Constitutional Law 2 Reviewer - YapKRev
Constitutional Law 2 Reviewer - YapKRev
Constitutional Law 2 Reviewer - YapKRev
| ATENEO LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II Due Process In General
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary
• Kinds of due process:
Atty. Ray Paolo Santiago | Block 1C 1. Procedural Due Process – mode of procedure which government agencies
must follow in the enforcement and application of laws; the need for notice
WARNING and opportunity to be heard.
2. Substantive Due Process – not rigid but grounded on reasonableness.
This document shall not be used as primary reference in
lieu of the annotated books and reviewers it is based on. Tupas v. CA (1991) – late petition : Observance of both procedural and substantive rights is
equally guaranteed by due process and must be followed whatever the source of such rights.
• The tardiness of the petitioners to file an extension for review has forfeited their right
ARTICLE III: BILL OF RIGHTS to appeal. Therefore, the cannot claim that they have been denied of due process.
• Petitioners’ argument that they should not be prejudiced by the mistake of their
Ø The government becomes the delicate art of balancing the power of government and the counsel was not acceptable especially that their counsel is equipped with impressive
freedom of the governed. credentials.
Ø Inherent (great) powers of the government: o Pleadings, as well as remedial laws, should be construed liberally, in order
1. Police Power that the litigants may have ample opportunity to prove their respective
2. Eminent Domain claims, and that a possible denial of substantial justice, due to legal
3. Taxation technicalities, may be avoided. (Quibuyen v. CA, 1963)
Ø A constitution can only define and delimit the powers and allocate their exercise among
various government agencies. It does not grant the powers of the government. Procedural Due Process
Republic v. Sandiganbayan (2003) – interregnum and human rights : The Constitution is a Banco Español v. Vicente Palanca (1918) – jurisdiction over a person : Jurisdiction over the
source of rights. Did the existence of rights also cease when the 1973 Constitution was not person is acquired by the voluntary appearance of a party in court and his submission to its
operative during the interregnum between the EDSA Revolution and the Freedom Constituion? authority, or it is acquired by the coercive power of legal process exerted over the person.
No. After having established itself as a de jure government, the revolutionary government • Due process in foreclosure proceedings: Property is always assumed to be in the
assumed the responsibility of faithful compliance with international agreements entered into possession of its owner, in person or by agent, and he may be safely held, under certain
such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal conditions, to be affected with knowledge that proceedings have been instituted for
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). its condemnation and sale.
• Interregnum – a period when normal government is suspended, especially between • Quasi in rem – property alone is responsible for claim in proceedings, but the
successive reigns or regimes. individual is still named as a defendant, unlike in rem.
o Notice to the defendant is not absolutely essential.
SEC. 1. NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE o Publication is already deemed sufficient for procedural due process.
PROCESS OF THE LAW. NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE • Requisites for judicial due process:
LAWS. 1. There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed dwith judicial power to
hear and decide the matter before it;
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or
Hierarchy of Rights over the property subject of the proceedings;
3. The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard; and
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Org. v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. (1973) – 4. Judgment must be rendered only after lawful hearing.
strike in malacañang against pasig police : The primacy of human rights over property rights
is recognized. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly Administrative Due Process in General
occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and
political institutions. Ang Tibay v. CIR (1940) – due process in administrative proceedings : Requisites:
• When it comes to laws restricting property rights, it is only required that they be not 1. Right to hearing including right to present case and submit evidence;
oppressive, arbitrary, and discriminatory to remain valid. 2. Tribunal or body must act on its own independent consideration;
• However, laws that restrict freedom of speech and assembly require that the same 3. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
must pose a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has a 4. Evidence must be substantial;
right to protect. 5. Decision must be based on evidence presented or at least contained in the record;
ADMU v. Capulong (1993) – fraternity : Requisites for procedural due process for academic Dismissal in Private Sector
cases: (Guzman v. NU, 1986)
1. Informed in writing of the nature of the accusation; Salaw v. NLRC (1991) – admission to constabulary investigation without counsel : Under
2. Right to answer charges, optionally with counsel; the Labor Code, for an employee’s dismissal to be valid, it must be for a just and authorized
3. Right of accused to be informed of evidence against them; cause, and notice and hearing must be observed.
4. Right to adduce own evidence; and • Requisites:
5. Evidence must be considered. 1. Valid reason;
• Educational institutions enjoy academic freedom: 2. Opportunity to be heard; and
1. Who may teach; 3. Any evidence derived from confession without counsel is inadmissible.
2. Who may be taught; • Right to counsel is a right even in civil and administrative proceedings. The Labor
3. How it is taught; and Code expressly grants the right to counsel.
4. Who is admitted to study.
Go v. Colegio de San Juan de Letran (2012) – fraternity : The case of Guzman v. NU should
be observed in academic due process rather than the case of Ang Tibay v. CIR. Due process in
• Government bodies have 2 powers: Central Bank v. CA (1993) – relative constitutionality : The “close now and hear later”
o Quasi-legislative – general rules which will affect everybody in a certain scheme is grounded on practical and legal considerations to prevent unwarranted dissipation of
class. No form of notice, hearing or cross-examination required. the bank’s assets and as a valid exercise of police power to protect the depositors, creditors,
o Quasi-judicial – applies exclusively to a specific entity or person. Any stockholders and the general public.
change must be made after due notice and hearing. • Requisites:
1. Examination by Central Bank;
People v. Nazario (1988) – manager; void for vagueness : As a rule, a statute or act may be 2. Report by Monetary Board on the bank concerned; and
said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must 3. Prima facie evidence about the bank’s bad financial condition.
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the constitution • The absence of notice and hearing is not a valid ground to annul a Monetary Board
in 2 aspects: Resolution placing a bank under receivership. The absence of prior notice and hearing
1. Violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by cannot be deemed acts of arbitrariness and bad faith. The grant of subsequent judicial
it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and review satisfies the due process clause.
2. Leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes • Only stockholders of a bank may file an action for annulment of the resolution placing
an arbitrary flexing of the government muscle. the bank under receivership and prohibiting it from continuing operations.
• Relative constitutionality – a statute at one time may become void at another time
• However, the act must be “utterly” vague on its face; that is to say, it cannot be because of altered circumstances. Thus, if a statute in its practical operation becomes
clarified by either a saving clause or by construction. arbitrary or confiscatory, its validity, even though affirmed by a former adjudication,
• Utterly vague – no circumstance would be made applicable to it. is open to inquiry and investigation in the light of changed conditions. Applies
between CB and Banco Filipino case.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2001) – plunder; void for vagueness : Criminal statutes have
general in terrorem effect resulting from their very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed Urban Development and Housing Act (RA 7279)
for this reason alone, the State may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially
harmful conduct. Perez v. Madrona (2012) – squatting; summary abatement; not nuisance per se : Since
• Facial challenge – traditionally allowed in free speech cases, where the State’s police respondent-spouses’ property is not a nuisance per se, it cannot be subjected to summary
power exceeds allowable limitations and intrudes into fundamental rights. The statute abatement. Instead, petitioner should go to court and prove respondents’ supposed violations in
must be void on its face and cannot be saved by any clause or saving construction. the construction of the concrete fence.
• Overbreadth doctrine – a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which • Nuisance per se – affects the immediate safety of persons and property nd may be
sweep unnecessarily broad and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms. summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity. (Monteverde v. Generoso,
• In terrorem – a legal threat, usually one given in hope of compelling someone to act 1982)
without resorting to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution. • Nuisance per accidens – not inherently a nuisance in itself, but may be so because of
the circumstances surrounding it. It may be so proven in a hearing conducted for such
Tariff and Customs Code purpose
Feeder v. CA (1991) – forfeiture proceeding : A forfeiture proceeding under the tariff and Cancellation of Property Rights/Privileges
customs law is not penal in nature as it does not result in the conviction of the offender. It is
purely civil and administrative in character. The degree of proof required is merely substantial American Inter-fashion v. Office of the President (1991) – garments and textile evaluation
evidence. board : A judgment on the merits is one rendered after a determination of which party is right,
• Substantial evidence – relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon preliminary or final or merely technical points.
adequate to support a conclusion. • The dismissal of the Garments and Textile Evaluation Board (GTEB) case cannot be
• Sec. 1202 of the Tariff and Customs Code – importation begins when the carrying considered as a judgment on the merits as it was based on the withdrawal of Glorious
vessel enters the jurisdiction of the Philippines with intention to unload therein. Sun.
• The right to assistance of counsel is not indispensable to due process unless required • Subsequent disclosure of the evidence used in the former GTEB Resolution did not
by the Constitution or by law. cure the defect because it was evidenced that it was arbitrarily made.
o Exception is made in the charter only during custodial investigation of a
person suspected of a crime and during the trial of the accused. British American Tobacco v. Camacho (2008-2009) – expansive tax category : The
• A corporate entity has no personality to invoke the right to be presumed innocent classification freeze provision addressed Congress’ administrative concerns in the simplification
which is a right available only to an individual who is an accused in a criminal case. of tax administration of sin products, elimination of potential areas for abuse and corruption in
• Furthermore, subsequent judicial review is granted even if the proceedings are tax collection, buoyant and stable revenue generation, and ease of projection of revenues.
summary in nature.
People v. Siton (2009) – vagrancy : Penal statutes do not go against the equal protection clause Stonehill v. Diokno (1967) – no specific offense designated in warrant; only name of law
as they do not punish people for who they are, rather, what is punished is what they do or how violated; invalidity of general warrant : It was impossible for the judges who issued the
they conduct themselves. warrants to have found the existence of probable cause, for the same presupposes the
introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular
League of Cities v. COMELEC (2009) – pending bills for cityhood laws : The cities acts, or committed specific omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal laws.
enumerated in the cityhood laws have substantial difference against those not enumerated given • Petitioners herein cannot invoke right to privacy because the papers belong to the
their capability to become cities had already been satisfied before the amendment from corporation, and they cannot invoke the privacy of the corporation as to the papers
P200,000,000 was changed to P100,000,000. seized.
Arrests
General Rule:
• Warrant of arrest – a written order made on behalf of the state and is based upon a complaint issued pursuant to a statute or rule and which command law enforcement to arrest a person
and bring him before a court.
• An arrest must be made pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the judge.
• It may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night.
• Requisites for a valid warrant:
1. Issued upon probable cause.
i. Probable cause – such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person
sought to be arrested.
2. Personal examination by the judge (optional in warrant of arrest).
3. Examined under oath and affirmation.
4. Particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
5. Not for more than one offense.
• The applicant needs to show:
1. Probable cause that an offense was committed; and
2. That the person to be arrested committed it.
Exceptions under the Rules of Criminal Procedure
1. In flagrante delicto – in the presence of the arresting officer or any private individual, the accused has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. (Sec. 5a, Rule 113)
2. Hot pursuit – a crime has been committed and the arresting officer or private person has personal knowledge of such facts. (Sec. 5b, Rule 113)
3. When the person to be arrested is an escapee from a penal establishment or confinement. (Sec. 5c, Rule 113)
4. By the bondsman for the purpose of surrendering the accused (Sec. 23, Rule 113)
5. Where the accused attempts to leave the country without permission of the court (Sec. 23, Rule 114)
13 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
SEC. 3. (1) THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE SHALL BE INVIOLABLE Sps. Veroy v. Layague (1992) – search of persons, not of materials : In crimes mala
EXCEPT UPON LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT, OR WHEN PUBLIC SAFETY OR ORDER REQUIRES
prohibita, the subjects thereof are not illegal per se, thus a search warrant is still necessary. In
OTHERWISE, AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
this case, it is undeniable that the police officers had ample time to procure a search warrant,
but they failed to do so.
(2) ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THIS OR THE PRECEDING SECTION SHALL BE
INADMISSIBLE FOR ANY PURPOSE IN ANY PROCEEDING.
Habeas Data
Vivares v. STC (2014) – facebook post : Before one can have an expectation of privacy in his
• The Bill of Rights imposes limitations on the government’s powers. What if a private online social networking (OSN) activity, there must be a manifest intention to keep certain posts
individual effects an unreasonable search and/or seizure? private, through the employment of measure to prevent access thereto or limit its visibility.
o Art. 32 of the Civil Code provides that public officers and private • 3 strands of privacy:
individuals who violate the constitutional rights of others is liable for 1. Locational privacy
damages. 2. Informational privacy
• Requisites: 3. Decisional privacy
1. Lawful order of the court; or
2. Public safety or order requires so requires. SEC. 4. NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, EXPRESSION, OR OF
THE PRESS, OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE
Privacy; Exclusionary Rule GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
Salcedo-Ortañez v. CA (1994) – wiretap : Absent a clear showing that both parties to the
telephone conversation allowed the recording of the same, such evidence is inadmissible. • Core speeches:
• Tape recordings can be made only upon lawful order of the court. 1. Political;
2. Social; and
Zulueta v. CA (1996) – husband and wife privacy : A person, by contracting marriage, does 3. Religious.
not shed his integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is • Balancing of interest – it is the court’s function to balance public interest and the
available to him. constitutional freedoms affected by it, and to arrive at a judgment where the greater
• Communication between spouses is privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify weight shall be placed.
against the other without the consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsist.
