Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Atty. V. Paul Le. Montejo
PRELIMINARIES
Academic Freedom
GARCIA VS. FACULTY OF ADMISSION, 68 SCRA 277 (1975)
ANNOTATION 313 SCRA 428
DLSU VS. CA 541 SCRA 22 (2007)
CSC VS. SOJOR 554 SCRA 160 (2008)
MERCADO VS. AMA 618 SCRA 218 (2010)
CALAWAG VS. UPVISAYAS 703 SCRA 373 (2013)
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
I.
Page 2 of 14
Consti 2 Syllabus
Page 3 of 14
Consti 2 Syllabus
Page 4 of 14
Consti 2 Syllabus
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Art. III, sec. 4
Id., sec. 18(1)
A. Philosophic Basis of Guarantee
1. For the discovery of political truth
2. For self government
3. For individual perfection
B. Prior restraints/Subsequent Punishment
CASES - CHAVEZ VS. GONZALES 545 SCRA 441 (2008)
NEWSOUND BROADCASTING VS. DY 583 SCRA 333 (2009)
SORIANO VS. LAGUARDIA 587 SCRA 79 (2009)
615 SCRA 254 (2010)
ANG LADLAD VS. COMELEC 618 SCRA 32 (2010)
GARCIA VS. MANRIQUE 683 SCRA 491 (2012)
C. Content-based Restrictions
1. Some Tests of Validity of content-based restrictions
Dangerous tendency: When the legislative body has
determined generally that utterances of a certain kind involve
such danger of substantive evil that t hey may be punished, the
question whether any specific utterance coming
within the
prohibited class is likely, in and of itself, to bring about the
substantive evil is not open to
consideration. In such
cases the general provision of the statute may be
constitutionally applied to the specific utterance if its natural
and probable effect was to bring about the substantive evil that
the legislative body might prohibit. (Gitlow vs. New York, 268
U.S. 652 [1952])
Clear-and-present danger: The question in every case is
whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of
such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that
they will bring about the substantive evil that the state has a
right to prevent. (Schenck vs. United States, 249 U.S. 47
[1919])
Page 5 of 14
Consti 2 Syllabus
D. Content-neutral restrictions
OBrien Test: A government regulation is sufficiently justified if
it is within the constitutional power of the government; if it
furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if
the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of
free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged
freedom of expression is no greater than is essential to the
Page 6 of 14
Consti 2 Syllabus
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Art. III, sec. 5
A. Non-establishment Clause
The establishment clause prohibits (1) excessive governmental entanglement
with religious institutions and (2) government endorsement or disapproval of
religion.
CASE - RE: REQUEST OF MUSLIM 477 SCRA 648 (2005)
TARUC VS. DELA CRUZ 453 SCRA 123 (2005)
ESTRADA VS. ESCRITUR 408 SCRA 1 (2003)
492 SCRA 1 (2006)
SORIANO VS. LAGUARDIA 587 SCRA 79 (2009)
615 SCRA 254 (2010)
1. Operation of Sectarian Schools
Art. XIV, sec. 4(2)
2. Religious instructions in public schools
Art. XIV, sec. 3(3)
Rev. Adm. Code, sec. 928
Civil Code, Art. 359 (1)
3. Tax exemption
Art. VI, sec. 28(3)
Page 7 of 14
Consti 2 Syllabus
VI.
Page 8 of 14
Consti 2 Syllabus
Page 10 of 14
Consti 2 Syllabus
Exclusionary rule
Art. III, sec. 12 (3)
Page 11 of 14
Consti 2 Syllabus
663 (1968)
X. RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
Art. III, sec. 16
Art. VIII, sec. 15
Art. VII, sec. 18, par.3
Art. IX, A, sec. 7
CASES - COCOFED VS. REPUBLIC 663 SCRA 514 (2012)
GARCIA VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 677 SCRA 750 (2012)
MAGDADARO VS. SANIEL 687 SCRA 401 (2012)
DACUDAO VS. GONZALES 688 SCRA 109 (2013)
BRAZA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 691 SCRA 471 (2013)
IN RE: JUDGE CARBONELL 700 SCRA 806 (2013)
