Atty. Butch Jamon: Constitutional Law Ii
Atty. Butch Jamon: Constitutional Law Ii
Atty. Butch Jamon: Constitutional Law Ii
OUTLINE OF READINGS
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
higher.
1
Cases:
Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Crunch) 137 (1803)
- That in cases of conflict between the several departments and among the
agencies thereof, the judiciary, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, is the
only constitutional mechanism devised finally to resolve the conflict and allocate
constitutional boundaries.
- That judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review in actual and
appropriate cases and controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no
one branch or agency of the government transcends the Constitution, which is
the source of all authority.
The ponente, Justice Gutierrez, Jr., first stated the Court’s judicial power to settle
actual controversies as provided for by Section 1 of Article VIII in our 1987
Constitution before he wrote the reasons as to how the Court arrived to its
conclusion. He mentioned that nothing is shown to justify the BOI’s action in letting
the investors decide on an issue which, if handled by our own government, could
have been very beneficial to the State, as he remembered the word of a great Filipino
leader, to wit: “.. he would not mind having a government run like hell by Filipinos
than one subservient to foreign dictation”.
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration
of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it
is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a
right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than
self-preservation and self-perpetuation. It is a self-executing provision for it can stand on
its own without the need of a legislative aid for its execution.
“Self-executing provision”
SC ruled that when our constitution mandates that in the grant of rights, priveleges,
and concessions covering national economy and patrimony, the state shall give
preference to Qualified Filipinos
The petitioner seeks to restrain PCSO and PGMC from implementing the lottery system due
to moral and ethical considerations and that the contract of lease violates Section 1 of R. A.
2
No. 1169, as amended by B. P. Blg. 42.Respondents question whether the petitioners possess
the legal standing necessary and that the issues of wisdom, morality and propriety of acts of
the executive department are beyond the ambit of judicial reviews
Petition to be of transcendental importance to the public. The issues it raised are of paramount
public interest and of a category even higher than those involved in many of the aforecited
cases. The ramifications of such issues immeasurably affect the social, economic, and moral
well-being of the people even in the remotest barangays of the country and the counter-
productive and retrogressive effects of the envisioned on-line lottery system are as staggering
as the billions in pesos it is expected to raise. The legal standing then of the petitioners
deserves recognition and, in the exercise of its sound discretion, this Court hereby brushes
aside the procedural barrier which the respondents tried to take advantage of.
Standing
Ripeness
Tan vs. Macapagal, 43 SCRA 678 (1 Bernas 537)
Poe vs. Ullman, 367 US 497 (1961)
US v. Richardson, 418 US 166 (1974)
Mootness
3
2. Old Substantive Due Process: Protection for Property Interests
Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905)
NDC and AGRIX vs. Phil Veterans, 192 SCRA 257 (2 Bernas 48)
Balacuit v. CFI, 163 SCRA 182 (2 Bernas 41)
4
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Brown vs. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Univ. of California v. Bakke,438 U.S. 265 (1978)
Gratz v. Bollinger / Grutter v. Bollinger, 02-516 (23 June 2003)
Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1873)
Goesart v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 (1948) (2 Bernas 76)
Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484(1974)
Mississippi Univ. School for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982)
Michael M. v. Superior Court, 450 U.S. 464 (1981)
Personnel Administrator v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979)
Yick Wo. v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 365 (1886)
Fragante v. City and County of Honolulu, 888 F. 2d 591 (1989);
Fragante v. City and County of Honolulu, 110 S. Ct. 1811 (1990)
Goodridge v. Dep’t of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941
(Nov. 18, 2003)
Tecson v. Comm’n on Elections, G.R. No. 161434, Mar. 3, 2004
A. Protected Speech
1. Prior Restraint
Near v. Minnesota, 238 U.S. 697
New York Times v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713
Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51
2. Subsequent Punishment
People v. Perez, 45 Phil. 599
Dennis v. U.S., 341 U.S. 494
Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.s. 616 (1919)
Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans, 137 SCRA 628
5
Sanidad v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 529
National Press Club v. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 1
Adiong v. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 712
B. Unprotected Speech
1. Defamatory Speech
Policarpio v. Manila Times, 5 SCRA 148
Lopez v. CA, 34 SCRA 116
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29
Ayer Production v. Judge Capulong, 160 SCRA 865
Soliven v. Hon. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 394
MVRS v. Islamic Da’wah Council, G.R. 135306, 28 January 2003
US vs. Bustos, 37 Phil 731
3. Obscenity
Roth v. U.S., 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
Miller v. California, 37 L. Ed. 419 (1973)
Gonzalez v. Kalaw Katigbak, 137 SCRA 717
Pita v. CA, 178 SCRA 362
Mideo Cruz Controversy – “Polytheism” (August 15, 2011)
A. Establishment Clause
Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201
Garces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602
Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236
County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 57 LW 5045, in relation to
Lynch v. Donnely, 465 U.S. 668 (1984)
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, No. 1751, 27 June 2002
Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672
6
Velarde v. Society for Social Justice, G.R. No. 159357, 28 April 2004
Marcelino C. Arias v. University of the Philippines Board of Regents, Regional Trial
Court, CC Case No. 47696 RTC-QC (Branch 27)
7
Art. III, Sec. 10
Civil Code Art. 1306
B. Involuntary Servitude
Art. III, Sec. 18(2)
Rubi v. Provincial Board, 39 Phil. 660
Kaisahan v. Gotamco, 80 Phil. 521
Board of Commissioners (CID) v. Dela Rosa et. al., 197 SCRA 853
Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 9 SCRA 27
Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago, 162 SCRA 840
Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA 364
Labo v. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1
Aznar v. COMELEC, 185 SCRA 703
Juridical Persons
Stonehill v. Diokno, supra
Central Bank v. Morfe, 20 SCRA 507
######