Neither may one spouse be examined without the consent of the other as to any Prior Restraint
communication obtained in confidence.
• Official government restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance
People v. Marti (1991) – search by private person : If the search is made upon the request of of actual publication or dissemination.
law enforcers, a warrant must first generally be secured if it is to pass the test of constitutionality.
However, if the search is made at the initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for Near v. Minnesota (1931) – malicious articles against officials : Liberty of speech and of the
its own private purposes, without the intervention of police authorities, the right against press is not an absolute right, and the State may punish its abuse. Any system of prior restraint
unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked, for only the act of the private individual and of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.
not the law enforcers are involved. • Defamatory – injures reputation.
• Having observed what was already opened, when no trespass is involved, is not a • Scandalous – circulates charges of reprehensible conduct.
search. • Public nuisance
1. Detrimental to public morals and to the general welfare;
Waiver of Rights Under Secs. 2 and 3 2. Tending to disturb the peace of the community; and
3. Provoking assaults and the commission of crime.
People v. Damaso (1992) – personal waiver : Lack of objection may render incompetent • The law is too restrictive. Publication is needed to inform the people.
evidence as admissible, but does not affect its probative value. The constitutional immunity from
unreasonable searches and seizures, being a personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except Freedman v. Maryland (1965) – judicial determination : Prior submission of a film to
the person whose rights are invaded or by one authorized to do so. censorship is valid only if it takes place under procedural safeguards:
• Exclusionary rule – bars admission of illegally obtained evidence. 1. The burden of proving that the film is unprotected expression must rest on the censor;
and
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) – salary subsidy to teachers : Violated the Lemon test because Islamic Da’wah v. Executive Secretary (2003) – halal certification : Violates the
having to monitor whether the teacher exclusively teaches secular education would create and establishment clause because it interferes with the religion of the Islamic faith. Government
excessive government entanglement with religion. should not dictate. Non-establishment also means non-interference.
• Lemon test: • The protection and promotion of the Muslim Filipinos’ right to health are already
1. Secular legislative purpose; provided for in existing laws and ministered to by government agencies.
2. Primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and
3. No excessive government entanglement with religion. Taruc v. Dela Cruz (2005) – excommunicated from religion : In disputes involving religious
institutions or organizations, there are areas in which the court should not touch:
Tilton v. Richardson (1971) – construction grants to schools : Although the 4 schools are 1. Doctrinal differences; and
governed by Catholic organizations, and the students and faculty are predominantly Catholic, 2. Disciplinary differences.
evidence shows that none of these 4 institutions require its students to attend religious services.
• Secular interest: ample opportunity for fullest development of intellectual capacities UCCP v. Bradford UCC (2012) – sec’s authority : When the controversy, although related to
of this and future generations of American youth, and such opportunities requires religious doctrine or practice, includes other rights, the courts may step in.
assistance to accommodate rapidly growing numbers of youth who aspire higher • Not doctrine, but Corporation Code, which is why the court assumed jurisdiction.
education.
• However, the 20-year interest in the law violates the Establishment Clause as the Imbong v. Ochoa (2014) – reproductive health bill : Conscientious objectors are exempted as
religious affiliations will be allowed unlimited use of the facilities after the expiration long as the Reproductivev Health Bill goes against their religious beliefs.
of the 20-year period. Thus, it will constitute a direct donation to their religious
interest. Free Exercise of Religion
Country of Allegheny v. American Civil Libertiies (1989) – government endorsement to • Strict neutrality – believes that there must be a high and impenetrable wall separating
crèche and menorah : Endorsement test- whether an observer might mistake private expression Church and State.
for officially endorsed religious expression. • Benevolent neutrality – recognizes the religious nature of the Filipino people and the
• No violation of establishment clause if the religious figure is put together with secular elevating influence of religion in society; at the same time, it acknowledges that
or commercial figures which diminishes the religious import of the former. government must pursue its secular goals. In pursuing the same, however, government
might adopt laws or actions of general applicability which inadvertently burden
Zobrest v. Catalina (1992) – aid to deaf student in religious school : Secular purpose is for religious exercise. It also gives room for accommodation of these religious exercises
the student; that the student is enrolled in a sectarian school is merely incidental. as required by the free exercise clause. The Philippines subscribes to benevolent
• The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) creates a neutral government neutrality.
program dispensing aid not to schools but to individual handicapped children,
regardless of school choice.
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) – prior restraint : A State may, by general and Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) – yarmulke in military : Dissention in the military could be
nondiscriminatory legislation, regulate the times, places, and the manner of soliciting upon its dangerous. The military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society.
streets, and of holding meetings thereon, and may in other respects safeguard the peace, good When evaluating whether military needs justify a particular restriction on religiously motivated
order, and comfort of the community without unconstitutionally invading the liberties protected conduct, courts must give great deference to the professional judgment of military authorities
by the 14th Amendment. concerning the relative importance of a particular military interest.
US v. Ballard (1944) – good faith in believing : Whether a religious belief is true or false is German v. Baranganan (1985) – yellow shirts; clenched fists : The reasonableness of the
irrelevant to a judicial determination, as long as the belief is sincerely held. restriction herein is readily perceived and appreciated if it is considered that the same is designed
to protect the lives of the President and his family, as well as other government officials,
American Bible Society v. City of Manila (1957) – selling bibles : Since the free exercise of diplomats and foreign guests transacting business with Malacañang.
religion herein is related to freedom of speech/expression, any restraint of such right can only
be justified on the grounds that there is a clear and present danger of any substantive evil which Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance (1995) – philippine bible society : The registration fee imposed
the State has right to prevent. by the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended by the E-vat law, is really just to
• The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent pay for the expenses of registration and enforcement of the law.
as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down. • However, the Court reserved the issue for an actual case after the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue shall have taxed the Philippine Bible Society (PBS).
Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent (1995) – flag ceremony : Freedom to act may be
regulated. In this case, however, since the petitioners do not engage in disruptive behavior, there Centeno v. Villaon-Pornillos (1994) – fraudulent solicitations : Solicitation for religious
is no warrant for expulsion. purposes may be subject to proper regulation by the State in the exercise of police power.
• Gerona case – the flag is not an image but a symbol of the Republic of the Philippines. • However, inapplicable to the case at bar because the prohibition has not expressly
It is utterly devoid of any religious significance. included religious purposes.
• Two-fold aspect of free exercise:
1. Freedom to believe; and Lee v. Weisman (1992) – rabbi in graduation : Even for those students who object to the
2. Freedom to act. religious exercise, their attendance and participation in the state-sponsored religious activity are
• Forcing a small religious group, through the iron hand of the law, to participate in a in a fair and real sense obligatory, though the school district does not require attendance as a
ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, will hardly be conducive to love of condition for receipt of diploma.
country or respect for duly constituted authorities. • Furthermore, the act of the principal in giving the guidelines to the rabbi violates the
• Free exercise of religion is the rule, not the exception. latter’s free exercise of religion, and violates non-establishment because the principal
is a public officer.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) – Amish students not required to go to school upon reaching 15
: Even the power of the State to impose reasonable regulations for the control of basic education Church of the Lukumi v. City of Hialeah (1993) – animal sacrifice : Although the practice
must yield to the rights of parents to provide an equivalent education. of animal sacrifice may seem abhorrent to some, “religious beliefs need not be acceptable,
• To have the protection of the religion clauses, the claims must be rooted in religious logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.”
belief. • Smith Test: 1. Neutral – if the object of a law is to infringe upon or restrict practices
because of their religious motivation, the law is not neutral.
2. General application
21 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
Lamb’s Chapel v. School District (1993) – film series regarding values played in school by • Morality may be religious – what is good depends on the moral prescriptions of a high
religious institution : The showing of the film series would not have been during school hours, moral authority or the beliefs of a particular religion.
would not have been sponsored by the school, and would have been open to the public, not just • Morality may be secular – what is good or right at a given circumstance does not
to church members. derive its basis from any religious doctrine but form the independent moral sense
• Cornelius – the government violates the First Amendment when it denies access to a shared as humans.
speaker solely to suppress the point of view he espouses on an otherwise permitted
subject. Test Requisites
Long v. Basa (2001) – basis of religious organization is the belief : Exception to the non- Non-establishment clause
interference rule is when the act violates the civil rights of its members. 1. Secular legislative purpose;
2. Primary effect that neither
INC v. CA (1996) – remarks about the bible in a tv show : The Movie and Television Lemon test advances nor inhibits religion; and
Regulation and Classification Board (MTRCB) may disagree with the criticisms of other 3. No excessive government
religions, but that gives it no excuse to interdict such criticisms, however unclean they may be. entanglement with religion.
Under our constitutional scheme, it is not the tast of the State to favor any religion by protecting
it against an attack by another religion. Free exercise clause
1. Neutral; and
Estrada v. Escritor (2003 and 2006) – court official with live-in partner; benevolent Strict neutrality : Smith Test
2. General application.
neutrality : The respondent has made out a case for exemption from the law based on her
fundamental right to freedom of religion. 1. Burden on the belief;
• Benevolent neutrality test: 2. Sincere belief in religion;
Benevolent neutrality : Schempp Test
1. Burden on freedom of religion; 3. Compelling state interest; and
4. Narrowly tailored.
2. Compelling state interest; and
3. Least restrictive means. When free exercise clause coincides with right to speech and
expression, use clear and present danger test.
In re: Request of Muslim Employees (2005) – ramadan and prayer day friday : The
performance of religious practices, whether by the Muslim employees or those belonging to
other religious denominations, should not prejudice the courts and the public. SEC. 6. THE LIBERTY OF ABODE AND OF CHANGING THE SAME WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED
BY LAW SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED EXCEPT UPON LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT. NEITHER
SHALL THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL BE IMPAIRED EXCEPT IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY,
Iglesia Filipino Independiente v. Heirs of Taezo (2014) – selling of church property by
PUBLIC SAFETY , OR PUBLIC HEALTH, AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
supreme bishop : Sec. 113 of the Corporation Code provides that in cases where the rules,
regulations and discipline of the religious denomination, sect or church, religious society or
order concerned represented by such corporation sole regulate the method of acquiring, holding, Villavicencio v. Lukban (1919) – deported prostitutes : The forcible taking of these women
selling and mortgaging real estate and personal property, such rules, regulations and discipline from Manila by officials of that city, who handed them over to other parties, who deposited
shall control, and the intervention of the courts shall not be necessary. them in a distant region, deprived these women of their freedom of locomotion just as effectively
as if they had been imprisoned. It is always a law (or order of the court) that may affect the
Ronulo v. People (2014) – marriage ceremony form : Contrary to petitioner’s argument that liberty of locomotion.
separation of Church and State precludes the State from qualifying the church “blessing” into a
marriage ceremony, this principle has been duly preserved by Art. 6 of the Family Code which Marcos v. Manglapus (1989) – right to return to country not included : The right to return
provides that “No prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of marriage is required. to one’s country is separate and distinct from the right to travel. The right to return to one’s
country is not specifically guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. It is the Universal Declaration of
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (2015) – tarpaulin about rh bill and candidates : The Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
essence of the separation of Church and State is that each of them cannot prohibit, inhibit, or the provides for such. However, the State may validly deny the same in the interest of national
interfere with the other. Those part of the congregation are also citizens of the State. security.
Perfecto v. Esidera (2015) – immoral conduct : For purposes of determining administrative Silverio v. CA (1991) – right to bail; hold departure order : Holding an accused in a criminal
liability of court personnel, lawyers and judges, “immoral conduct” should relatie to their case within the reach of the courts by preventing his departure from the Philippines must be
conduct as officers of the court. considered as a valid restriction on his right to travel so that he may be dealt with in accordance
with law.
22 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
• Bail – the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished • The right to information and right to access of records and cdocuments is a form of
by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any court when so political right.
required by the court or the Rules.