COSCUELLA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 701 SCRA 188 (2013)
ANNOTATION 307 SCRA 116
682 SCRA 724
XI. SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
A. What acts cannot be criminalized
1. Mere beliefs and aspirations
Art. III, sec. 18(1)
2. Debts and civil obligations
Art. III, sec. 20
CASES - LOZANO VS. MARTINEZ, 146 SCRA 323 (1986)
AGBANLOG VS. PEOPLE, 220 SCRA 530 (1993)
PEOPLE VS. NITAFAN, 202 SCRA 726 (1992)
VERGARA VS. GEDORIO, JR. 402 SCRA 520 (2003)
3. Acts which when done were innocent (Ex Post Facto Laws)
Art. III, sec. 22
CASES - KAY VILLEGAS KAMI, 35 SCRA 429 (1970)
SALVADOR VS. MAPA 539 SCRA 37 (2007)
PEOPLE VS. CASTA 565 SCRA 341 (2008)
NASI-VILLAR VS. PEOPLE 571 SCRA 202 (2008)
Bills of attainder Legislative adjudications of guilt
CASE PEOPLE VS. FERRER, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)
REPUBLIC VS. RMDC 426 SCRA 517 (2004)
BOCEA VS. TEVES 661 SCRA 589 (2011)
B. What punishments cannot be imposed
1. Involuntary servitude
Art. III, sec. 18(2)
Case SARMIENTO VS. TUICO 162 SCRA 676 (1988)
2. Excessive fines
Art. III, sec. 19(1)
CASES - PEOPLE VS. DELA CRUZ, 92 Phil. 906 (1953)
PEOPLE VS. DACUYCUY, 173 SCRA 901 (1989)
AGBANLOG VS. PEOPLE, 220 SCRA 530 (1993)
3. Cruel, degrading and inhuman punishments
Art. III, sec. 19(1)
Id., sec. 12(2)
CASES - PEOPLE VS. ECHEGARAY 267 SCRA 682 (1997)
PEOPLE VS. TONGKO 290 SCRA 595 (1998)
ECHEGARAY VS. SECRETARY 297 SCRA 754 (1998)
LIM VS. PEOPLE 390 SCRA 194 (2002)
PEREZ VS. PEOPLE 544 SCRA 532 (2008)
ANNOTATION DEATH PENALTY - 297 SCRA 822
Page 12 of 14
Consti 2 Syllabus
4. Indefinite Imprisonment
CASE - PEOPLE VS. DACUYCUY, 173 SCRA 90 (1989)
C. The protection against double jeopardy
Art. III, sec. 21
1. Two situations contemplated
CASES - PEOPLE VS. RELOVA, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)
PEOPLE VS. CITY COURT, 154 SCRA 195 (1987)
2. Rules of Court Provisions
Rule 117, sec. 7
CASES - MELO VS. PEOPLE, 85 Phil. 776 (1950)
PEOPLE VS. CITY COURT, 121 SCRA 637 (1983)
PEOPLE VS. YORAC, 42 SCRA 230 (1971)
OTHER CASES :
JACOLO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 635 SCRA 94 (2010)
IVLER VS. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO 635 SCRA 191 (2010)
FLORES VS. MONTEMAYOR 651 SCRA 396 (2011)
PEOPLE VS. CA 660 SCRA 323 (2011)
YSIDORO VS. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO 665 SCRA 89 (2012)
BAUTISTA VS. CUNETA-PANGILINAN 684 SCRA 521 (2012)
BRAZA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 691 SCRA 471 (2013)
D. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
Art. III, sec. 15
1. Functions of the writ
CASES - VILLAVICENCIO VS. LUKBAN, 39 Phil. 778 (1919)
IN RE GONZALES 526 SCRA 483 (2007)
VELUZ VS. VILLANUEVA 543 SCRA 63 (2008)
FLETCHER VS. DIRECTOR OF BUREAU 593 SCRA 265 (2009)
AMPATUAN VS. MACARAIG 622 SCRA 266 (2010)
ADONIS VS. TESORO 697 SCRA 337 (2013)
MANGILA VS. PANGILINAN 701 SCRA 355 (2013)
2. The writ of habeas corpus as a post conviction remedy
CASES - LAMEN VS. DIRECTOR, 241 SCRA 573 (1995)
3. Suspension of the privilege
Art. VII, sec. 18
CASE - LANSANG VS. GARCIA, 42 SCRA 488 (1971)
E. Affirmative rights
1. Free access to the courts
Art. III, sec. 11
Case MARTINEZ VS. PEOPLE 332 SCRA 694 (2000)
2. Protection and enforcement of constitutional rights
Art. III, sec. 12(4)
Art. VIII, sec. 5(5)
Art. XIII, sec. 18(3)
WRIT OF AMPARO - AM No. 07-9-12-SC of September
25, 2007 as amended on October 16, 2007)
Cases TAPUZ VS. DEL ROSARIO 554 SCRA 768 (2008)
CANLAS VS. NAPICO 554 SCRA 209 (2008)
SEC OF DEFENSE VS. MANALO 568 SCRA 1 (2008)
REYES VS. CA 606 SCRA 580 (2009)
SO VS. TACLA 633 SCRA 563 (2010)
MANILA ELECTRIC VS. LIM 632 SCRA 195 (2010)
LOZADA VS. ARROYO 670 SCRA 545 (2012)
NAVIA VS. PANDICO 673 SCRA 618 (2012)
Page 13 of 14
Consti 2 Syllabus
Page 14 of 14
Consti 2 Syllabus