 297 SCRA 822

4. Indefinite Imprisonment
Case – PEOPLE VS. DACUYCUY, 173 SCRA 90 (1989)

C. The protection against double jeopardy 1. Two situations contemplated

Art. III, sec. 21 Cases – PEOPLE VS. RELOVA, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)
PEOPLE VS. CITY COURT, 154 SCRA 195 (1987)

2. Rules of Court Provisions

Rule 117, sec. 7
Cases – MELO VS. PEOPLE, 85 Phil. 776 (1950)
PEOPLE VS. CITY COURT, 121 SCRA 637 (1983)
PEOPLE VS. YORAC, 42 SCRA 230 (1971)

OTHER CASES :
PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 623 SCRA 147 (2010)
PEOPLE VS. TAN 625 SCRA 388 (2010)
PEOPLE VS. CA 626 SCRA 352 (2010)
HEIRS OF JANE VS. HONRALES 629 SCRA 423 (2010)
PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 631 SCRA 128 (2010)
JACOLO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 635 SCRA 94 (2010)
IVLER VS. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO 635 SCRA 191 (2010)
FLORES VS. MONTEMAYOR 651 SCRA 396 (2011)

D. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus 1. Functions of the writ

Art. III, sec. 15 Cases – VILLAVICENCIO VS. LUKBAN, 39 Phil. 778 (1919)
IN RE GONZALES 526 SCRA 483 (2007)
VELUZ VS. VILLANUEVA 543 SCRA 63 (2008)
FLETCHER VS. DIRECTOR OF BUREAU 593 SCRA 265 (2009)
AMPATUAN VS. MACARAIG 622 SCRA 266 (2010)

2. The writ of habeas corpus as a post conviction remedy

Case – LAMEN VS. DIRECTOR, 241 SCRA 573 (1995)

3. Suspension of the privilege

Art. VIII, sec. 18
Case – LANSANG VS. GARCIA, 42 SCRA 488 (1971)

E. Affirmative rights 1. Free access to the courts

Art. III, sec. 11
Case– MARTINEZ VS. PEOPLE 332 SCRA 694 (2000)

2. Protection and enforcement of constitutional rights

Art. III, sec. 12(4)
 16 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

Art. VIII, sec. 5(5)

Art. XIII, sec. 18(3)

WRIT OF AMPARO – AM No. 07-9-12-SC of September

25, 2007 as amended on October 15, 2007)
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA – AM No. 08-1-16-SC of
22 January 2008)

Cases – TAPUZ VS. DEL ROSARIO 554 SCRA 768 (2008)

CANLAS VS. NAPICO 554 SCRA 209 (2008)
SEC OF DEFENSE VS. MANALO 568 SCRA 1 (2008)
REYES VS. CA 606 SCRA 580 (2009)
SO VS. TACLA 633 SCRA 563 (2010)
MANILA ELECTRIC VS. LIM 632 SCRA 195 (2010)
RUBRICO VS. GMA GR 183871 Feb. 18, 2010
RODRIGUEZ VS. GMA GR 191805 Nov. 15, 2011
BALAO VS. GMA GR 186050 Dec. 13, 2011

Annotation: WRIT OF AMPARO 605 SCRA 642 (2009)

3. Compensation to, and rehabilitation of victims of tortures

Art. III, sec. 12(4)

Supplemental Lecture: International law on Human Rights

1. The Human Rights Treaty Body system

2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Please read the UDHR