Information and Access to Official Records
Santiago v. Vasquez (1993) – anti-graft and corrupt practices : The object of bail is to relieve
the accused of imprisonment and the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and Legaspi v. CSC (1987) – eligibility of sanitarians : The writ of mandamus is available for
at the same time, to put the accused as much under the power of the court as if he were. In the ministerial functions. If discretionary function, mandamus is not allowed.
custody of the proper officer, and to secure the appearance of the accused so as to answer the • Guidelines:
call of the court and do what the law may require of him. 1. Information is of public concern;
• The court can impose limits only on the basis of national security, public safety, public § Public concern – embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the
health, and as may be provided by law. However, the same should by no means be public has a right to know, either because they are directly
construed as delimiting the inherent power of the courts to use all means necessary to affected or simply because it arouses the interest of an ordinary
carry their orders into effect in criminal cases pending before them. Thus, Santiago’s citizen.
educational purpose is not an exemption. 2. The petitioner must have locus standi; and
3. If denied, the remedy is a Writ of Mandamus.
Marcos v. Sandiganbayan (1995) – medical purpose : Considering the fact that the petitioner • For information to be subject to mandamus:
is facing charges before the courts in several cases, in two of which she was convicted although 1. Information is of public concern; and
the decision is still pending reconsideration, petitioner did not have an absolute right to leave 2. Not among those exempted by law.
the country and the burden was on her to prove that because of danger to health if not to her life a. National security matters;
there was necessity to seek medical treatment in foreign countries. b. Trade secrets and banking transactions;
c. Criminal matters; and
Yap v. CA (2001) – not disallowed, merely requiring certification from mayor prior to d. Other confidential information.
change of residence : The petitioner herein is not prohibited from changing his abode, but only
required to secure a permit for the change of residence from the mayor. Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr. (1989) – batasang pambansa members in pdp-laban and unido
party : Petitioners are entitled to access to the documents evidencing loans granted by the
Mirasol v. DPWH (2006) – motorcycle prohibition : The right to travel does not mean the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), subject to reasonable regulations that the latter
right to choose any vehicle in traversing the toll way. The right to travel refers to the right to may promulgate relating to the manner and hours of examination.
move from one place to another. Petitioners are not being deprived of their right to use the
limited access facility. They are merely being required, just like the rest of the public, to adhere Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato (1991) – mtrcb officers voiting : The nature of the MTRCB
to the rules on how to use the facility. operation is public service. The so called “conscience votes” were given by the officers in the
exercise of their public duty, thus of public concern.
Office of Administrative Services v. Macarine (2012) – permission before travel of court
personal and judges : The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular requiring that all Osmeña v. COMELEC (1998) – speech and electoral process; right to informed judgment;
foreign travels of judges and court personnel must be with prior permission from the court is limitation on print space and air time : What is involved here is simply a regulation. Instead
valid to ensure management of court dockets and to avoid disruption in the administration of of leaving candidates to advertise freely in the mass media, the law provides for allocation, by
justice and in public service. the COMELEC, of print space and air time to give all candidates equal time and space for the
purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
Republic v. Roque (2013) – right to travel and bail : Requiring the accused to stay within the • Given the fact that print space and air time can be controlled or dominated by rich
city or municipality is a valid restriction of the right to travel because it is for the interest of the candidates to the disadvantage of poor candidates, there is a substantial or legitimate
people of the Philippines. Furthermore, a facial challenge is not allowed unless it is an affront government interest justifying the regulation.
to right to free speech. • Furthermore, the right of the people to an informed judgment when exercising the
right to suffrage is recognized.
SEC. 7. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO INFORMATION ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN SHALL
BE RECOGNIZED. ACCESS TO OFFICIAL RECORDS , AND TO DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice (1988) – death penalty : The requirement of confidentiality of
PERTAINING TO OFFICIAL ACTS, TRANSACTIONS , OR DECISIONS, AS WELL AS TO GOVERNMENT the contents of the manual even with respect to the convict, as provided by RA 8177 Sec. 19, is
RESEARCH DATA USED AS BASIS FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT, SHALL BE AFFORDED THE unduly repressive.
CITIZEN, SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW. • Internal manuals – the requirement of confidentiality of the contents of the manual
containing the details and procedure of administering lethal injection with respect to
Chavez v. PCGG (1988) – properties of ferdinand marcos : The right to information and Bantay v. COMELEC (2007) – list of party-list nominees : Every right of the people
access thereto does not include any and all information, only definitive propositions that the recognized as fundamental lies a corresponding duty on the part of those who govern to respect
Government is ready to disclose. and protect that right. Every citizen by the simple fact of his citizenship, possesses the right to
• Definitive proposition – when the committee/body makes its official recommendation be informed.
on the part of the government. From this moment, the public’s right to information • While the vote case in a party-list elections is a vote for a party, such vote, in the end,
attaches and any citizen can access all the non-proprietary information leading to such would be a vote for its nominees, who, in appropriate cases, would eventually sit in
definitive proposition. the House of Representatives.
• The compromise agreement was unusual because it already discussed that some
properties would not be taxed, that there would be no civil and administrative liability. Berdin v. Mascarinas (2007) – cost for reproduction of tax ordinance : While access to
official records may not be prohibited, it certainly may be regulated. The regulation may come
Gonzales v. Narvasa (2000) – preparatory commission on constitutional reform : The either from statutory law and from the inherent power of an officer to control his office and the
public matters concerned herein are the appointments made to public offices and the utilization records under his custody and to exercise some discretion as to the manner in which persons
of public property. desiring to inspect, examine, or copy the record may exercise their rights.
Chavez v. PEA (2002) – reclamation of manila bay : The information, however, must Chavez v. NHA (2007) – comprehensive and integrated metropolitan manila waste
constitute definite propositions by the government and should not cover recognized exceptions management plan; smokey mountain development : Pending the enactment of an enabling
like privileged information, military and diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting law, the release of information through postings in public bulletin boards and government
national security and public order. websites satisfies the constitutional requirement.
• A consummated contract is not a requirement for the exercise of the right to
information. Neri v. Senate (2008) – executive privilege; nbn-zte scandal : There are 2 kinds of executive
• The twin provisions seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in the privilege:
operations of the government, as well as provide the people sufficient information to • Presidential communications privilege – communications, documents or other
exercise effectively other constitutional rights. materials that reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations and that the
• The right to information covers 3 categories of information: President believes should remain confidential.
1. Official records – any document that is part of the public records in the o Requisites:
custody of government agencies or officials. 1. Quintessential and non-delegable presidential power;
2. Documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions and decisions 2. Operational proximity test; and
– documents and papers recording, evidencing, establishing, confirming, 3. Showing of compelling interest and unavailability elsewhere.
supporting, justifying or explaining official acts, transactions or decisions • Deliberative process privilege – advisory opinions, recommendations, and
of government agencies or officials. deliberations comprising part of a process by which government decisions and
3. Government research data used in formulating policies – research data, policies are formulated.
whether raw, collated or processed, owned by the government and used in o Requisites:
formulating government policies. 1. Pre-decisional; and
2. Deliberative.
Hilado v. Reyes (2006) – intestate proceedings : Although not all records may be of public
concern, the respondents herein are interested parties who, under the Rules of Court should be Suplico v. NEDA (2008) – notes of meeting between pgma and chinese president : The
granted access to the records. senate investigation in aid of legislation cannot be the basis of the court’s decision which
• Decisions and opinions of a court are of course matters of public concern or interest requires a judicial finding of facts. There was no perfected contract, petitioners wanted to find
for these are the authorized expositions and interpretations of the laws, binding upon out how the negotiations went.
all citizens, of which every citizen is charged with knowledge.
• Pleadings and other documents filed by parties to a case need not be matters of public Akbayan v. Aquino (2008) – jpepa diplomatic negotiations : There must be a “substantial
concern or public interest. Party requesting must be an interested party (one whose showing of need” to overcome the presumption of confidentiality.
rights will be affected).
Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel (2008) – moa-ad peace negotiations not
Sabio v. Gordon (2006) – exemption of pcgg officers from legislative inquiry : The conduct exempted : The peace negotiations was in the exploratory stage. Unless there is something that
of inquiries in aid of legislation is not only intended to benefit Congress but also the citizenry. is definitive, that is the portion where the people have the right to disclosure.
24 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
Guingona v. COMELEC (2010) – pcos machines : Information must be supplied even though SEC. 8. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, INCLUDING THOSE EMPLOYED IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
the elections were already finished. SECTORS, TO FORM UNIONS, OR SOCIETIES FOR PURPOSES NOT CONTRARY TO LAW SHALL NOT
BE ABRIDGED.
Antolin v. Domondon (2010) – cpa board exam : Matters of administration regarding the
checking of booklets is confidential. The Board cannot be compelled to re-correct the
examination of papers because it is part of their discretionary functions, not ministerial. TUPAS v. NHC (1989) – certification of election; labor organization : The workers or
employees of the National Housing Corporation (NHC) now have the right to form unions or
Center for People v. COMELEC (2010) – pcos source code : The political parties have a right employees’ organizations by express provision of the Constitution altering it to GOCCs “with
to information on the process of elections which is included in the source code. original charter.” Thus, those created under the general corporation code are allowed.
• Certification election – appointment of a representative labor organization among
Francisco v. TRB (2010) – toll facilities on public improvements : The confidentiality clause other organizations.
herein is valid because it is not a blanket confidentiality clause, that disclosure will be made if • General law – Corporation Code of the Philippines. Government is only an owner of
there is a law requiring the same. It was allowed because the party is not the Government itself, shares of stock.
but the Government Owned and Controlled Corporation (GOCC). • Exampme: Makati Public School Teachers Association and Samahan ng Public
Teachers ng Makati (sorry idk how to “tagalize” this lol) – can there by a certification
Initiatives v. PSALM (2012) – privatization of the angat hydro-electic power plant : election?
PSALM’s evasive response (referral to K-water’s counsel) to the second request for information o No. Not allowed by law because certification means that one is a dominant
was unjustified because documents such as the company profile and names of authorized association “for the purpose of bargaining.” However, public school
officers/representatives were already in their custody. teachers’ organizations cannot bargain because their terms are provided by
law.
Privatization and Management Office v. Strategic Alliance (2013) – right and duty in
relation to art. 2, sec. 28 : Petitioner unsuccessfully anchors its claim on a violation of the SSSEA v. CA (1989) – strike by sss employees : Public labor unions cannot have a bargaining
public’s right to information because the said right merely gives access to public records, and unit because their benefits are afforded by law. Government instrumentalities’ employees do not
does not give rise to a positive right to obtain a Notice of Award of the Philippine National have the right to strike.
Construction Corporation (PNCC) properties.
MPST v. Laguio, Jr. (1991) – strike by manila public school teachers : Public teachers are
COCOFED v. COMELEC (2013) – party-list elections; list of nominees : The need for prohibited by CSC rules from striking. The dissent, however, recognized that they were
submission of the complete list required by law becomes all the more important in a party-list exercising their freedom of expression. Thus, outright dismissal from service is unreasonable.
election to apprise the electorate of the individuals behind the party they are voting for.
Sereno v. Committee (2016) – minutes of eo486 : Every claim of exemption, being a limitation UPSU v. Laguesma (1998) – route managers : Managers are not prohibited by law from
on a right constitutionally granted to the people, is liberally construed in favor of disclosure and joining organizations. However, they are not allowed to join rank-and-file unions. Managers are
strictly against the claim of confidentiality. It is the government agency concerned that has the not allowed to form associations “for the purpose of bargaining” because they are the ones who
burden of showing that the information sought to be obtained is not a matter of public concern, lay down the policies. Supervisory managers can join associations for the purpose of bargaining,
or that it is under the exemptions provided by law. however limited. Route managers are top managers.
Rule Requisites • 3 levels of management:
1. First-line managers – direct operating employees only; do not supervise
1. Information is of public concern; and
other managers.
2. Not among those exempted by law.
2. Middle managers – direct the activities of other managers and sometimes
a. National security matters;
Writ of mandamus also those of operating employees. Middle managers’ principal
b. Trade secrets and banking transactions;
responsibilities are to direct the activities that implement their
c. Criminal matters; and
organization’s policies and to balance the demands of their superiors with
d. Other confidential information.
the capacities of their subordinates.
1. Quintessential and non-delegable presidential power; 3. Top managers – responsible for overall management of the organization. It
Presidential
2. Operational proximity test; and establishes operating policies and guides the organization’s interactions
communications
3. Showing of compelling interest and unavailability with its environment.
privilege
elsewhere.
Deliberative process 1. Pre-decisional; and
privilege 2. Deliberative.
Expropriation in General OSG v. Ayala (2009) – parking fees : No cogent reason appears why the said power may not
be availed of only to impose a burden upon the owner of condemned property, without loss of
Vda. De Ouano v. Republic (2011) – expropriation of petitioners’ properties by the title and possession. It is usually in cases where title remains with the private owner that inquiry
national airport corporation : A condemnor should commit to use the property pursuant to the should be made to determine whether the impairment of property is merely regulated or amounts
purpose stated in the petition for expropriation, failing which it should file another petition for to a compensable taking.
the new purpose. If not, then it behooves the condemnor to return the said property to its private
owner, if the latter so desires. Public Use
Power to Undertake Expropriation Case Sumulong v. Guerrero (1987) – socialized housing : That only a few could actually benefit
from the expropriation of the property does not diminish its public use character. It is simply
Heirs of JBL Reyes v. City of Manila (2004) – eviction and unlawful detainer : Private lands not possible to provide all at once land and shelter for all who need them.
rank last in the order of priority for purposes of socialized housing. In the same vein, • Socialized housing is a public use pursuant to Art. XI Sec. 7 of the Constitution on
expropriation proceedings are to be resorted to only after the other modes of acquisition have adequate social services including housing.
been exhausted. Philippine Columbian Association v. Panis (1993) – taking of only small portion : Public
use now includes the broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage, including in
Rights of Owner Before Expropriation particular, urban land reform and housing.
• If delegated, the power is not called eminent domain, but “Power of Inferior Domain.”
Republic v. Salem (2000) – valid sale before expropriation : The sale made before the success
of the expropriation proceeding was validly made because the owners still had the rights to their Just Compensation
property. Thus, just compensation must be paid to the new owner as the sale was valid.
• Just compensation – just and complete equivalent of the loss, which the owner has to
Elements of Taking
suffer by reason of the expropriation.
• Market value – price fixed by the buyer and seller in the ordinary course of legal trade
Republic v. Vda. De Castelvi (1974) – taking of the property by the government : There
and competition.
was no taking in this case because it was not permanent (lease agreement), and the owner still
• Consequential damages – diminution of the other interests of the owner by reason of
had the rights attached to the same because she was not ousted as the owner thereof.
the expropriation.
26 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
• Consequential benefits – addition of the other interests of the owner by reason of the De Knecht v. Bautista (1980) – transfer of plan : Whether the party adversely affected is a
expropriation. victim of partiality or prejudice is a judicial question. Legislation may be for the expropriation
of specific property.
City of Manila v. Estrada (1913) – admissibility of evidence about just compensation : Fair • The findings of the Human Settlements Commission are based on:
market value is the price fixed by one who is desirous, but not obliged to sell, and one who 1. Functionality;
desires, but is not obliged to buy. 2. Social impact; and
• Testimony as to mere offers for the property desired or for contiguous property – it 3. Costs.
depends – in this case, it is not admissible because the price paid by Estrada for a
contiguous property was not accompanied with a showing of absolute good faith. Manotok v. NHA (1987) – nationwide slum improvement and resettlement program : The
• Testimony relative to real estate transactions in the vicinity of the land desired – it due process clause cannot be rendered nugatory every time a specific decree or law orders the
depends – in this case, the witnesses herein were professional real estate agents, both expropriation of property and provides its own peculiar manner of taking the same.
had been active in the vicinity at about the time they testified before the • Neither should the courts adopt a hands-off policy just because he public use has been
commissioners. ordained as existing by the decree or the just compensation has been fixed and
o Factors affecting probative value: determined beforehand by the statute.
1. Similarity of the land to that in question; • Where there is an alleged taking of a person’s property, his right to due process has
2. Time when such sales were made; and been violated, the courts will have to step in to probe into such alleged violation.
3. Distance such lands are from those the value of which is the • Presidential Decree stating automatic expropriation is unconstitutional because the
subject of inquiry. courts must determine just compensation.
• Evidence showing prices paid for neighboring land under eminent domain
proceedings – inadmissible – in this case, the expropriation proceeding relied on Republic v. De Knecht (1990) – change in circumstances; no res judicata : No res judicata
(Clarke transaction) included consequential damages, which are absent in this case. because the former decision was based on a general legislation for expropriation, while the
• View of the premises conducted by the commissioners – admissible – however, not decision herein is based on the later enactment of legislation designating the area as available
controlling. The determination of just compensation is still a judicial power. for expropriation due to the change in circumstances, that the residence therein before had
already moved out except for one.
San Roque v. Republic (2007) – initial deposit as pre-condition to entry : Eminent domain
cases are to be strictly construed against the expropriator. Thus, when the respondent herein Rule Requisites
claimed that the evidence of payment was lost due to the war, it cannot be countenanced.
Moreover, even if the initial deposit was disbursed to the lot owners, it would still be insufficient 1. Property taken must be private property;
to cover just compensation. If it was successful, an annotation on the title would have been 2. Genuine necessity to take the private property;
made. Valid expropriation 3. Public use;
4. Just compensation; and
Republic v. BPI (2013) – consequential damages : Just compensation = (market value + 5. Due process.
consequential damages) – consequential benefits. The general rule is that the just compensation 1. Valid and definite offer was made but rejected by the
to which the owner is entitled to is the market value. However, it is modified when only a part owner;
of a certain property is expropriated. In such case, the owner is not restricted to compensation Expropriation by LGU 2. Ordinance enacted authorizing such exercise;
for the portion actually taken, plus consequential damages, if any, on the remaining part of the 3. Public use; and
property. 4. Just compensation.
• Herein respondent was not able to make effective use of its building because of the
1. Expropriator must enter the private property;
expropriation. Even though the building was untouched because the full plan was not
2. Entrance must not be for a momentary period;
accomplished, failure to notify respondent of the same was held against the petitioner.
3. Entry must be made under warrant or color of legal
authority;
NPC v. Manalastas (2016) – transmission lines in naga; inflation rate of peso : The formula Elements of taking
4. Property must be devoted to public use; and
for just compensation to landowners does not include the factor for inflation rate, as inflation is
5. Utilization of property is in such a way as to oust the
properly accounted for through payment of interest on the amount due to the landowner, and
owner and deprive him of all beneficial use of the
through the award of damages and attorney’s fees.
property.
Judicial Review 1. No public purpose;
May be a taking when 2. Harsh impact on owner’s use of the property; or
3. Complete destruction of rights of land of the owners.
27 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
Other rules from Bernas Commentary: Presley v. Bel-Air Village Association (1991) – deed of restriction; hot pan de sal store :
• Owner – all persons who have an interest in the property to be condemned. Contractual stipulations on the use of the land even if said conditions are annotated on the
• Rule 67 of Rules of Court Torrens title can be impaired if necessary to reconcile with the legitimate exercise of police
o Deposit in the court of the amount equivalent to the assessed value for power.
tax purpose can give rise to immediate possession.
Miners Association v. Factoran (1995) – transitory provision; product-sharing agreement
• RA 7160 Sec. 10 – Infrastructure – initial deposit of 15% of the fair market value
: There is a reservation clause in the transitory provisions wherein mining agreements granted
based on the tax declaration of the property; must be a direct payment to the owner.
after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution may be subjected to any and all modifications or
alterations which Congress may adopt. Moreover, there is no automatic conversion to product-
SEC. 10. NO LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS SHALL BE PASSED. sharing agreement because the same generally involves negotiations.
Ortigas v. Feati (1979) – deed of restriction; zoning ordinance : The contractual obligations
• Reserved (police) power – all contracts are made subject to an implied reservation of so assumed cannot prevail over the zoning resolution of the Municipality of Mandaluyong
the protective power of the State and that therefore statutes, which validly exercise converting the same land to a commercial zone which was validly exercised as a police power
this reserved power does not impair contracts. measure.
• To fall within the prohibition, the change must: SWS v. COMELEC (2015) – disclosure of names of subscribers : Not only an important or
1. Impair the obligations in an existing contract – with reference to the parties, substantial state interest, but even a compelling one anchors the resolution’s requirement of
not non-parties; and disclosing subscribers to election surveys. It effects the constitutional policy of “guaranteeing
2. Impairment must be substantial. equal access to opportunities for public service and is impelled by the imperative of fair
elections.
Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934) - minessota mortgage
moratorium law : Not only are existing laws read into contracts in order to fix obligations as Philconsa v. Enriquez (1994) – general appropriations act; military equipment : The
between the parties, but the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power is also read President’s purpose for vetoing the provision is that the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
into contracts as a postulate of the legal order. Modernization Act is to provide funds for all purposes. However, in the vetoed provision, it
• Mortgage Moratorium Law is a valid exercise of police power. merely specified the subject of such funds.
• The extension granted does not substantially affect the object of the obligations in the
contracts of mortgage of the parties herein.
SEC. 11. FREE ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES AND ADEQUATE LEGAL
• Criteria for valid exercise not violative of non-impairment clause:
ASSISTANCE SHALL NOT BE DENIED TO ANY PERSON BY REASON OF POVERTY.
1. Presence of an emergency which furnishes a proper occasion for the
exercise of the reserved power of the State to protect the vital interests of
the community. In Re: Exemption From the Payment of Sherriff’s Expenses (2013) – sheriff’s expenses as
2. Legislation must be addressed to a legitimate end; legal fees : Requiring PAO’s clients to pay sheriff’s expenses, despite their exemption from the
3. Relief afforded and justified by the emergency could only be of a character payment of docket and other legal fees, would effectively fetter their free access to the courts
appropriate for that emergency; and thereby negating the laudable intent of Congress in enacting R.A. No. 9406.
4. Legislation is temporary in operation. • Sheriff’s expenses – the amount deposited to the Clerk of Court upon filing of the
complaint to defray the actual travel expenses of the sheriff, process server or other
Rutter v. Esteban (1953) – ra342 moratorium law : The obligations have been pending since court- authorized persons in the service of summons, subpoena and other court
1945 as a result of the issuance of EOs 25 and 32 and at present their enforcement is still processes that would be issued relative to the trial of the case.
inhibited because of the enactment of RA 352 and would continue to be unenforceable during • Sheriff’s fees – those imposed by the court for services rendered to a party incident to
the 8-year period granted to prewar debtors to afford them an opportunity to rehabilitate the proceedings before it.
themselves is unreasonable. • The Court clarified that sheriff’s expenses are not considered as legal fees. The
intention to make a distinction between the two charges is clear; otherwise, the Rules
Abella v. NLRC (1987) – art284 of labor code : The purpose of the article is the protection of would not have used different designations (fee and expenses).
the workers whose employment is terminated because of the closure of establishment and • The Court hereby authorizes the officials and employees of PAO to serve summons,
reduction of personnel. As correctly observed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the subpoena and other court processes pursuant to Section 3, Rule 14 of the Rules of
article refers to employment benefits to farm hands who were not parties to petitioner’s lease Court. Such authority shall be limited only to cases involving their client.
contract with the owner of the hacienda.
People v. Sunga (2003) – accused voluntarily gave answers to questions and at the end of Gamboa v. Judge Cruz (1988) – during police line-up, complainant pointed to the accused
the investigation affixed his signature on the recorded statement : The independent counsel stating that he is a companion. Thereafter, the accused was told to sit down in front of the
for the accused in custodial investigations cannot be a special counsel, public or private complainant while the latter was interrogated : The moment there is a move or even an urge
prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information (any brain
to the accused. activity) which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he should then
• The right to counsel was denied Sunga during his execution of Exhibit "A" - admission and there be assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall be made in
before the police on the ground that the counsel who assisted him, Atty. Agustin writing and in the presence of counsel. (Only stand up; If only 2 people in line-up, it could be a
Rocamora, was the City Legal Officer of Puerto Princesa. violation if the accused is being singled out)
• A legal officer of the city, like Atty. Rocamora, provides legal aid and support to the
mayor and the city in carrying out the delivery of basic services to the people, which When Custodial Investigation May Not Apply – Marked Money
includes maintenance of peace and order and, as such, his office is akin to that of a
prosecutor who unquestionably cannot represent the accused during custodial People v. Linsangan (1991) – signed marked money without counsel : His conviction was
investigation due to conflict of interest. not based on the presence of his initials on the marked money, but on the fact that the trial court
o That Sunga chose him to be his counsel, even if true, did not render his believed the testimony of the policemen that they arrested him while he was actually engaged
admission admissible. in selling marijuana cigarettes to a member of the arresting party.
• The Court disregarded the issue on admissibility of the marked money, but by analogy
Ø Who are not independent counsel: with Ang Chun Kit, it would not have been admissible.
1. Special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a • Personal suggestion : subscribe to Atty. Santiago’s position that as long as there is
municipal attorney whose interest is adverse to that of the accused; brain activity, the Court would rule that the same is inadmissible.
2. Mayor;
3. Barangay captain; or When Custodial Investigation May Not Apply – Booking Sheets
4. Any other whose interest may be adverse to that of the accused.
People v. Ang Chun Kit (1995) – signing booking sheets without counsel : The Booking
People v. Ibañez (2013) – police line-up; handwritten confession implicated accused : The Sheet is merely a statement of the accused's being booked and of the date which accompanies
Court made the following ruling: the fact of an arrest. It is a police report and may be useful in charges of arbitrary detention
• Police line-up – the law enforcers must state relevant details surrounding the police against the police themselves. It is not an extra-judicial statement and cannot be the basis of a
line-up which renders the out-of-court identification as reliable. judgment of conviction.
• Confession – Nabligas was already under custodial investigation by the authorities
when he executed the alleged written confession. He was not accompanied by The Exclusionary Rule – When Must the Objection be Raised
effective and vigilant counsel when he made the extrajudicial confession.
Macasiray v. People (1998) – extrajudicial confession was offered at the conclusion of the
When Custodial Investigation May Not Apply – Voluntary Surrender presentation of evidence for the prosecution, the accused objected to its admissibility on
the ground that it was given without counsel : Objection to evidence must be made after the
People v. Chavez (2014) – accused accompanied by mother to voluntarily surrender : Even evidence is formally offered.
those who voluntarily surrendered before a police officer must be apprised of their Miranda • Offer – made after all the witnesses of the party making the offer have testified,
rights. specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being offered. It is only at this time,
• The mother’s statement is considered hearsay, with no evidentiary value, since and not at any other, that objection to the documentary evidence may be made.
Chavez’s mother was never presented as a witness during trial to testify on her • The identification of the document before it is marked as an exhibit does not constitute
statement. the formal offer of the document as evidence for the party presenting it.
• Requisites for confession to be admissible:
1. Voluntary; Additional Case
2. Assistance of competent and independent counsel;
3. Expressed; Galman v. Ver (1985) – PD 1886 was promulgatedcreating an ad hoc Fact Finding Board
4. In writing; and aka the Agrava Board for investigation of Sen. Aquino’s Assassination : The Board is in
5. Signed or thumb-marked. truth and in fact, and to all legal intents andpurposes, an entity charged, not only with the
function of determining thefacts and circumstances surrounding the killing, but more
People v. Abner (1950) – bail on recognizance : a person (there are qualifications) as surety
has an obligation of record entered into before a court guaranteeing the appearance of the Ø Due process – that procedure established by law to fully protect life, liberty, and property
accused for trial. It is in the nature of a contract between the surety and the State. of the citizens of the State.
Ø Trial is public when attendance is open to all irrespective of relationship to the defendant. Carredo v. People – waiver of appearance; called to appear for identification purposes :
o Exception: When the evidence presented may be characterized as offensive to Such waiver of appearance and trial in absentia does not mean that the prosecution is thereby
decency or public morals, the proceeding may be limited to friends, relatives and deprived of its right to require the presence of the accused for purposes of identification by its
counsel. witnesses which is vital for the conviction of the accused.
• The accused may waive his right but not his duty or obligation to the court.
In Re: Oliver (1948) – one-man grand jury : Grand juries investigate, and the usual end of • However, he may be absent if he unqualifiedly admits in open court after arraignment
their investigation is either a report, a 'no-bill' or an indictment. They do not try and they do not that he is the person named as the defendant in the case on trial.
convict.
• In the case before us, the petitioner was called as a witness to testify in secret before Ø Scope of right to be present at trial – between arraignment and promulgation of sentence.
a one-man grand jury conducting a grand jury investigation. Ø Requisites of trial in absentia:
o However, the investigation became a 'trial,' the grand jury became a judge, 1. Accused already arraigned;
and the witness became an accused charged with contempt of court-all in 2. Duly notified of the trial; and
secret. 3. Failure to appear is unjustifiable.
• Contempt may be cited, when (Terry case) : The 'violence and misconduct' of both
the heckler and the marshal's assailant occurred within the 'personal view' of the judge, SEC. 15. THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHALL NOT BE SUSPENDED EXCEPT
'under his own eye,' and actually interrupted the trial of a case then under way. IN CASES OF INVASION OR REBELLION, WHEN THE PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES IT.
• Contempt proceeding is not necessarily criminal, but because of the penalty
prescribed, it seems penal.
Ø Writ of habeas corpus – writ directed to the person detaining another commanding him
Right to Confrontation, to Cross-examine, or to Meet Witnesses Face to Face to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause
of his caption and detention, to do, submit to, and receive whatever the court or judge
Ø Purpose of right to confrontation: awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf.
1. Afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of the witness by cross- o Purpose: To inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from
examination; and voluntary, and to relieve any person therefrom if such restraint is illegal.
2. For the judge to observe the deportation of the witness. o Primary requisite is deprivation of liberty:
Ø Exception to right to confrontation: 1. External or moral compulsion;
1. Dying declaration – declaration made in extremity; when the party is at the point 2. Founded or groundless fear; and
of death; and 3. Erroneous belief in the existence of an imaginary power of an impostor
2. Trial in absentia. to cause harm if not blindly obeyed.
Ø Right to continuance (postponement) by reason of absence of witness: • If the actual effect of such psychological spell is to place a
1. Witness is material; person at the mercy of another.
2. Party is not negligent; o Once charges are filed in court, habeas corpus is no longer available.
3. Witness will be available at the time desired; and
4. No similar evidence could be obtained. Ø Privilege of the writ of habeas corpus – right to have an immediate determination of the
legality of the deprivation of physical liberty.
Tampar v. Usman (1991) – yamin : Said provision effectively deprives a litigant of his o Requisites of suspension:
constitutional right to due process. It denies a party his right to confront the witnesses against 1. Existence of actual invasion or rebellion; and
him and to cross-examine them. 2. Public safety requires the suspension.
• Yamin rules: o Effect: Temporarily prevent courts from inquiring into the legality of the
1. If the plaintiff has no evidence to prove his claim, the defendant shall take detention.
an oath and judgment shall be rendered in his favor by the Court. o Does not come with the suspension of bail.
2. Should the defendant refuse to take an oath, the plaintiff shall affirm his • Filing of formal charges is deemed an executive waiver of the
claim under oath in which case, judgment shall be rendered in his favor. suspension.
3. Should the plaintiff refuse to affirm his claim under oath, the case shall be
dismissed.
Binay v. Sandiganbayan (1999) – malversation and violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Villaflor v. Summers (1920) – petitioner cited for contempt because of not complying with
Practices Act : The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is order to be subjected to pregnancy test : An ocular inspection of the body of the accused is
deemed violated only when the proceedings is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive permissible. The proviso is that torture of force shall be avoided.
delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when • It is a reasonable presumption that in an examination by reputable and disinterested
without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party physicians due care will be taken not to use violence and not to embarrass the patient
having his case tried. any more than is absolutely necessary.
• As compared with the case of Tatad v. Sandiganbayan, therein the ombudsman
rendered its report after 3 years considering the files were not voluminous. Herein, the Beltran v. Samson (1929) – forced to write down the dictation of judge in case of
files were voluminous but the ombudsman was able to render its report in less than 3 falsification : Writing is something more than moving the body, or the hands, or the fingers;
years. writing is not a purely mechanical act, because it requires the application of intelligence and
attention; and in the case at bar writing means that the petitioner herein is to furnish a means to
SEC. 17. NO PERSON SHALL BE COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF. determine whether or not he is the falsifier, as the petition of the respondent fiscal clearly states.
Cabal v. Kapunan, Jr. (1962) – committee was created, and requested petitioner to take
Right Against Self-incrimination the witness stand and be sworn to as witness for a charge of graft and corruption : A person
may not be compelled to testify in an action against him for a penalty or to answer any question
Ø General rule: Compulsory production of private books and documents of the owner is as a witness which would subject him to a penalty or forfeiture, where the penalty or forfeiture
compelling him to be a witness against himself. is imposed as a vindication of the public justice of the state.
o Exceptions: • Although the investigation was based on an administrative charge, it did not anymore
1. When pursuant to a subpoena issued by the court; and seek to remove the petitioner from his position (as he no longer held the same), but to
2. When records are required by law to be kept in order that there may be enforce the provisions of RA 1379 (Anti-Graft Law), particularly for the forfeiture of
suitable information of transactions which are the appropriate subjects property out of proportion to his salary.
of governmental regulation and the enforcement of restrictions validly
established. Pascual, Jr. v. Board of Medical Examiners (1969) – administrative case of immorality and
malpractice; board required petitioner to testify : In an administrative hearing against a
US v. Navarro (1904) – Art. 483 of Penal Code provides that one who illegally detains medical practitioner for alleged malpractice, respondent Board of Medical Examiners cannot,
another and fails to give information concerning his whereabouts, or does not prove that consistently with the self-incrimination clause, compel the person proceeded against to take the
he set him at liberty, shall be punished with cadena temporal (temporary sentence) in its witness stand without his consent.
maximum degree to life imprisonment. : Unconstitutional because the burden is put upon the • Result of the investigation would be loss of license which is a form of penalty.
accused of giving evidence if he desires to lessen the penalty, or, in other words, of criminating
himself, for the very statement of the whereabouts of the victim or the proof that the defendant Nature of Case State Witness / Accused Ordinary Witness
set him at liberty amounts to a confession that the defendant unlawfully detained the person.
• He may refuse to take • He may not refuse to
• For failure on the part of the defendant to testify regarding the whereabouts of the the witness stand take the witness stand.
person deprived of his liberty, or to prove that he was set at liberty, the punishment during the trial or
may be increased from imprisonment for a term of six years to life imprisonment. Criminal Case
custodial investigation. • He may refuse to
• If on trial, one may answer an
US v. Tan Teng (1912) – body inspection used against him; gonorrhea :Tthe prohibition of
refuse to answer. incriminating question.
compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness against himself, is a prohibition of the use
People v. Echegaray (1997) – RA 7659 Death Penalty Law for heinous crimes : Capital
SEC. 18. (1) NO PERSON SHALL BE DETAINED SOLELY BY REASON OF HIS POLITICAL BELIEFS
punishment ought not to be abolished solely because it is substantially repulsive, if infinitely
AND ASPIRATIONS.
less repulsive than the acts which invoke it.
• Heinous crimes – the crimes punishable by death under this Act are heinous for being
(2) NO INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IN ANY FORM SHALL EXIST EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR A
grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or
CRIME WHEREOF THE PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY CONVICTED.
manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and
outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just
Ø Involuntary servitude – every condition of enforced or compulsory service of one to civilized and ordered society.
another no matter under what form such servitude may be disguised. • Conditions for the imposition of death penalty:
o Exceptions: 1. Congress define or describe what is meant by heinous crimes;
1. If such is punishment where a party is convicted; 2. Heinous crimes should be involved; and
2. In the interest of national defense, citizens may be compelled to render 3. Congress should be singularly motivated by compelling reason involving
personal military or civil service; heinous crimes.
3. Return-to-work order;
4. Merchants and marines compelled to remain until the end of voyage; Corpuz v. People (2014) – additional 1 year for each P10,000 above P20,000 in crime of
5. A posse comitatus – a male at a certain age may be validly pressed into estafa : The prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments is generally aimed at the form or
service for the apprehension of criminals through legitimate exercise character of the punishment rather than its severity in respect of duration or amount, and applies
of police power; and to punishments which public sentiment has regarded as cruel or obsolete, for instance, those
6. Parental authority. inflicted at the whipping post, or in the pillory, burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel,
disemboweling, and the like.
SEC. 19. (1) EXCESSIVE FINES SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED, NOR CRUEL, DEGRADING OR INHUMAN • Fine and imprisonment would not thus be within the prohibition.
PUNISHMENT INFLICTED. NEITHER SHALL DEATH PENALTY BE IMPOSED , UNLESS, FOR • The Court is ill-equipped, has no resources, and lacks sufficient personnel to conduct
COMPELLING REASONS INVOLVING HEINOUS CRIMES , THE CONGRESS HEREAFTER PROVIDES public hearings and sponsor studies and surveys to validly effect these changes in our
FOR IT. ANY DEATH PENALTY ALREADY IMPOSED SHALL BE REDUCED TO RECLUSION Revised Penal Code. This function clearly and appropriately belongs to Congress.
PERPETUA.
SEC. 20. NO PERSON SHALL BE IMPRISONED FOR DEBT OR NON-PAYMENT OF A POLL TAX.
(2) THE EMPLOYMENT OF PHYSICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, OR DEGRADING PUNISHMENT AGAINST
ANY PRISONER OR DETAINEE OR THE USE OF SUBSTANDARD OR INADEQUATE PENAL
FACILITIES UNDER SUBHUMAN CONDITIONS SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY LAW. Ø Debt – liability to pay money growing out of contract, express or implied.
o Exception:
1. Fraudulent debt constitutes a crime (estafa); and
Cruel, Degrading or Inhuman Punishment; Excessive Fines 2. Debtor has been duly convicted.
Ø Poll tax – cedula or residence tax.
Ø A fine is excessive when it is disproportionate to the circumstance of the offense.
Ø Guidelines to determine if not cruel and unusual:
1. Punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to human dignity;
2. Not arbitrary;
Lozano v. Martinez (1986) – constitutionality of BP 22 : The gravamen of the offense Attachment of Jeopardy
punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is People v. Ylagan (1933) – accused pleaded not guilty; private prosecutor and provincial
dishonored upon its presentation for payment. prosecutor moved for the dismissal; 11 days later acting provincial prosecutor filed
• The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of another information charging the same accused with the same offense of serious physical
the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks injuries : The rule against double jeopardy protects the accused not against the peril of second
and putting them in circulation. punishment, but against being again tried for the same offense.
• Requisites for double jeopardy:
PROBLEM: If 1M is borrowed for investment purposes, with a promise to pay the principal 1. In a court of competent jurisdiction;
amount plus 20% interest per month. After 6 months, all the money was lost. 2. Upon a valid complaint or information;
• The lender cannot file a criminal case of estafa if no fraud is present. 3. After being arraigned; and
• Contractual obligation not criminal in nature. 4. After pleading to the complaint or information.
• The mere silence of the defendant or his failure to object to the dismissal of the case
PROBLEM: …if simultaneous with the borrowing, the enticement is that he would be issuing does not constitute a consent within the meaning of section 28 of the Code of Criminal
checks with 20% interest. Procedure.
• Estafa and BP 22. • The mere calling of a witness would not add a particle to the danger, annoyance, and
• It is not simply a contractual debt, but the lender was enticed to lend with the issuance vexation suffered by the accused, after going through the process of being arrested,
of checks with interest. subjected to a preliminary investigation, arraigned, and required to plead and stand
trial.
SEC. 21. NO PERSON SHALL BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF PUNISHMENT FOR THE SAME
Termination of Jeopardy; Non-termination
OFFENSE. IF AN ACT IS PUNISHED BY LAW AND AN ORDINANCE, CONVICTION OR ACQUITTAL
UNDER EITHER SHALL CONSTITUTE A BAR TO ANOTHER PROSECUTION FOR THE SAME ACT.
Ø Termination shall bar:
1. Another prosecution for the same offense charged;
Ø Requisites for valid defense of double jeopardy: 2. Any attempt to commit the same;
1. First jeopardy must have attached prior to the 2nd; and 3. Or a frustration thereof;
§ Evidence of self-defense amounts to withdrawal of his original plea. 4. Or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
§ A defective complaint does not attaach jeopardy upon a grant of a complaint/information.
motion to quash. Ø An appeal by the prosecution from the Order of Dismissal by the trial court shall not
§ No jeopardy attaches if a court has no jurisdiction. constitute Double Jeopardy if:
2. First jeopardy must have terminated. 1. Dismissal is made upon motion, or with the express consent of the defendant;
3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. 2. Dismissal is not an acquittal based upon consideration of the evidence or the
Ø No jeopardy in: merits of the case;
1. Ordinary appeal; 3. Question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely legal so that should
2. Fact-finding; the dismissal be found incorrect, the case would have to be remanded to the court
3. Certiorari; of origin for further proceedings, in order to determine guilt/innocence of the
4. Impeachment; and defendant.
5. Inquiry in aid of legislation. Ø A verbal dismissal is not final until written down and signed by the judge.
Ø Types of jeopardy:
1. One act constitutes separate offenses, conviction/acquittal in one does not bar Bulaong v. People (1966) – accused was charged with rebellion; trial did not proceed; RA
prosecution for the other because one’s essential element is not an essential 1700 Anti-Subversion act was enacted; accused was arrested, information for rebellion
element in the other. was amended, and another information for subversion : It is the conviction, acquittal of the
2. One act constitutes separate offenses, except that one is prescribed by law and accused or dismissal or termination of the case that bars further prosecution for the same offense
the other by ordinance. or any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily
includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information.
• Accused has not been convicted or acquitted in the case filed in the Court of First
Instance against him for subversion. Neither was the said case dismissed or terminated
without his consent, for as stated, it is still pending in said court.
37 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
• Remember that a violation of the right to speedy trial is a dismissal equivalent to an the technical elements constituting the first offense need be present in the technical definition
acquittal. It is not merely technical or procedural. of the second offense.
• General Rule: The constitutional protection against double jeopardy is not available
Rule on “Supervening Facts” where the second prosecution is for an offense that is different from the offense
charged in the first or prior prosecution, although both the first and second offenses
Melo v. People (1950) – accused was charged with frustrated homicide; accused pleaded may be based upon the same act or set of acts.
guilty; victim died from wounds; information amended to consummated homicide : It was o Exception: The constitutional protection, against double jeopardy is
proper for the court to dismiss the first information and order the filing of a new one for the available although the prior offense charged under an ordinance be different
reason that the proper offense was not charged in the former. from the offense charged subsequently under a national statute such as the
• If it appears at may time before the judgment that a mistake has been made in charging Revised Penal Code, provided that both offenses spring from the same act
the proper offense, the court may dismiss the original complaint or information and or set of acts.
order the filing of a new one charging the proper offense, provided the defendant
would not be placed thereby in double jeopardy, and may also require the witnesses
to give bail for their appearance at the trial. (sec. 13, rule 106 (2) of Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure) Indictment
• Where after the first prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the defendant is 2. Before a competent Court
responsible, which changes the character of the offense and, together with the facts First jeopardy 3. After arraignment
existing at the time, constitutes a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said attaches 4. After a valid plea
to be in second jeopardy if indicated for the new offense. • Defective complaint did not pace the accused in first
• Same-evidence test – identity between the two offenses when the evidence to support jeopardy
a conviction for one offense would be sufficient to warrant a conviction for the other.
• If case is dismissed before arraignment happens, first jeopardy never attaches.
• Provisional dismissal – when both parties agree to dismiss the case. It has a lifespan
1. By Acquittal
of 2 years to be revived. Otherwise, it will become a permanent dismissal and first
jeopardy attaches. 2. Final Conviction
First jeopardy 3. Dismissal without express consent of the accused
People v. Buling (1960) – information based on first investigation; amended information terminates 4. Dismissal on the merits
based on second investigation : Before filing informations for physical injuries, thorough • Verbal dismissal is not final until written and signed by a
physical and medical examinations of the injuries should first be made to avoid instances, like judge
the present, where by reason of the important Constitutional provision of double jeopardy, the 1. Same Evidence Test- whether the evidence needed for one case
accused can not be held to answer for the graver offense committed. will support a conviction in the other.
Second jeopardy 2. Identical
Same Offenses 3. In the attempted or frustrated form of another
attaches
4. Necessarily includes
People v. Tiozon (1991) – accused charged with violation of illegal possession of firearms
5. Necessarily included
and murder : Since the informations were for separate offense –– the first against a person and
the second against public peace and order — one cannot be pleaded as a bar to the other under
the rule on double jeopardy. SEC. 22. NO EX POST FACTO LAW OR BILL OF ATTAINDER SHALL BE ENACTED.
• People v. Dominguez – where two different laws (or articles of the same code) defines
two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the
other, although both offenses arise from the same facts, if each crime involves some Ex Post Facto Laws and Bills of Attainder
important act which is not an essential element of the other.
Ø Ex Post Facto law – a law that:
• If appealed by the accused himself, it is a waiver of first jeopardy.
1. Makes illegal an act that was legal when committed;
2. Aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed;
Ordinance and Statute
3. Increases the penalties for an infraction after it has been committed;
4. Changes the rules of evidence to make conviction easier;
People v. Relova (1987) – accused was charged with violation of ordinance installing
5. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty
electric wiring without approval, dismissed on prescription; another information was filed
or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful; and
for crime of theft RPC : For the constitutional plea of double jeopardy to be available, not all
38 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
6. Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has ARTICLE IV: CITIZENSHIP
become entitled.
Ø Bill of Attainder – an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of SECTION 1. THE FOLLOWING ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES:
some crime and punishing them, often without a trial.
• Elements: (1) THOSE WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS
1. There must be a law; CONSTITUTION;
2. Imposes a penal burden on a named individual or easily ascertainable (2) THOSE WHOSE FATHERS OR MOTHERS ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES;
members of a group; and (3) THOSE BORN BEFORE JANUARY 17, 1973, OF FILIPINO MOTHERS, WHO ELECT PHILIPPINE
3. Imposed directly by the law without judicial trial. CITIZENSHIP UPON REACHING THE AGE OF MAJORITY; AND
(4) THOSE WHO ARE NATURALIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
People v. Ferrer (1972) – Anti-Subversion Act; If the only issue to be determined is
whether or not the accused is a knowing and voluntary member, the law is still a bill of
attainder because it has expressly created a presumption of organizational guilt which the Ø Modes of acquiring citizenship:
accused can never hope to overthrow : It is only when a statute applies either to named 1. Jus sanguinis – a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents
individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment regardless of the place of his/her birth.
on them without a judicial trial does it become a bill of attainder. Nor is it enough that the statute 2. Jus soli – determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth.
specify persons or groups in order that it may fall within the ambit of the prohibition against 3. Naturalization – legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the
bills of attainder. It is also necessary that it must apply retroactively and reach past conduct. privilege of a native born.
• The statute specifically required that membership must be knowing or active, with
specific intent to further the illegal objectives of the Party. That is what section 4 Valles v. COMELEC (2000) – petitioner maintains that private respondent is an
means when it requires that membership, to be unlawful, must be shown to have been Australian citizen based on (1) Alien Certificate of Registration; (2) Immigrant Certificate
acquired "knowingly, willfully and by overt acts. of Residence; and (3) Australian Passport : The mere fact that private respondent was a holder
• Sec. 4 states that the prohibition applies only to acts committed after the approval of of an Australian passport and had an alien certificate of registration are not acts constituting an
this Act. effective renunciation of citizenship and do not militate against her claim of Filipino citizenship.
• The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis.
Virata v. Sandiganbayan (1991) – PCGG Charter : The executive orders, inclusive of 1. Jus sanguinis – a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents
Executive Order No. 1 make it perfectly clear that any judgment of guilt in the amassing regardless of the place of his/her birth.
acquisition of 'ill-gotten wealth' is to be handed down by a judicial tribunal, in this case the 2. Jus soli – determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth.
Sandiganbayan, upon complaint filed an prosecuted by the PCGG. • In order that citizenship may be lost by renunciation, such renunciation must be
• The sequestration, freeze/hold orders and provisional takeover are mere provisional expressed.
remedies applicable generally and/or peculiarly unearthed instances of ill-gotten • If Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most, private respondent can also
wealth. claim Australian citizenship resulting to her possession of dual citizenship.
• The PCGG charter does not alter the legal rules of evidence. • The filing of a certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce foreign citizenship,
o The plaintiff’s burden is to establish preponderance of evidence in the effectively removing any disqualification as a dual citizen.
former (recovery of ill-gotten wealth), and proof beyond reasonable doubt o In the certificate of candidacy, one declares that he/she is a Filipino citizen
in the latter (misappropriation and theft). and that he/she will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines
and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto.
Lacson v. Executive Secretary (1999) – Sandiganbayan jurisdiction; “principal” accused; • Res judicata in citizenship:
the word “principal” was removed : R.A. 8249 is not penal law. It is a substantive law on 1. A person’s citizenship be raised as a material issue in a controversy where
jurisdiction which is not penal in character. Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which said person is a party;
prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violations. 2. The Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the
• Not being a penal law, the retroactive application of R.A. 8249 cannot be challenged resolution thereof; and
as unconstitutional. 3. The finding on citizenship is affirmed by this Court.
• As to the two-tiered appeal, the right to appeal is not a natural right but statutory in
nature that can be regulated by law. Ong Chia v. Republic (2000) – petitioner failed to indicate all names by which he is known
• R.A. 8249 has preserved the accused's right to appeal to the Supreme Court to review : Naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of the
questions of law. government and against the applicant.
• The rule that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered
shall not apply to land registration, cadastral and election cases, naturalization and
39 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or Those Born Before January 17, 1973, of Filipino Mothers, Who Elect Philippine
in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. Citizenship Upon Reaching the Age of Majority
Children of Filipino Fathers or Mothers Co v. Electoral Tribunal (1991) – The Court interprets Section 1, Paragraph 3 above as
applying not only to those who elect Philippine citizenship after February 2, 1987 but also to
Gatchalian v. Board of Commissioners (1991) – grandfather was native-born Filipino; those who, having been born of Filipino mothers, elected citizenship before that date.
father was not : The period of effecting deportation of an alien after entry or a warrant of
exclusion based on a final order of the Board of Special Inquiry or Board of Commissioners Republic v. Sagun (2012) – election of Philippine citizenship : If the citizenship of a person
(BOC) are prescribe. was subject to challenge under the old charter, it remains subject to challenge under the new
• Res judicata did not apply because (1) BOC decision did not categorically state that charter even if the judicial challenge had not been commenced before the effectivity of the new
Gatchalian is a Chinese; and Constitution.
• Res judicata generally does not apply to questions of citizenship. • The statutory formalities of electing Philippine citizenship are:
1. Statement of election under oath;
Tecson v. COMELEC (2004) – FPJ is a Filipino : In the absence of any evidence to the 2. Oath of allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the Philippines;
contrary, it should be sound to conclude, or at least to presume, that the place of residence of a and
person at the time of his death was also his residence before death. 3. Registration of the statement of election and of the oath with the nearest
• Remember the following rules from the Family Code: civil registry.
o Legitimate child follows the nationality of his father. • The mere exercise of suffrage, continuous and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines,
o Illegitimate child follows the nationality of his mother; unless: and other similar acts showing exercise of Philippine citizenship cannot take the place
§ Paternity is clear, then follows the nationality of his father. of election of Philippine citizenship.
o Before 1950, the father had to execute an affidavit of recognition in order
to legitimize the child. Those Who are Naturalized in Accordance with Law
o After 1950, legitimization is automatic; no need to execute affidavit of
recognition. So v. Republic (2007) – RA 9139 (Acquisition and Naturalization Act) : R.A. No. 9139 does
• Here, although Allan F. Poe recognized FPJ as his son in a document, FPJ was not not apply to petitions for naturalization by judicial act.
automatically deemed the son of Allan F. Poe unless he underwent the procedure • R.A. No. 9139 implies that a native born alien has the choice to apply for judicial
because FPJ was born before 1950. (C.A. No. 473) or administrative (R.A No. 9139) naturalization, subject to the
prescribed qualifications and disqualifications under both laws.
Go v. Ramos (2009) – undesirable alien; deportation proceeding : An illegitimate child of a o In this case, the petitioner applied for naturalization by judicial act, though
Filipina need not perform any act to confer upon him all the rights and privileges attached to at the time of the filing of his petition, even if the administrative
citizens of the Philippines; he automatically becomes a citizen himself. naturalization under R.A. No. 9139 was already available. Consequently,
• However, it is the Court’s view that absent any evidence proving that Carlos is indeed the Court stated that his application should be governed by C.A. No. 473
an illegitimate son of a Filipina, the aforestated established rule could not be applied because he applied for naturalization in a judicial proceeding.
to him. • Credibility implies that such person:
1. Must have a good standing in the community;
Gonzales v. Pennisi (2010) – PBA player for Red Bull : Documentary evidence of the 2. Known to be honest and upright;
respondent is presumed regularly issued absent evidence of them being invalidated by 3. Reputed to be trustworthy and reliable; and
competent authority, and such documentary evidence prevails over the oral testimonies relied 4. His word may be taken on its face value, as a good warranty of the
on by petitioner in the deportation proceedings against respondent. applicant’s worthiness.
Cabiling v. Fernandez (2010) – under 1935 Constitution; failed to immediately register Loss of Citizenship
election of Philippine citizenship in the local civil registrar : Where the election of citizenship
has in fact been done and documented within the constitutional and statutory timeframe, the Yu v. Defensor-Santiago (1989) – Portugese passport : Express renunciation means
registration of the documents of election beyond the frame should be allowed if in the meanwhile renunciation made known distinctly and explicitly, and not that which is implied.
positive acts of citizenship have publicly, consistently, and continuously been done. • After having acquired Philippine citizenship, with full knowledge, petitioner resumed
• “Reasonable time” – within 3 years from reaching the age of majority. However, It his prior status as a Portuguese citizen by applying for a renewal of his Portuguese
may be extended under certain circumstances, as when the person concerned has passport, and representing himself as a Portuguese in official and commercial
always considered himself a Filipino. documents.
Aznar v. Osmeña (1990) – provincial governor of Cebu; allegedly American : Philippine Maquiling v. COMELEC (2013) – use of foreign passport : After reacquiring Philippine
courts are only allowed to determine who are Filipino citizens and who are not. citizenship, one is deemed to be solely a Filipino citizen. This legal presumption, however, is
• 2 instances when a petition for disqualification may be filed: open to attack when, after renouncing the foreign citizenship, the citizen performs positive acts
o Before election – may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that showing his continued possession of a foreign citizenship.
any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74
hereof is false. No Collateral Attack
§ The petition may be filed at any time within 25 days from the
time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be Vilando v. HRET (2011) – private respondent allegedly born to a Chinese father : The
decided, after the notice and hearing, within 15 days before the complete and exclusive power of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) over
election. cases challenging the ineligibility on the ground of lack of citizenship does not carry with it the
o After election – any voter contesting the election of any Member of the authority to delve into the legality of the judgment of naturalization in the pursuit of
Batasang Pambansa, regional, provincial, or city officer on the ground of disqualifying a member of the House of Representatives.
ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall file a
sworn petition for quo warranto with the Commission.
41 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
SECTION 2. NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS ARE THOSE WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC (2016) – Grace Poe case : A foundling is presumed to be a
FROM BIRTH WITHOUT HAVING TO PERFORM ANY ACT TO ACQUIRE OR PERFECT THEIR
national of the country of birth. Furthermore, foundlings are presumed to be born in the country
PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. THOSE WHO ELECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP IN ACCORDANCE WITH where they are found.
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.
Bengson v. HRET (2001) – RA 2630 (Repatriation Act) : A natural-born citizen of the
Philippines, after losing the same pursuant to his naturalization in a foreign country, may
reacquire the same natural-born status by virtue of the Repatriation Act. 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
Cordora v. COMELEC (2009) – RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of HAVE RENOUNCED IT.
2003) : The twin requirements for dual citizens from birth who desire to run for public office
are:
1. Meet the qualifications laid down by the Constitution and existing laws; and Reyes v. COMELEC (2013) – Seeking and Finding the Truth about Regina O. Reyes : If a
2. At the time of filing the certificate of candidacy (COC), make a personal and sworn party whose citizenship qualification is being assailed contends that RA 9225 does not apply to
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to her, but subsequently executes an Affidavit of Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship only to
administer an oath aside from the oath of allegiance prescribed in Section 3 of RA comply with the rules, then it is an admission that RA 9225 applies to her.
9225.
SECTION 5. DUAL ALLEGIANCE OF CITIZENS IS INIMICAL TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND
David v. Agbay (2015) – miscellaneous lease application; cenro : In RA 9225 (Citizenship SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY LAW.
Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003), the reacquisition will apply to those who lost their
Philippine citizenship by virtue of Commonwealth Act No. 63, and retention of Philippines
citizenship applies to future instances; Furthermore, RA 9225 is not a penal law, thus there is AASJS-Calilung v. Datumanong (2007) – constitutionality of RA 9225; dual allegiance :
no presumption of innocence; RA 9225 has no retroactive effect. RA 9225 does not recognize dual allegiance on its face. What it does is allow dual citizenship
• Effects of RA 9225: to natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their
1. R.A. 9225 amends CA 63 by doing away with the provision in the old law naturalization as citizens of a foreign country.
which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who
become naturalized citizens of other countries and allowing dual Ø CA No. 63 Loss or Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship
citizenship. Ø RA 2630 Repatriation Act
2. For those who were naturalized in a foreign country, they shall be deemed Ø RA 9225 Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003
to have re-acquired their Philippine citizenship which was lost pursuant to Ø RA 8171 Repatriation of Filipino Women or natural-Filipinos including their minor
CA 63, under which naturalization in a foreign country is one of the ways children
by which Philippine citizenship may be lost. Ø RA 9139 Acquisition and Naturalization Act – administrative
3. In the case of those who became foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 took effect, Ø CA No. 473 Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship by Naturalization – judicial
they shall retain Philippine citizenship despite having acquired foreign
citizenship provided they took the oath of allegiance under the new law. ARTICLE V: SUFFRAGE
• Reacquisition – applies to those who lost their Philippine citizenship by virtue of
Commonwealth Act No. 63, and retention of Philippines citizenship applies to future SECTION 1. SUFFRAGE MAY BE EXERCISED BY ALL CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES NOT
instances. OTHERWISE DISQUALIFIED BY LAW, WHO ARE AT LEAST EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE, AND WHO
• Repatriation – applies to those who lost their citizenship through: SHALL HAVE RESIDED IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR, AND IN THE PLACE
1. Desertion of the armed forces; WHEREIN THEY PROPOSE TO VOTE, FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE
2. Services rendered in the armed forces of the allied forces in WWII; ELECTION. NO LITERACY, PROPERTY, OR OTHER SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENT SHALL BE
3. Service rendered in the armed forces of the United States; IMPOSED ON THE EXERCISE OF SUFFRAGE.
4. Marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien; and
5. Political or economic necessity.
Ø Requisites for suffrage:
• In this case, petitioner failed to prove that he had applied for repatriation before
1. Citizen of the Philippines;
making the misappropriation in the miscellaneous lease application.
2. Not otherwise disqualified by law;
3. At least 18 years of age;
SECTION 2. THE PROMOTION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE SHALL INCLUDE THE COMMITMENT TO The Province of Camarines Norte v. Gonzales (2013) – provincial administrator changed
CREATE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES BASED ON FREEDOM OF INITIATIVE AND SELF-RELIANCE .
to non-career by Local Government Code (LGC) : Flowing from the legislative power to
create public offices is the power to abolish and modify them to meet the demands of society.
When done in good faith, these acts would not violate a public officer’s security of tenure, even
LABOR if they result in his removal from office or the shortening of his term.
• The LGC made the provincial administrator position co-terminous with its appointing
SECTION 3. THE STATE SHALL AFFORD FULL PROTECTION TO LABOR, LOCAL AND OVERSEAS, authority, reclassifying it as a non-career service position that is primarily
ORGANIZED AND UNORGANIZED, AND PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT AND EQUALITY OF confidential.
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL. • The concept of security of tenure, however, operates under a different rule for
primarily confidential employees due to the nature of a “primarily confidential”
IT SHALL GUARANTEE THE RIGHTS OF ALL WORKERS TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, COLLECTIVE position.
BARGAINING AND NEGOTIATIONS, AND PEACEFUL CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING THE • In the case of Gonzales, where the trust and confidence has been irretrievably
RIGHT TO STRIKE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO SECURITY OF “eroded”, Gov. Pimentel only exercised his discretion when he decided that he could
TENURE, HUMANE CONDITIONS OF WORK, AND A LIVING WAGE. THEY SHALL ALSO no longer entrust his confidence in Gonzales.
PARTICIPATE IN POLICY AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES AFFECTING THEIR RIGHTS AND
BENEFITS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW. Abbott Laboratories v. Alcaraz (2013) – probationary employee : When a valid cause for
termination exists, the procedural infirmity attending the termination only warrants the payment
THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE THE PRINCIPLE OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN WORKERS of nominal damages. In the assailed Decision, the Court actually extended the application of the
AND EMPLOYERS AND THE PREFERENTIAL USE OF VOLUNTARY MODES IN SETTLING DISPUTES, Agabon and Jaka rulings to breaches of company procedure, notwithstanding the employer’s
INCLUDING CONCILIATION, AND SHALL ENFORCE THEIR MUTUAL COMPLIANCE THEREWITH TO compliance with the statutory requirements under the Labor Code.
FOSTER INDUSTRIAL PEACE. • Jaka Doctrine – provides for P50,000 nominal damages:
o If the dismissal is baased on a just cause, but the employer failed to comply
THE STATE SHALL REGULATE THE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS, with the notice requirement, the sanction to be imposed upon him should be
RECOGNIZING THE RIGHT OF LABOR TO ITS JUST SHARE IN THE FRUITS OF PRODUCTION AND tempered because the dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act
THE RIGHT OF ENTERPRISES TO REASONABLE RETURNS TO INVESTMENTS, AND TO EXPANSION imputable to the employee.
AND GROWTH. o If the dismissal is based on an authorized cause, but the employer failed to
comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiffer because
the dismissal was initiated by the employer’s exercise of his management
Eagle Security v. NLRC (1989) – contract for security services; solidary liability; prerogative.
subcontractor : The Labor Code mandates a joint and several liability in cases of contractors
(direct employer) and principals (indirect employer) in order to assure compliance of the Labor Cases; Due Process
provisions therein including the statutory minimum wage. Substantive Due Procedural Due
Case Doctrine Valid Dismissal
Process Process
Agabon v. NLRC (2004) – abandonment of work; substantive and procedural due process
: Dismissal by an employer for a just or authorized cause, but without complying with procedural Rule Ö Ö Yes
due process, does not invalidate the dismissal, but holds the employer liable for damages.
• Twin-requirements of due process in Labor cases:
1. Substantive due process – dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause; No, reinstate +
Rule X Ö
and backwages.
Hacienda Luisita v. PARC (2011) – stock distribution plan : The wording of the provision
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law is unequivocal––the farmers and regular
farmworkers have a right to own directly or collectively (indirectly) the lands they till.
45 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
SECTION 8. THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO LANDOWNERS TO INVEST THE Macasiano v. NHA (1993) – RA 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) : The
PROCEEDS OF THE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE INDUSTRIALIZATION,
burden is not with the private landowner, but with the national and/or local government. There
EMPLOYMENT CREATION, AND PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SECTOR ENTERPRISES. FINANCIAL
must be a plan by the government to be able to give affordable housing to the homeless. It does
INSTRUMENTS USED AS PAYMENT FOR THEIR LANDS SHALL BE HONORED AS EQUITY IN
not encourage taking over private property, but that demolitions must be more humane.
ENTERPRISES OF THEIR CHOICE . • There should be no police officers within the demolition site, but be within a limited
area near the site in order to react when violence occurs.
• Sec. 28 provides for eviction and demolition. (No demolition unless they can be
URBAN LAND REFORM AND HOUSING relocated)
• Sec. 44 provides for the moratorium of 3 years with respect to program beneficiaries.
SECTION 9. THE STATE SHALL, BY LAW, AND FOR THE COMMON GOOD, UNDERTAKE, IN • Petitioner herein has no standing because was not authorized to operate any
COOPERATION WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR, A CONTINUING PROGRAM OF URBAN LAND REFORM demolition, but only as a consultant.
AND HOUSING WHICH WILL MAKE AVAILABLE AT AFFORDABLE COST, DECENT HOUSING AND
BASIC SERVICES TO UNDER- PRIVILEGED AND HOMELESS CITIZENS IN URBAN CENTERS AND People v. Leachon (1998) – respondent judge motu proprio dismissed the case on the
RESETTLEMENT AREAS. IT SHALL ALSO PROMOTE ADEQUATE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES ground that PD 772 had been repealed by Art. XIII sec. 9 and 10 of the Constitution :
TO SUCH CITIZENS. IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH PROGRAM THE STATE SHALL RESPECT Presidential Decree No. 772, otherwise known as the Anti-Squatting Law, enjoys this
THE RIGHTS OF SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS. presumption of constitutionality. At the time the respondent Judge rendered the questioned
Decision and issued the orders of dismissal in 1993, Presidential Decree No. 772, Anti-Squatting
Law, was still effective.
Dee v. CA (2000) – PD 1517 (Urban Land Reform Law) tenant’s right of first refusal to • However, the case was dismissed pursuant to RA 8368 (Act Repealing PD 772) – "all
purchase land : The factual determination of non-payment of rent is needed to establish
pending cases under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 772 shall be dismissed
petitioners' status as tenants.
upon the effectivity of this Act."
• PD 1517 provided that pre-emptive rights will be granted to:
• Furthermore, the judge did not even give the prosecution to be able to refute the
1. Legitimate tenants who have resided on the land for 10 years or more; and
alleged unconstitutionality of the Anti-Squatting Law.
2. Residents who have legally occupied the land by contract for the last 10
years.”
HEALTH
• Petitioners herein failed to show that they qualify for the benefits of PD 1517.
Reyes v. NHA (2003) – public purpose abandoned; reconveyance : Whatever may be SECTION 11. THE STATE SHALL ADOPT AN INTEGRATED AND COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO
beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of “public use.” HEALTH DEVELOPMENT WHICH SHALL ENDEAVOR TO MAKE ESSENTIAL GOODS, HEALTH AND
• The expropriation of private property for the purpose of socialized housing for the OTHER SOCIAL SERVICES AVAILABLE TO ALL THE PEOPLE AT AFFORDABLE COST. THERE SHALL
marginalized sector is in furtherance of the social justice provision under Section 1, BE PRIORITY FOR THE NEEDS OF THE UNDER-PRIVILEGED, SICK, ELDERLY, DISABLED, WOMEN,
AND CHILDREN. THE STATE SHALL ENDEAVOR TO PROVIDE FREE MEDICAL CARE TO PAUPERS.
Article XIII of the Constitution.
• Fery v. Municipality of Cabanatuan – when land has been acquired for public use in
fee simple unconditionally, either by the exercise of eminent domain or by purchase,
SECTION 12. THE STATE SHALL ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN AN EFFECTIVE FOOD AND DRUG
the former owner retains no rights in the land, and the public use may be abandoned,
REGULATORY SYSTEM AND UNDERTAKE APPROPRIATE HEALTH, MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT,
or the land may be devoted to a different use, without any impairment of the estate or
AND RESEARCH, RESPONSIVE TO THE COUNTRY'S HEALTH NEEDS AND PROBLEMS.
title acquired, or any reversion to the former owner.
o Except when such condition was stipulated.
SECTION 13. THE STATE SHALL ESTABLISH A SPECIAL AGENCY FOR DISABLED PERSON FOR
SECTION 10. URBAN OR RURAL POOR DWELLERS SHALL NOT BE EVICTED NOR THEIR THEIR REHABILITATION, SELF-DEVELOPMENT, AND SELF-RELIANCE, AND THEIR INTEGRATION
DWELLING DEMOLISHED, EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND IN A JUST AND HUMANE INTO THE MAINSTREAM OF SOCIETY.
MANNER.
SECTION 19. THE CONGRESS MAY PROVIDE FOR OTHER CASES OF VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN Ginsberg v. New York (1968) – New York Penal Law prohibiting sale to minors under 17
RIGHTS THAT SHOULD FALL WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE C OMMISSION, TAKING INTO
years of age material defined to be obscene on the basis of its appeal to them, regardless of
ACCOUNT ITS RECOMMENDATIONS.
its appeal to adults : Two interests justify the limitations in § 484-h upon the availability of sex
material to minors under 17:
1. Subsection 1(f)(ii) of § 484-h expressly recognizes the parental role in assessing sex-
ARTICLE XIV: EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE AND SPORTS related material harmful to minors according "to prevailing standards in the adult
community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors."
EDUCATION 2. The prohibition against sales to minors does not bar parents who so desire from
purchasing the magazines for their children.
SECTION 1. THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHT OF ALL CITIZENS TO
QUALITY EDUCATION AT ALL LEVELS, AND SHALL TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO MAKE SUCH Quality and Accessibility of Educational System
EDUCATION ACCESSIBLE TO ALL.
DECS v. San Diego – failed NMAT 5 times : The subject of the challenged regulation is
certainly within the ambit of the police power. It is the right and indeed the responsibility of the
Natural and Primary Right of Parents State to insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients
may unwarily entrust their lives and health.
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) – act prohibiting teaching of foreign language unless child • Substantial distinction: The medical profession directly affects the very lives of the
successfully passed the 8th grade : No emergency has arisen which renders knowledge by a people, unlike other careers which, for this reason, do not require more vigilant
child of some language other than English so clearly harmful as to justify its inhibition with the regulation.
consequent infringement of rights long freely enjoyed.
• Corresponding to the right of control, it is the natural duty of the parent to give his
children education suitable to their station in life, and nearly all the States, including
Nebraska, enforce this obligation by compulsory laws.
• Lawful subject, but the means adopted exceed the limitations upon the power of the
State and conflict with rights assured to plaintiff in error.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) – Compulsory Education Act of Oregon; required public
school : The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his
destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional
obligations.
• Petitioners, although corporations, have business and property for which they claim
protection.
• Truax v. Raich – injunctions have issued to protect business enterprises against
interference with the freedom of patrons or customers.
(3) AT THE OPTION EXPRESSED IN WRITING BY THE PARENTS OR GUARDIANS, RELIGION SHALL PROPRIETARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING THOSE COOPERATIVELY OWNED, MAY
BE ALLOWED TO BE TAUGHT TO THEIR CHILDREN OR WARDS IN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND LIKEWISE BE ENTITLED TO SUCH EXEMPTIONS, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS PROVIDED BY
HIGH SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGULAR CLASS HOURS BY INSTRUCTORS DESIGNATED OR LAW, INCLUDING RESTRICTIONS ON DIVIDENDS AND PROVISIONS FOR REINVESTMENT.
APPROVED BY THE RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES OF THE RELIGION TO WHICH THE CHILDREN OR
WARDS BELONG, WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COST TO THE GOVERNMENT. (4) SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, ALL GRANTS, ENDOWMENTS, DONATIONS,
OR CONTRIBUTIONS USED ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY, AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR EDUCATIONAL
PURPOSES SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAX .
Duty of Institutions
Miriam College v. CA (2000) – obscene publication; Miriam College standards : The power
of the school to investigate is an adjunct of its power to suspend or expel. Thus, Miriam College
has the authority to investigate the case instead of the DECS.
• Institutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide
for itself, its aims and objectives, and how best to attain them free from outside
coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for
some restraint.
• Academic freedom includes:
1. Who may teach;
2. What may be taught;
3. How it shall be taught; and
Garcia v. Faculty Admission (1975) – Loyola School of Theology : The Loyola School of
Theology is a seminary for the priesthood. Even assuming arguendo that she is qualified to
SECTION 7. FOR PURPOSES OF COMMUNICATION AND INSTRUCTION, THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
study for the priesthood, there is still no duty on the part of respondent to admit her to said
OF THE PHILIPPINES ARE FILIPINO AND, UNTIL OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, ENGLISH .
studies, since the school has clearly the discretion to turn down even qualified applicants due
to limitations of space, facilities, professors and optimum classroom size and component
THE REGIONAL LANGUAGES ARE THE AUXILIARY OFFICIAL LANGUAGES IN THE REGIONS AND
considerations."
SHALL SERVE AS AUXILIARY MEDIA OF INSTRUCTION THEREIN.
• Institutions of Higher Learning academic freedom:
1. It decides for itself its aims and objectives and how best to attain them.
SPANISH AND ARABIC SHALL BE PROMOTED ON A VOLUNTARY AND OPTIONAL BASIS.
2. It is free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the
overriding public welfare calls for some restraint.
3. It has a wide sphere of autonomy certainly extending to the choice of SECTION 8. THIS CONSTITUTION SHALL BE PROMULGATED IN FILIPINO AND ENGLISH AND
students. SHALL BE TRANSLATED INTO MAJOR REGIONAL LANGUAGES, ARABIC, AND SPANISH.
USC v. CA (1988) – conferment of Latin honors : Schools of learning are given ample
discretion to formulate rules and guidelines in the granting of honors for purposes of graduation. SECTION 9. THE CONGRESS SHALL ESTABLISH A NATIONAL LANGUAGE COMMISSION
• Its discretion on this academic matter may not be disturbed much less controlled by COMPOSED OF REPRESENTATIVES OF VARIOUS REGIONS AND DISCIPLINES WHICH SHALL
the courts unless there is grave abuse of discretion in its exercise. UNDERTAKE, COORDINATE, AND PROMOTE RESEARCHES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT,
PROPAGATION, AND PRESERVATION OF FILIPINO AND OTHER LANGUAGES.
International School of Manila v. International School Alliance of Educators (2014) –
professional growth plan : The prerogative of a school to provide standards for its teachers and
to determine whether these standards have been met is in accordance with academic freedom, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
which gives the educational institution the right to choose who should teach.
• Furthermore, the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) provided that "All faculty SECTION 10. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ARE ESSENTIAL FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND
members must meet the high standard of performance expected by the SCHOOL and PROGRESS . THE STATE SHALL GIVE PRIORITY TO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, INVENTION,
abide by all its policies, procedures and contractual terms." INNOVATION, AND THEIR UTILIZATION; AND TO SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION,
• The policy of social justice is not intended to countenance wrongdoing simply because TRAINING, AND SERVICES. IT SHALL SUPPORT INDIGENOUS, APPROPRIATE, AND SELF-RELIANT
it is committed by the underprivileged. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL CAPABILITIES, AND THEIR APPLICATION TO THE COUNTRY'S
PRODUCTIVE SYSTEMS AND NATIONAL LIFE.
SECTION 12. THE STATE SHALL REGULATE THE TRANSFER AND PROMOTE THE ADAPTATION OF (2) ALL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SHALL UNDERTAKE REGULAR SPORTS ACTIVITIES
TECHNOLOGY FROM ALL SOURCES FOR THE NATIONAL BENEFIT. IT SHALL ENCOURAGE THE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY IN COOPERATION WITH ATHLETIC CLUBS AND OTHER SECTORS.
WIDEST PARTICIPATION OF PRIVATE GROUPS, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND COMMUNITY-BASED
ORGANIZATIONS IN THE GENERATION AND UTILIZATION OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
SECTION 13. THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND SECURE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF SCIENTISTS,
INVENTORS, ARTISTS, AND OTHER GIFTED CITIZENS TO THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND
CREATIONS, PARTICULARLY WHEN BENEFICIAL TO THE PEOPLE, FOR SUCH PERIOD AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW.
SECTION 14. THE STATE SHALL FOSTER THE PRESERVATION, ENRICHMENT, AND DYNAMIC
EVOLUTION OF A FILIPINO NATIONAL CULTURE BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF UNITY IN
DIVERSITY IN A CLIMATE OF FREE ARTISTIC AND INTELLECTUAL EXPRESSION.
SECTION 15. ARTS AND LETTERS SHALL ENJOY THE PATRONAGE OF THE STATE. THE STATE
SHALL CONSERVE , PROMOTE, AND POPULARIZE THE NATION'S HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL
HERITAGE AND RESOURCES, AS WELL AS ARTISTIC CREATIONS.
SECTION 16. ALL THE COUNTRY'S ARTISTIC AND HISTORIC WEALTH CONSTITUTES THE
CULTURAL TREASURE OF THE NATION AND SHALL BE UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE STATE
WHICH MAY REGULATE ITS DISPOSITION.
SECTION 17. THE STATE SHALL RECOGNIZE, RESPECT, AND PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES TO PRESERVE AND DEVELOP THEIR CULTURES,
TRADITIONS, AND INSTITUTIONS. IT SHALL CONSIDER THESE RIGHTS IN THE FORMULATION OF
NATIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES.
SECTION 18. (1) THE STATE SHALL ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES
THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE CULTURAL ENTITIES, “THE COURT FEELS THAT IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SIMPLY INVOKE THE RIGHT TO QUALITY
SCHOLARSHIPS, GRANTS AND OTHER INCENTIVES, AND COMMUNITY CULTURAL CENTERS, AND EDUCATION AS A GUARANTEE OF THE CONSTITUTION: ONE MUST SHOW THAT HE IS ENTITLED
OTHER PUBLIC VENUES. TO IT BECAUSE OF HIS PREPARATION AND PROMISE.”
(2) THE STATE SHALL ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT RESEARCHES AND STUDIES ON THE ARTS J. CRUZ
AND CULTURE. DECS V. SAN DIEGO, G.R. NO. 89572,
DECEMBER 21, 1989
51 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW