Consti II Reviewer

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.! PLACE OF JUDICIAL POWER ............................................................................................ 2!

A.! In General ..................................................................................................................................... 2!
Cases: ..............................................................................................................................................................4!
B.! Case or Controversy Requirement: Elements ............................................................ 7!
Requisites for the exercise of judicial review.................................................................................8!
Cases: ..............................................................................................................................................................9!
II.! DUE PROCESS CLAUSE ................................................................................................... 13!
A.! Procedural Due Process....................................................................................................14!
B.! Old Substantive Due Process ..........................................................................................14!
C.! New Substantive Due Process ....................................................................................14!
D.! Protected Interests in Property .....................................................................................14!
Cases ........................................................................................................................................................... 15!
III.! EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE ..................................................................................... 27!
Requisites for valid classification .................................................................................................... 27!
Standards of Judicial Review ............................................................................................................ 28!
Cases ........................................................................................................................................................... 29!
IV.! FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ......................................................................................... 36!
WHY THE SAFEGUARD? .................................................................................................................... 36!
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II A.!
B.!
Protected Speech .................................................................................................................36!
Unprotected Speech ............................................................................................................37!
Cases ........................................................................................................................................................... 38!
Atty. Butch Jamon V.! CHURCH AND STATE: THE WALL OF SEPARATION ....................................... 51!
A.! Establishment Clause ..........................................................................................................51!
B.! Free Exercise Clause............................................................................................................51!
C.! Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices ....................................................................51!
Cases ........................................................................................................................................................... 52!
VI.! Unlawful Searches and Seizures ............................................................................... 60!
Cases ........................................................................................................................................................... 60!
VII.! ACADEMIC FREEDOM ................................................................................................... 62!
Cases ........................................................................................................................................................... 63!
VIII.! PROTECTED INTERESTS IN LIBERTY..................................................................... 64!
A.! Non-Impairment of Obligations of Contracts ............................................................64!
B.! Involuntary Servitude............................................................................................................64!
C.! Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt ....................................................................64!
D.! Right Against Self-incrimination ......................................................................................64!
CaseS ........................................................................................................................................................... 65!
IX.! SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION ......................................................... 66!
A.! Who are entitled to Constitutional Protection.........................................................66!
Juridical Persons .................................................................................................................................... 66!
B.! Who are subject to Constitutional Prohibitions ......................................................66!
State Action Requirement ................................................................................................................. 66!
Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

I. PLACE OF JUDICIAL POWER law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
A. In General assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
{Const. Art. VIII, sec 1} relation thereto.
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower
courts as may be established by law. court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
!
reclusion perpetua or higher.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
is involved.
and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
* The power to exercise review power is not limited to the Supreme Court
instrumentality of the Government.
because it is also vested in such lower courts.
* If no more expeditious remedy after Motion for Reconsideration (Rule 65
* concept of judicial power is found in the second paragraph.
certiorari), go to the Supreme Court.
* The qualifications of Supreme Court judges are not subject
to change but the qualifications of lower courts may be.
Note: If the SC gravely abuses its discretion, the other branches of
There really has to be a duty to settle actual controversies.
government may invoke the separation of checks and balances
{Const. Art. VIII, sec 2} The Bill of Rights should be balanced with the power of the government.
The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the o Bill of Rights > Power of Government =
jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its anarchy
jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof. o Power of Government > Bill of Rights =
! autocracy
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the
security of tenure of its Members. The government cannot invoke the Bill of Rights for their interest (a limitation)
because it is for the people.
{Const. Art. VIII, sec 4(2)}
All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive Judicial Power Judicial Review
agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and Where vested
all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en
banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation Supreme Court & Lower courts
of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and
Definition
other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the
Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case Duty to settle actual controversies Power of the courts to test the
and voted thereon. involving rights which are legally validity of executive and
demandable and enforceable, and to legislative acts in light of their
determine whether or not there has been conformity with the Constitution
{Const. Art. VIII, sec 5(2)} a grave abuse of discretion amounting to [Angara v. Electoral Commission
Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part (1936)]
the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
of any branch or instrumentality of the
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of
Government [Art. VIII,Sec. 1, par. 2]
any treaty, international or executive agreement,

Judicial Power Judicial Review
Requisites for exercise

Jurisdiction Power to decide and hear a (1) Actual case or controversy
case and execute a decision thereof (2) Locus Standi
(3) Question raised at the earliest
opportunity
(4) Lis mota of the case

CASES:
Case Facts & Ruling Doctrine Related cases
Facts & Ruling Doctrine Related cases
Antecedent fact: Congress enacted a law that gave original jurisdiction to
the SC of mandamus.
A mandamus was filed by Marbury, with the Supreme Court, against
Landmark case in the US, where
Madison compelling the latter to deliver his appointment commission.
MARBURY v Marbury was appointed by then President Adam, as a justice of peace. All
the exercise judicial review powers
MADISON are defined.
the papers and proceedings have been complied with, its just the delivery
Keywords: midnight of the commission finalizing his appointment that was in issue. The new
If two laws conflict with each other,
appointments, sawi si president, Thomas Jefferson, refused to honor the commissions, as they were
the Court must decide on the
kuya sa gabi invalid having been delivered after Adam's term.
operation of each. The Constitution is
JUDICIAL POWER
the law of the land and all other laws
[will come out in the HELD: The petition was denied. Congress enacted the Judiciary Act of 1789, In Marbury, two
are subservient to it.
which mandates that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over writs of conflicting laws were in
test he says]
mandamus. This is contrary to Article III of the Constitution states it does not issue the constitution
have original jurisdiction, merely appellate jurisdiction over mandamus cases. and and act by
The constitution prevails, making the act invalid for violating the constitution, Congress.
thus dismissing the petition.
Angara filed a writ of prohibition against the Electoral Commission from taking In Angara, two
cognizance of the protest filed by Ynsua. Angara, Ynsua, Castillo and Mayor conflicting agencies
were candidates for the position of member of the National Assembly for the were involved.
first district of Tayabas. Two different bodies (ElecComm and HRET) issued two
different resolutions regarding election contests. Issue is which body ought to Both cases show that
give the deadline for the contests. the SC has judicial
SC is the only constitutional
powers to adjudicate
mechanism devised to finally resolve
HELD: ElecComm has the mandate from the Consitution. The SC is the only actual and
conflicts and allocate constitutional
ANGARA v ELEC constitutional mechanism devised to finally resolve conflicts and allocate appropriate cases and
boundaries.
constitutional boundaries. Judicial supremacy also dictates that SC, in controversies, aligning
COMM
exercising judicial review, has the power to adjudicate actual and appropriate such with the principles
Keyword: angara ng cases and controversies in order to see that no one branch or agency of the
However, acts of any other
laid down in the
buhay ni mayor constitutional bodies, or other co-
government transcends the Constitution. The SC has jurisdiction over the Constitution.
equal branch of government can
Electoral Commission and the subject matter of the present controversy for the
only be tried by the SC when there
purpose of determining the character, scope and extent of the constitutional
is evidence of GADELEJ
grant to the Electoral Commission being the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly
* similar to issue in Onsiako-Reyes case [sir mentioned this would come out in the
exam]
A proclamation reserved a parcel of land of public domain in Bataan for

industrial estate purposes for Petrochemical Industrial Zone under the
SC has the power to invalidate acts
ownership of the Philippine National Oil Company. BOI approved the transfer of
of tribunals/ other branches of
Petrochem to Batangas as per the wishes of their investors. Issue is WON BOI GADELEJ clothing SC
GARCIA v BOI government when they have acted
committed GAD when they approved such transfer. with Jurisdiction:
Keywords: B-BOYZ, oil in grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of
HELD: YES. The board cannot just arbitrarily allow the decision, regarding the use
jurisdiction.
and utilization of public resources, be left to the whims and wants of the
investors.

Dissent [sirs comment also]: GAD on the part of SC. The Board of Investments
are supposed to be a group of specialized body on economics or politics and
the SC is not one that is knowledgeable about those subjects. Why should they
replace the findings of the BOI
Standing:
SC allowed inter-generational
The petitioners sought to enjoin the respondent Secretary of DENR from representation of generations yet
approving and wanting to cancel all existing Timber License Agreements. They unborn as valid
also asserted the rights of their generation and the unborn to a balanced and
healthful ecology and that the matter is of judicial notice. Political vs. Judicial question:
OPOSA v FACTORAN
P refers to questions on policy and
Keywords: oposa sila
HELD: The TLAs involve a judicial question. What is principally involved is the wisdom of an act as opposed to J,
sa putol trees enforcement of a right versus policies already formulated and expressed in which deals with
legislation. The second half of Sec 1 Art. VIII of 1987 consitution expanded SCs enforceable/impaired rights
jurisdiction to review the discretion of political departments when GADELEJ is When whoever enacts a law or
alleged. policy is found to have done so with
GADELEJ, a political question
becomes justiciable.
Manila Prince Hotel, in a bid against Renong Berhad (a Malaysian firm), to
acquire 51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation, which owns the CONSTITUTIONAL
MANILA PRINCE v Manila Hotel, invoked the Filipino First policy found in Section 10 of Article XII of SUPREMACY
GSIS the Constitution of the Philippines. Since GSIS refused to accept its bid security SC is the arbiter on how a Related to Marbury v
Keywords: feeling to match the bid of the Malaysian group, MPH came to the Supreme Court on constitutional provision would be Madison: both referred
prince si manila prohibition & mandamus. Issue WON the provision is self-executory. interpreted to the supremacy of
prince, spoiled brat, the Constitution over all
Filipino first HELD: NO. SC is arbiter on how a constitutional provision is to be interpreted. other laws or
Supreme Court decided in favor of MPH in pursuant of the Filipino First Policy proclamations.
found in the Constitution.
Guingona:
Kilosbayan wanted to prohibit the implementation of a Contract of Lease
executed by PCSO and PGMC. PCSO issued a request for proposal of the
Standing:
contract and PGMC submitted its bid for evaluation. Kilosbayan sent an open
A partys standing is a procedural
letter to President ramos opposing the on-line lottery system but it still pushed
technicality that can be relaxed in
through. Petitioners contend that an analysis of the contract shows that it is Related to Garcia,
view of transcendental importance
KILOSBAYAN v PGMC that is the actual lotto operation and not PCSO. On the other hand,
to the public of the issues involved.
Oposa on GADELEJ.
GUINGONA / respondents claim that it does not violate the Constitution. all three refers to acts
The ramifications of such issues affect
KILOSBAYAN v of agencies not found
the social, economic, and moral
HELD: A partys standing is a procedural technicality that can be relaxed in view in the constitution
MORATO well-being of the people.
of transcendental importance to the public of the issues involved. The
Keywords: kilos ng ramifications of such issues affect the social, economic, and moral well-being of
Requires partial consideration of the
STANDING: clothes SC
kilos, maligalig merits of the case in view of its
the people. with authority to
kilosbayan PCSO constitutional and public policy
exercise Judicial
underpinnings [Morato]
contracts Morato: powers
May be brushed aside by the court
PCSO and PGMC signed an Equipment Lease Agreement for online lottery.
as a mere procedural technicality in
Kilosbayan contended that the amended ELA was null and void for being the
view of transcendental importance
same with the old lease contract. Respondents claim that it is a different lease
of the issues involved [Guingona]
contract and that the agreement did not have to be submitted for public
hearng because it fell within the exceptions under EO 301 questioning
petitioners standing.

HELD: They do not have standing nor substantial interest to make them a real
party because there is no constitutional question involved. There is no proof that
public funds are being spent. What is essentially being questioned is a private
contract.
Navarro, then Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry, signed the
Uruguay Round Final Act, which stipulates that the Philippines agree to submit
World Trade Organization Agreement. On December 14, 1994, Resolution no. 97
TANADA v ANGARA was adopted by the Philippine Senate to ratify the WTO Agreement. Petitioners
Related to Oposo on
Keywords: WTO filed a petition, seeking to nullify the ratification on the agreement, viewing it as
Grave abuse of discretion: GADELEJ: When GAD is
agreement. one that limits, restricts, and impairs Philippine economic sovereignty and takes
When acts are done within the ambit alleged, SC is given
Mapapagiwanan sa for granted the Filipino First Policy making the Philippines not have a self-reliant
of the department/agencies jurisdiction to try the
economy as per the 1987 Constitution.
gara ng buhay if Phils prerogative, SC cannot exercise case but does not
did not participate judicial power. To do so would automatically mean
HELD: Where an action of the legislative branch is alleged to have infringed the
amount to GAD on the part of the that the
Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact that duty of the judiciary
SC agency/legislative
[will come out in the to settle the dispute. The Constitution did not intend to place the Philippines in
acted in GAD.
test he says] isolation so it needs foreign investments, even though there is a bias towards
Filipinos. Since it was already passed in Congress, it cannot be now a political
question. The senate voting to give its consent to the agreement is a legitimate
exercise of its sovereign duty and power.
The petitioner Teodoro Santiago Jr. is a sixth grader at Sero Elementary School
scheduled to graduate on May 21, 1965 with third honors. Three days before
graduation, he and his parents sought to invalidate the final list of honor
students in the Grade 6 for school year 1964-1965 as the respondents had
prejudiced him, and violated the Service Manual for Teachers of the Bureau of
Public Schools which provides the committee to select the honor students
should be composed of all teachers in Grade 6 and 5, principals and supervisors
merely passed the complaint around and that the 1st placer was tutored by a
SANTIAGO v Grade 6 teacher during summer. The injunction was denied as graduation was
the next day. Respondents moved to dismiss the case on the basis that action
BAUTISTA
for certiorari was improper as question became academic on May 24, 1965. It
Keywords: Grade 6, was granted.
3rd honor LOL
HELD: There was no actual controversy. The Committee for Rating Honor
Students is neither judicial nor quasi-judicial body. It is necessary that there be a
law that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or property under which
adverse claims are made and brought to tribunal with competent authority.
There is no law for such nor did petitioner present pertinent provisions of the
Manual which was violated by the Committee. Thus, the judiciary has no power
to rescind the award of the board of judges.

government, with discretionary power to act.
B. Case or Controversy Requirement: Elements
This means that there must be a genuine conflict of legal rights and interests
which can be resolved through judicial determination.
Alexander Bickel, The Supreme Court 1960
Requisites for justiciability needs to be met [standing, ripeness, actual case Term Foreword: The Passive Virtues, 75 HARV.
and controversy, mootness]
L. REV 40 (1961)
Problem is the 15 members of the SC has the power to
The judiciary will not interfere with its co-equal branches when:
declare unconstitutional the acts passed by over 300 members of
1. There is no showing of grave abuse of discretion
Congress, elected by the people nonetheless. So why are we
2. The issue is a political question. giving them that much power? This is termed by Bickel to be
Counter-majoritarian the argument that judicial review is
Guidelines for determining whether a question is political or not [from Estrada illegitimate because it allows unelected judges to overrule the
v Desierto citing Baker v Carr]: lawmaking of elected representatives, thus undermining the will of
1. There is a textually demonstrable constitutional the majority.
commitment of the issue to a political department;
2. Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable SIRS OPINION: SC should adapt the power of self-restraint. They should adapt
standards for resolving it; the virtues of being passive, giving the presumption of regularity on the laws
3. The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy
determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial Excerpt from the article justifying judicial review being under attack by the
discretion; counter-majoritarian argument:
4. Impossibility of a courts undertaking independent It is the Court's function of declaring principled goals that the rule of the
resolution without expressing lack of the respect due neutral principles would excise. More, it would require the Court to validate
coordinate branches of government; with overtones of principle most of what the political institutions do merely on
5. An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a grounds of expediency. Like Judge Hand, Mr. Wechsler appears to
political decision already made; depreciate the function of the judges as "teachers to the citizenry."
6. Potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious
pronouncements by various departments on one
question
STANDING
Justiciable Question Political Question
Legal Standing Locus Standi
Relate primarily to enforceable Relates usually to a political issue
Vests jurisdiction to a court over a case.
and dependable rights
[note: there must be standing for a case to be tried]
Triable by courts Not triable for violation of co-equal branches
Concept in Constitutional Law Concept in Remedial Law
of government
Does not inflict direct damage to parties, You have to show that you really
Talks of legality of an Talks of wisdom behind the laws of legislative,
but calls for more than just a generalized have a right that was injured and
act/measure and policies of the executive
grievance. damaged caused
Refers to: (1) matters to be exercised by the
Until and unless such actual or threatened injury is established, the petitioners
people in their primary political capacity; or
will not be clothed with legal personality to raise constitutional questions
(2) those specifically delegated to some
other department or particular office of the
[exception to the rule on standing: issues of transcendental importance]

REQUISITES FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Special Rules on Standing: 1. Actual case and controversy calling for the exercise of
judicial power:
Taxpayer (1) Appropriation; (2) Disbursement means that the case or controversy is
(1) Direct injury, (2) Public right; OR Art. VII, Sec. 18 (on the appropriate for determination. [includes
Citizen sufficiency of the factual basis for martial law or suspension concepts of ripeness and mootness check
of the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus) explanation above]
2. Standing: [check explanation above]
Voter Right of suffrage is involved 3. Question of constitutionality raised at the earliest possible
(1) Authorized; (2) Affects legislative prerogatives (i.e. a opportunity:
Legislator
derivative suit) The reckoning point is the first competent court.
(1) Litigants must have injury-in-fact; (2) Litigants must have The question must be raised at the first court
close relation to the third-party; and with judicial review powers. Reason for this is to
Third-Party
(3) There is an existing hindrance to the third partys ability prevent the defense of unconstitutionality as an
Standing
to protect its own interest. [White Light v. City of Manila after thought to an earlier defense that may
(2009)] have failed
4. The issue of the constitutionality is the very lis mota of the
case:
RIPENESS & MOOTNESS: Decision on the constitutional question must be
Ripeness of the controversy: The issue must be raised not too early that determinative of the case itself. The reason for
it is conjectural or anticipatory, nor too late that it becomes moot. this is the doctrine of separation of powers
which requires that due respect be given to the
Ripeness: the controversy must be actual and ripe for adjudication. If whats co-equal branches, and because of the grave
being contested has not been promulgated, or having been promulgated, consequences of a declaration of
has yet to pose any danger or injury to people, then it is not ripe for unconstitutionality.
adjudication
Mootness: When an act or promulgation have seized to have any legal

effect, ruling on such would not resolve any controversy and is done merely
for academic purposes.
General Rule: Courts will not decide questions that have become moot
and academic.
Exception: Courts will still decide if:

(a) There is a grave violation of the Constitution;
(b) The situation is of exceptional character and paramount public
interest is involved; [transcendental importance]
(c) [Symbolic Function] The constitutional issue raised requires
formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar
and the public; and
(d) The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

CASES:

Actual case and controversy
Standing
The PACU assailed the constitutionality of Act no. 2706 because they regulate
the ownership of private schools in the country. These laws provide that a
permit should first be obtained from the Secretary of Education before any General rule on standing:
PACU v SEC of person may be permitted to operate a private school. SolGen contends that Not falling within any of the
EDCUATION petitioners have no legal standing because all of them have permits to exception on standing, without the
Keywords: PACyU di operate. showing of injury from a
ka affected law/regulation, the complainanant
HELD: PACU did not show that it suffered any injury from the exercise of such cannot be said to have standing
powers granted to the Secretary of Education. Mere apprehension that he
might revoke the permits is not a justiciable controversy.
Hechanova authorized the importation of foreign rice to be purchased.

Gonzales, a rice planter, contended that RA 3452 prohibits importation of rice
so they are acting without jurisdiction. Respondents contend that he does not Taxpayer standing: in questioning
GONZALES v Taxpayer standing:
have sufficient interest. the executive agreements, standing
In Hechanova, since the
HECHANOVA as a taxpayer would prosper
executive essentially uses
Keywords: Rice HELD: Gonzales is entitled a chance to sell to the government the rice it now because in doing such, the
public funds (tax payers
agreement seeks to buy abroad. The price of commodity would be affected with public executive might be unlawfully
money) to implement
funds and petitioner, being a taxpayer, has sufficient personality to seek disbursing public funds.
projects for the people,
judicial assistance to restrain what he thinks is an attempt to unlawfully
taxpayer standing is allowed
disburse said funds.
In Marcos, the funds being
questioned came from
Gonzales questioned the validity of EO 30 creating the CCP. The Board of
private donations and not
Trustees accepted donations from private sectors and President Johnson
GONZALES v from tax payers money. The
even gave money as war damage funds. The trial judge dismissed the
Taxpayer standing: Donations does nature of the funds being so,
MARCOS petition as funds came from contributions and donations, not tax. It was also
not fall within the definition of being a tax payer does not
Keywords: ARHT dami alleged that the EO is encroaching on the legislative department.
public funds have any bearing.
alam donations
HELD: The petitioner does not have the capacity to question the EO as funds
held by CCP came from donations and not tax.
Unjieng was convicted of criminal charges and he filed an application for

probation under Act no. 4221 but the Fiscal denied granting the probation for
being in violation of equal protection. Vera concluded that Unjieng is The Government of the Philippines
PEOPLE v VERA
innocent but denied petition for probation. People is claiming that Vera does is a proper party when
Keywords: sabog
not have power to place accused under probation because Section 1 of the questioning the validity of its own
judge Act applies only to provincial and not chartered cities like Manila. Vera claims laws.
that petition does not state sufficient facts.
HELD: The People of the Philippines is a proper party in the proceedings

because if the Act really violates the Constitution, they have a substantial
interest in having it set aside as there will be damage caused by illegal
expenditure of public funds.
Flast objected to federal expenditures destined for sectarian religious schools

under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, asserting that it
Taxpayer standing: pre-supposed Gonzales v Hechanova &
is in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. A three judge panel ruled that
allocated funds from the Gonzales v Marcos: check
appellants lacked standing to maintain the action as they must allege a
government are from the taxes paid above
FLAST v COHEN particularized injury.
by taxpayers
Keywords: flast STANDARD FOR TAX PAYER SUIT: In Flasts case, since an act
HELD: Taxpayers have a standing to challenge congressional action when
reading, books for they allege a link between their taxpayer status and the challenged
[two nexus] was passed appropriating
religious schools must demonstrate a personal stake money to a project or event,
enactment. Taxpayer status is not an absolute bar to Article III standing
in the outcome there Is a strong presumption
requirements. They must demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome.
limited when they can show that what they are using are
Standing should be limited when taxpayers can only show incidental
incidental expenditures of funds taxpayers money.
expenditures of funds. In the case at bar, they have alleged that tax money is
being spent in violation of a specific constitutional protection.
Taxpayer standing:
any impending transmittal to the
The HoR adopted a resolution which directed the Committee on Justice to
Senate of the Articles of
conduct an investigation on the manner of expenditures by the Chief Justice
impeachment and the ensuing trial
through JDF. Estrada filed an impeachment case against Chief Justice
of the Chief Justice will necessarily
Davide. Fuentebella filed second impeachment case founded on alleged
involve public funds.
results of legislative inquiry. Petitioner Francisco alleges that he has a duty as
FRANCISCO v HOR member of IBP to stop unconstitutional impeachment.
Being a legislator:
Keywords: wHORe allowed to sue to question the
lang mag file ng HELD: Legal standing is granted to all petitioners except Vallejo, who failed to
validity of any official action which
allege interest in the case. Because of the importance of the issue, the Court Standing: can be relaxed if
impeachment (is claimed) to infringe (their)
relaxed the strict rules of court to accommodate the filing of the complaint. issue is of transcendental
complaint, 2x within The first complaint was filed by Estrada and a second complaint was filed by
prerogative as legislators.
importance.
a year Fuentabella. The Supreme Court defined the word initiate.
[will come out in the To the association and members of
The House has his own rules on impeachment and on the meaning of
the legal profession:
test he says] initiate if there are 2/3 votes of members of House that may have
as they advanced constitutional
endorsed impeachment complaint, it has been initiated.
issues which deserve the attention of
If justice committee has opposed the filing of an impeachment complaint
the Supreme Court in view of their
and upon appeal, it is reversed by the floor then it is initiated (pinag-
seriousness, novelty and weight as
aralan).
precedents (though their mere
The Supreme Court ruled that the rules of the House are unconstitutional
invocation does not suffice alone to
clothe them with standing)
Ripeness
Petitioners are questioning the validity of an agreement expanding the power

TAN v MACAPAGAL and authority of Constitutional Commission. They wanted to oppose the Timing of the filing of the petition
Keywords: tantanan proposal to have a change of government. affects whether or not its justiciable
ako macapagal ng or not. Theres no actual controversy
effectivity at injury HELD: There was still no injury at that point. Only after it has made concrete when an act is not effective yet
what it intends to submit for ratification may the appropriate case be
instituted. The Judiciary must leave the Constitutional Commission free to fulfill

its responsibility.
Justice Laurel: Locus standi refers to a personal injury sustained by the

complainant but in Constitutional law, it is harder to apply because it involves
a public right and not a civil right.
Public standing has a broader application than locus standi.
The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors construed a state penal statute as

prohibiting the use of contraceptive devices and the giving of medical
advice on their use. Appellants included a couple who had several
pregnancies result with severely abnormal progeny which died shortly after
POE v ULLMAN birth, a couple whose wife had experienced a severely traumatic pregnancy
and their physician, who believes the safest course of treatment for the A penal statute that has not been
Keywords: juskoPOE,
couples includes using contraceptive devices. enforced is not ripe for judicial
buntis nalaglag review.
makukulong pa HELD: A penal statute that has not been enforced is not ripe for judicial
review. Connecticut has never attempted to fully prosecute any case under
the statute. Because of this, not only have the Appellants not suffered injury in
fact from the statute, but there is no evidence that they would be prosecuted
for acting in violation of the statute.
Richardson sued Congress, hoping to compel release of detailed funding

records of CIA funding. He based his standing to sue on his status as a United
States taxpayer. District Court dismissed the case for lack of standing based
on Flast v Cohen but CA said there was sufficient standing.
US v RICHARDSON HELD: The party must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger
* this case is more on standing than Nexus ruling in flast stated
Keywords: CIA no of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the enforcement of the statute,
ripeness here
basis and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people
generally. He makes no claim that appropriated funds are being spent in
violation of a specific constitutional limitation upon the taxing and spending
power. There is also no logical nexus between the asserted status of taxpayer
and the claimed failure of the Congress to require the Executive to supply a
more detailed report of the expenditures of that agency.
Mootness
PGMA declared a state of rebellion, ordering the AFP and PNP to suppress
that rebellion in the NCR. Four petitions were filed contending that her state of Subsequent events to the filing of a
LACSON v PEREZ
rebellion was used to justify the warrantless arrests. Before the SC could act on petition may leave the same moot,
Keywords: angrymob
the legality of the declaration, PGMA lifted her declaration. it being that the very issue has Perfect illustration of issues
sugod kay ate glo seized to exist that are moot but are
HELD: The lifting of the declaration rendered it moot. capable of repetition yet
evading review
Exception to mootness: If an issue is
SANLAKAS v EXEC
AFP entered into a mutiny into Oakwood Premiere Hotels, asking for the capable of repetition yet evading
SEC
resignation of the Chief of PNP, PGMA and Secretary of Defense. PGMA review.
Keywords: oakwood declared a state of rebellion, ordering the AFP and PNP to suppress that

mutiny rebellion. If the same act, which was
previously ruled to be moot,
HELD: It was lifted so the case became moot but the SC said that it will decide happens again, then the court has
on cases, otherwise moot, if it is capable of repetition yet evading review. the power to rule on the same, even
There is no power to declare a state of rebellion in the Executive, but when moot, for the reason that the
Congress. same might happen again, still
evading review
[below will come out in the test he says]
Capable of repetition yet evading review You cannot declare a state of
rebellion because it has no legal consequences. At most, it describes the
objective reality that there is no state of rebellion.
Art. VII, Section 18: The Executive can declare a state of emergency, suppress
lawless rebellion and suspension of writ of habeas corpus.
De Funis sued members of the Board of Regents for discrimination against him
on account of his race in violation of equal protection. He was then admitted
to the law school but during his second year, the Washington Supreme Court
reversed the judgment and held that the admissions policy was not
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States granted De Funis
petition for a writ of certiorari and stayed the judgment of the Supreme Court
of Washington pending final disposition of the case. The case came before
the Supreme Court of the United States for a full hearing when De Funis was in
DE FUNIS v his final year of law school. Although the law school assured that it would
ODEGAARD allow De Funis to graduate regardless of the Courts decision, both parties When the original controversy has
Keywords: de contended that mootness did not exist to block formal adjudication of the disappeared prior to development
mafunis funis issue sa matter. of the suit, it is deemed moot.
law school admission
HELD: The court held that when the original controversy has disappeared prior
to development of the suit, it is deemed moot. The case neither constituted
voluntary cessation (because the plaintiff was now in his final quarter so
school couldn't do anything) nor was it capable of repetition, yet evading
review.
Dissent: the issue may not be capable of repetition in De Funis case, but it
may happen again to other people, the court should have ruled on the
matter.

Scope and limitations
Universal in application to all persons without regard to any difference in race,
II. DUE PROCESS CLAUSE color or nationality.
{Const. Art III, sec. 1} Artificial persons are covered by the protection but only insofar as their
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of property is concerned [Smith Bell and Co. v. Natividad, 40 Phil. 163]
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
The guarantee extends to aliens and includes the means of livelihood.
[Villegas v. HiuChiong, 86 SCRA 275]
Const. Art. III, Sec. 9
The due process clause has to do with the legislation enacted in pursuance of
In General the police power. xxx The guaranty of due process, as has often been held,
Due process of law simply states that [i]t is part of the sporting idea of fair demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious,
play to hear "the other side" before an opinion is formed or a decision is made and that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the
by those who sit in judgment. [Ynot v. IAC (1987)] subject sought to be attained. [Ichong v. Hernandez (1957)]
It covers any governmental action which constitutes a deprivation of some Noted exceptions to due process
person's life, liberty, or property. (1) The conclusive presumption, bars the admission of contrary
evidence as long as such presumption is based on human
Definition experience or there is a rational connection between the
Due process furnishes a standard to which the governmental action should fact proved and the fact ultimately presumed there from.
conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in each (2) There are instances when the need for expeditious action will
appropriate case, be valid. xxx It is responsiveness to the supremacy of
justify omission of these requisitese.g. in the summary
reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. Negatively pit, arbitrariness is
ruled out and unfairness avoided. xxx Correctly it has been identified as abatement of a nuisance per se, like a mad dog on the
freedom from arbitrariness. It is the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair loose, which may be killed on sight because of the
play. [Ichong v. Hernandez (1957)] immediate danger it poses to the safety and lives of the
people.
A law hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders (3) Pornographic materials, contaminated meat and narcotic
judgment only after trial. [Darthmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheaton 518]
drugs are inherently pernicious and may be summarily
destroyed.
Life is also the right to a good life. [Bernas] It includes the right of an individual
to his body in its completeness, free from dismemberment, and extends to the (4) The passport of a person sought for a criminal offense may
use of God-given faculties which make life enjoyable. [Malcolm] be cancelled without hearing, to compel his return to the
country he has fled.
Liberty includes the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary (5) Filthy restaurants may be summarily padlocked in the interest
personal restraint or servitude. [It] includes the right of the citizen to be free to of the public health and bawdy houses to protect the public
use his faculties in all lawful ways[.] [Rubi v. Provincial Board]
morals. [Ynot v. IAC (1987)]
Property is anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the
subject of contract. It represents more than the things a person owns; it In such instances, previous judicial hearing may be omitted without violation
includes the right to secure, use and dispose of them. [Torraco v. Thompson, of due process in view of: 1) the nature of the property involved; or 2) the
263 US 197] urgency of the need to protect the general welfare from a clear and present
danger.

(a) There shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general
powers of the legislative department of the Government;
A. Procedural Due Process (b) This law shall be reasonable in its operation;
The aspect of due process which serves as a restriction on actions of judicial (c) It shall be enforced according to the regular methods of
and quasi-judicial agencies of the government. It refers to the method or procedure prescribed; and
manner by which a law is enforced. (d) It shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to
all of a class.
Concerned with government action on established process when it makes
intrusion into the private sphere. B. Old Substantive Due Process: Protection for
Property Interests
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS:
Substantive due process, asks whether the government has an adequate
reason for taking away a persons life, liberty, or property.
C. New Substantive Due Process: Protection for
Liberty Interest in Privacy
In other words, substantive due process looks to whether there is a sufficient Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4
justification for the governments action.
Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890)
Substantive due process is an aspect of due process which serves as a Cortes, I, Constitutional Foundations of Privacy
restriction on the law-making and rule-making power of the government.
, in EMERGING TRENDS IN LAW, 1-70 (1983)
The law itself, not merely the procedures by which the law would be
enforced, should be fair, reasonable, and just. D. Protected Interests in Property
It guarantees against the arbitrary power even when exercised Mere Regulation under the Due Process
according to proper forms and procedure. Clause versus Taking of Property via the
Requisites:
Power of Eminent Domain
Due process of law means simply that

CASES
Case Facts & Ruling Doctrine Related cases
Due Process
Procedural Dude Process
Engracio Palanca, a Chinese man, mortgaged three parcels of land to

Essential Requirements of
Banco Espanol, but moved away and never came back again. The bank
Procedural Due Process:
instituted an action to foreclose the property. Since Palanca was a non-
1. there must be a court clothed
resident, it was necessary for him to be given notice through publication and
BANCO ESPANOL v with judicial power to hear
court directed clerk of court to send him notice through mail. Notice is an essential
PALANCA and determine the matter
element of due process,
before it
Keywords: banco vs HELD: There was no denial of due process as there was proper service of otherwise the Court will not
2. jurisdiction must be lawfully
invisible chinese summons through publication (in rem) even though there was no actual
acquired over the person or
acquire jurisdiction and its
[will come out in the notice. judgment will not bind the
property of the defendant
test he says] defendant.
3. the defendant must be given
The problem is if publication is sufficient notice? There is truly no due
an opportunity to be heard
process if you didn't notify.
4. judgment must be heard upon
Even if there is already execution, the execution of the decision is
lawful hearing
invalid because of lack of jurisdiction and lack of due process.
Essential Requirements of
Administrative Due Process:
1. right to a hearing which
includes the right of party
affected to present his own
case and submit evidence in
support
2. the tribunal must consider
Toribio owns and operates Ang Tibay which laid off members of the National evidence presented
Labor Union because of the shortage of leather soles. The NLU aver that it 3. necessity for the court to
ANG TIBAY v CIR was a scheme to systematically terminate employees and that he is guilty of have evidence presented
Keywords: ang tibay unfair labor practice. The NLU filed a motion for new trial. 4. such evidence must be
ng leather soles substantial
[will come out in the HELD: The newly discovered evidence obtained by NLU were inaccessible to 5. decision must be rendered
test he says] them during trial with CIR and these attached documents are important on the evidence presented
theat their admission would necessarily mean modification of rendered at the hearing and disclosed
judgement. to parties
6. court must act on its own
consideration of the law and
facts of a controversy
7. courts should render
decision in a way that
parties can know all
pertinent issues and reasons
for decisions.
Being given notice and opportunity
ATENEO v CA A waitress in Cervini Cafeteria charged Ramon Guanzon for unbecoming
to be heard is enough to satisfy the
Siopao pa po conduct as he hit her when she told him that the siopao would take longer to
due process requirement.
heat. Juan was dismissed from Ateneo after an investigation was conducted.

His parents filed a complaint for damages against Ateneo because their kid
was expelled without a fair trial in violation of his right to due process. Ateneo
justified his dismissal on the ground that they have sole prerogative to drop a
student found to be undesirable in order to preserve and maintain its
integrity. CFI ordered Ateneo to pay damages but CA set aside the decision.
HELD: Guanzon was given notice of the proceedings, and even presented
his side so all requisites of administrative due process were met. He was
already 18 and chose not to inform his parents even though he was asked to
seek advice from them. His conduct also constituted grounds for dismissal.
Petitioners were not allowed to re-enroll to school for participating in student

mass actions. They filed a petition seeking their readmission to the school but
trial court dismissed it as the petitioners were able to air out their grievances.
NON v JUDGE Even when there is a valid claim of
In their enrollment form, it says that the college reserves the right to deny
a right to be exercised, if the
DAMES admission of students whose conduct discredits with the efficient operation
adverse party is not given due
Keywords: non- of the college.
process, it would make the act
reenrollment for you invalid
HELD: Excluding students because of failing grades when the cause of the
action taken against them undeniably related to possible breaches of
discipline is a denial of due process. They were dismissed outright.
The appellees were receiving financial aid under the assisted Aid to Families
with Dependent Children program or under New York Home Relief Program,
and they alleged that city officials administering these programs terminated
or about to terminate such aid without prior notice and pre-termination
hearing. After suit was filed, New York City Department provided for the
GOLDBERG v KELLY recipient to challenge the termination of benefits within 7 days and a pre-
Keywords: Financial termination hearing.
aid coz gold LOL
HELD: Only a pre-termination hearing provides the recipient with procedural
due process. The interest of the eligible recipient in uninterrupted receipt of
public assistance coupled with the States interest that payments not be
erroneously terminated clearly outweighs the States interest to prevent
administrative and fiscal burdens.
The UP Administration implemented the socialized scheme of tuition fee

payments through the Socialized Tuition Fee and Assistance Program (STFAP)
wherein applicants need to state their familys annual income. Nadal did not
UP v LIGOT declare his car nor his mothers income. UP charged him before Disciplinary
Board which expelled him. Nadal filed with RTC for injunction on the basis
Keywords: STFAP,
that he was not afforded due process.
hugot ng UP
HELD: Through the power to impose disciplinary sanctions, an educational
institution is able to exercise its academic freedom to suspend and refuse
admission to a student who has subverted its authority in the implementation
of the STFAP. Such rules are incident to the very object of incorporation and

indispensable to the successful management of the college.
Lirag Textile Mills terminated the service of its employees on the ground of
retrenchment, resulting in the laying off of 180 employees. One of the
employees filed for illegal dismissal. NLRC, on behalf of employees, filed a
complaint asking for separation pay. A writ of execution was issued and DBP
extra-judicially foreclosed the mortgaged properties for LIRAGs failure to
DBP v NLRC pay. LAND filed a motion of garnishment but Labor Arbiter ordered DBP
Being given opportunity to be heard
impleaded in interest of due process and ordered DBP to remit to NLRC the
Keywords: land for proceeds.
and present evidence contesting
wages?? allegations satisfies due process
HELD: DBP cannot rightfully contend that it was deprived of due process
because it was given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
Property was mortgaged and antedated the law on unpaid wages so it was
secured way before the law was passed. Thus, unpaid wages cannot be
taken from DBP.
If the law is vague, there is no due process because you will not know
what is sanctioned.
[below is included in the test he said]

In a criminal prosecution for plunder, as in all other crimes, the accused
always has in his favor the presumption of innocence. This standard gives
life to the Due Process Clause which protects the accused against
conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact
Estrada questioned the constitutionality of the law as it dispenses with
necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.
reasonable doubt, abolishes the element of mens rea and violates rights to
due process and to be informed of the accusation against him.
Difference between mala in se and mala prohibita in this case:
Plunder is a malum in se, requiring proof of criminal intent. Precisely
HELD: If the law is vague, you will not know why you are being prosecuted
ESTRADA v because the constitutive crimes are mala in se, the element of mens
but in this case, it is not necessary to prove every act done in furtherance of
SANDIGANBAYAN rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. It is noteworthy that the
the scheme. What is required to be proved is the element of mens rea. The
amended information alleges that the crime of plunder was committed
Keywords: reasonable standard gives life to the due process clause.
willfully, unlawfully and criminally. It thus alleges guilty knowledge on
paninidigan ni erap sa
the part of petitioner.
mens rea Plunder: Holding a position of influence in the government that
[will come out in the allows you to amass at least 50,000. You cannot amass such great
The fact that the acts enumerated in Section 1(d) of R.A. 7080 were
wealth unless you have that position.
test he says] made criminal by special law does not necessarily make the same mala
o Estrada alleged that he did not steal because the 6
prohibita where criminal intent is not essential, although the term refers
million was borrowed from GSIS and SSS as investment,
generally to acts made criminal by special laws. For there is a marked
and sold for 100. He says that he did not steal but merely
difference between the two.
earned it.
There is a distinction between crimes which are mala in se, or wrongful
from their nature, such as theft, rape, homicide, etc., and those that
are mala prohibita,or wrong merely because prohibited by statute, such
as illegal possession of firearms. Crimes mala in se are those so serious in
their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation of
its members; while crimes mala prohibita are violations of mere rules of
convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs
of society.

Old Substantive Due Process: Protection for Property Interests
The Bakeshop Act prohibited bakery employees from working for more than
10 hours per day. Lochner violated Section 10, Article 8 for permitting an
employee to work in his bakery for more than that time. He filed a petition,
contending that it violated his freedom to make a contract in relation to his
LOCHNER v NEW The limit of the police power was
business under the due process clause.
exceeded as there was no
YORK
reasonable ground for interfering
Keywords: lochner the HELD: A law that affects freedom of contract is unconstitutional if it is not
with the right of free contract by
baker reasonably related to a legitimate purpose of protecting public health. The
determining a bakers labor laws.
limit of the police power was exceeded as there was no reasonable ground
for interfering with the right of free contract by determining a bakers labor
laws. The limitation on labor laws has no direct relation to the health of the
employee as to justify the law as a health law.
AGRIX executed a REM over land to Philippine Veternans Bank but later
became bankrupt. Marcos issued PD 1717 which created a law to exempt
the property of AGRIX from mortgage foreclosure. Veterans took measures to Private property cannot simply be
extra-judicially foreclose the three properties RTC ruled in favor of Veterans taken by law from one person and
NDC and AGRIX v PHIL on the ground that decree is a violation of due process as creditors were not given to another without
VETERANS consulted in public hearings before the law was enacted. compensation
Keywords:
condonation of debt HELD: The creation of New Agrix violated the prohibition of the Batasang Exercise of police power is wrong in
na hindi tama Pambansa which shall not provide for the formation of private corporations this case because it unduly
unless these are owned or controlled by the government. Private property prejudices third parties rather than
cannot simply be taken by law from one person and given to another favor the interest of most
without compensation. The right to property owing to creditors of Agrix are
dissolved without regard to private interest violated.
Petitioners assailed the validity of an ordinance passed by the Municipal

Board of Butuan which penalizes any person who would requires children
aged 7-12 to pay in full for being in violation of due process for undue
restraint of trade. The trial court and CA ruled that the ordinance was valid.
BALACUIT v CFI
In order for an ordinance to be
Keywords: balacuit sa HELD: Ordinance invades the personal and property rights of petitioners as it
valid, its purpose must have been
bulsa na magulang is an unlawful curtailment of the personal and property rights of citizens. The
addressed with reasonable means.
manood ng movie right of the owner to fix a price at which his property shall be used is an
inherent attribute of the property itself and within the protection of due
process. The purpose of the ordinance was to ease the burden of parents
but at the cost of the business which are made to bear the cost of savings
and penalize failure to comply.
New Substantive Due Process: Protection for Liberty Interest in Privacy

Right to be let alone doctrine limits
OLMSTEAD v US
Petitioners violated the National Prohibition Act by unlawfully possessing the powers and authority of the
Keywords:
liquor. There were three telephone wires that were wiretapped by officers state to intrude in the peoples
wiretapping who listened to the conversations. Petitioners contend that governments private lives

wire-tapping constituted unreasonable search and seizure while the
government contends that the 4th Amendment does not include telephone
conversations.
DISSENT OF BRANDEIS: Right to privacy should be most protected. The very

essence of constitutional liberty and security apply to all invasions on the part
of the government on the privacies of life. Every governmental intrusion upon
the privacy of the individual must be deemed a violation of the 4th
Amendment.
From Skinner up til Bowers,

A habitual criminal is a person who has been convicted two or more times for
cases dealt with the right to
crimes involving moral turpitude. By Oklahomas Criminal Sterilization Act, a
pro-create, a fundamental
habitual criminal is rendered sexually sterile as long as sterilization is without
right given by the
detriment to the general health, while crimes involving embezzlement is
constitution.
immune. The petitioner was arrested for taking chickens and for robbery with
firearms twice, being convicted of the second robbery that the Act was
Griswold: Marital privacy is a
passed. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed the operation of Fundamental right > state interests
SKINNER v OKLAHOMA thing
vasectomy. Right to procreate is a fundamental
Keywords: skin off LOL right, and the state in trying to
Eisenstadt: Having sex is
sterilization HELD: There is no showing that the petitioners offspring would commit the achieve eugenics and sterilizing
ones own private act
same offenses that his father would make. Procreation is fundamental to the criminals do not align.
very existence and survival of the race such that any individual whom the
Roe: If I get preggers cause I
Act touches is deprived of a basic liberty.
had sex, I also have the right
to abort the same
Crimes involving moral turpitude is anything that is wrong, not statutory or
mala prohibitum but mala in se. Anything that your conscience says is wrong
Bowers: theres no
involves a crime of moral turpitude.
procreation because sex
between two men will never
produce an offspring
Griswold and Buxton were prosecuted as accessories for giving information,
GRISWOLD v instruction and medical advice to married persons by way of contraception.
RULING IN LAURENCE:
They appealed that the accessory statute violated the 14th amendment. Penumbra of the rights to privacy
CONNECTICUT The right mention above was
implied in and from different
El gamma penumbra HELD: The law forbidding contraception violates the right to marital privacy statutes in the constitution.
expanded to go beyond
of rights merely having the right to
thus is unconstitutional. The association of marriage is a privacy right older
procreate, but the right to
than the Bill of Rights.
be let alone. That
governmental intrusions are
limited whenever
William Baird was convicted under Massachusetts Law for exhibiting
fundamental rights are
contraceptive articles and for giving vaginal foam to single persons as the
concerned
law makes it a felony for anyone to give a drug away for the prevention of
EISENSTADT v BAIRD conception except if they are a registered physician administering or
The purpose of the enactment was The ruling in Laurence widen
prescribing it for married persons.
Keywords: baird from not achieved by limiting the law to the coverage to essentially
giving vaginal foam just married couples saying that what people do
HELD: The dissimilar treatment of similarly situated married persons and
in their homes, their
unmarried persons under the Massachusetts law violates the equal
bedroom more specifically
protection clause. The prohibition on contraception does not prevent
cannot be regulated by
married persons from engaging in illicit sexual relations with unmarried
laws.
persons. It the purpose was for health reasons, it would be overbroad with

respect to married and discriminate against the unmarried.
Jane Roe, a pregnant woman, wanted to abort her child but could not since
her life was not threatened as the Texas Penal Code makes it a crime to
procure an abortion or to attempt one except if it is to save the life of the
mother. The District Court held that abortion laws were void for infringing on
the 9th and 14th Amendment.
Abortion is part of a persons
ROE v WADE HELD: The due process clause protects the right to privacy, including a
prerogative to the right to pro-
womans right to terminate her pregnancy against state action, however, it is
create.
not absolute. Though a state cannot completely deny a woman the right to
terminate her pregnancy, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the
pregnant womans health and the potentiality of human life at various
stages of pregnancy. The first 3 months is a matter of right that you can
abort. In the first trimester, you need the consent of the Supreme Court while
you cannot abort your child in the last trimester.
Hardwick was charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing

homosexual sodomy in the bedroom of his home. He was charged with
BOWERS v HARDWICK littering and not sodomy.
Theres no constitutional right to
Keywords: Hard. Wick. HELD: The act of consensual sodomy is not prohibited under the fundamental commit sodomy.
HE HE HE sodomy right to privacy or any right protected under the Constitution. There is no
precedent to support his constitutional right to commit sodomy. The sodomy
law was still considered valid.
Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence,

Houston police entered into Laurences apartment and saw him having
consensual homosexual sex with Garner.
Whomever a person decides to
LAURENCE v TEXAS
HELD: Whomever a person decides to engage with in sex cannot be intruded engage with in sex cannot be
Gay sex okay by the government. The aim of the sodomy law is to protect the minors and intruded by the government.
victims from such acts, not to prosecute homosexual acts. Whatever two
consenting adults do in the privacy of his home has nothing to do with the
government.
The Tecumseh School District adopted the Student Activities Drug Testing
BOARD OF EDUC v Policy which required all middle and high school students to consent to
EARLS urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in any extra-curricular
activity of a competitive nature. Earls and James alleged that said policy
Keyword: The school has loco parentis or the
violates the Fourth Amendment as they were not even in a competitive
extracurricular non- activity. District Court ruled in favor of the school but CA reversed it as school
right to regulate activities in schools.
athelic, assuming si failed to demonstrate an identifiable drug problem.
teh
HELD: The school has loco parentis or the right to regulate activities in
schools. The schoolchildren were voluntarily participating in the activities, the

urinalysis was insufficiently intrusive and the results sufficiently private as well
as that concerns about student drug use were sufficiently immediate enough
to hold the policy constitutional.
DISSENT: The policy testing all students who engage in extra-curricular

activities violates equal protection by being too broad for not distinguishing
between extra-curricular activities that may pose health and safety risks and
those activities that do not
Fidel Ramos issued AO 308 for the adoption of a National Computerized

Identification Reference System. Blas Ople filed a petition assailing the
constitutionality of the Order on the grounds that it is a usurpation on the
power of the Congress to make laws as it is not a mere administrative order
but a law, and intrudes into the citizens privacy. Lack of standards in obtaining data
OPLE v TORRES
from people can amount to an
Keywords: national ID HELD: It was unconstitutional because the scope of AO 308 is broad and intrusion to their privacy
vague so it will put peoples rights to privacy in clear and present danger if
implemented. It also lacks proper safeguards for protecting the information
that will be gathered from people through peoples biometrics, and thus
may interfere with individuals liberty as the government will be able to track
them down
Gloria Arroyo issued EO 420 which sought to unify an ID system among

government agencies. Petitioners allege that the EO is unconstitutional for it
KMU v NEDA infringes upon the right to privacy as it allows access to personal data
A creation of a system organizing
without the owners consent and without proper safeguards.
Keywords: information already disclosed does
streamlining HELD: The data collected would only be limited to only 14 specific data and
not amount to an intrusion to
government IDs privacy
the ID card itself will only show 8 specific data which are routine data.
Furthermore, the EO applies only to governmental entities that already
maintain ID systems and it is just to help the system be more efficient
Tecson was hired by Glaxo Wellcome and was made to sign a contract of
employment which stipulates that he needs to inform them of any
relationship with a rival company so as not to have conflict of interest. He fell
in love with a person from a rival company but love prevailed. He was asked
DUNCAN ASSOC v to resign or his wife to resign and he kept asking for time, but was not able to Due process was not violated
GLAXO WELCOME solve it. The company then transferred him to another area. Tecson filed but because he was given opportunities
Keywords: love and CA held the policy as a valid exercise of management prerogatives. to be heard and/or remedy the
other drugs situation
HELD: Trade secret is a property right and it is the right of Glaxo under their
management prerogatives to protect the same. There was also no absolute
prohibition against relationships between its employees and those of
competitor companies but just wanted to avoid conflict of interest.
Protected interest in Property

Mere regulation vs. Taking

Regulation Taking
No compensation given, 'cause deprivation is of a nuisance, disturbance to the public There is compensation because the property will be used for public benefit
Regulation
Churchill and Tait were in billboard advertising. Their billboards were said to
An Act of the Legislature which is
CHURCHILL v be offensive to the sight so the Collector of Internal Revenue, by virtue of
obviously and undoubtedly foreign
Section 100 (b) of Act no. 2339, had it removed.
RAFFERTY to any of the purposes of the police
Take it to church kasi HELD: The billboard was a nuisance as it is an obstruction of the sight of the
power and interferes with the
bawal billboard mo ordinary enjoyment of property
general public. Nuisance can be destroyed by the police power of the State
would, without doubt, be held to be
for the welfare of the general public
invalid.
The respondent was charged with violation of Section 30 and 33 of Act no.
1147 for slaughtering a carabao for human consumption without a permit.
He contends that the act constitutes a taking of property for public use Regulation
(eminent domain) without compensation. The state had an interest in the
US v TORIBIO
protection of cows because it was
Slaughter in the hauz HELD: The law is a legitimate exercise of police power. Carabaos are vested used as a means to peoples
with public interest as they are fundamental for the production of crops thus, livelihood
the prohibition, so long as they are fit for agricultural purposes, is a necessary
limitation on private ownership for the protection of the community.
The municipal council passed Ordinance 7 providing that any person who
will construct or repair a building should first obtain a permit from the mayor
and violation of such shall make him liable to pay a fine if the building
destroys the view of the Public Plaza, it shall be removed. Four years after,
PEOPLE v FAJARDO Fajardo filed a written request to the mayor for a permit to build a building
beside their gasoline station but the mayor refused. Amounted to taking
Bitch dont kill my vibe
The absolute prohibition on the land
said the beautiful HELD: It is oppressive in the sense that it permanently deprives the latter of made the regulation taking.
park, the right to use their own property thus overstepping the bounds of police
power and amounts to a taking of property without just compensation. It
cannot permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their property and
practically confiscate them solely to preserve the aesthetic appearance of
the community.
Petitioners' 6 carabaos were confiscated by the police for having been

transported from Masbate to Iloilo in violation of EO 626-A. He brought an
action for replevin, challenging the constitutionality of the EO. The trial court
YNOT v CA sustained the confiscation of the animals and declined to rule on the validity
Amounted to taking
y-not transport of the law on the ground that it lacked authority to do so. Its decision was
Cannot complete deprive a person
caraboas? [to be affirmed by the IAC.
of his property without due process
read as why not]
HELD: The confiscation was really valid but the method used was not proper
for the purpose of the law which was to protect the carabao. Even though
the movement of the carabao was prohibited, such prohibition would not
lessen the slaughter or theft of carabaos.

Respondent owned a parcel of land of which there was a chicken farm, and
it was beside an airport. Four motored bombers of the US Government make
Amounted to taking
loud noises and have bright lights which caused the chickens to commit
If no such taking actually happened
suicide.
US v CAUSBY but the acts of the state deprived
Chicken suicide HELD: It can be said that there was taking in the form of partial taking as it
the people the use of their property,
and it was found that the public
depreciated the property and the obstruction of the enjoyment of the
benefitted, then its taking
owners. The space that directly is above the poultry farm may be still owned
by the landowner, to a certain degree
The Bureau of Telecommunications set up its own government system by

renting the trunk lines of PDLT and their agreement prohibits the public use of
the service to private parties but in 1948, it extended to the general public.
However, PLDT says that it is taking.
Taking
HELD: While the parties may not be coerced to enter into a contract where
REPUBLIC v PLDT Properties can be expropriated but
no agreement is had between them as to the principal terms and conditions
Phone lines of the contract, the Republic may, in the power of eminent domain, require
not forced to enter into an
agreement effecting the same
the telephone company to permit interconnection of the government
telephone system and PLDT. The beneficiary of the interconnecting services
would be the users of both telephone systems so that condemnation would
be for public use. Thus, the government has the right to compel PLDT to
interconnect lines in the exercise of police power.
The Philippine Air Force occupied the land of Castellvi, the judicial
administrator of Alfonso Castellvi, by virtue of a contract of lease. Before the
expiration of the contract, the Republic wanted to renew but Castellvi Elements of Taking for Eminent Domain:
intended to subdivide it for sale to the general public. AFP filed expropriation 1. Expropriator must enter private property
proceedings and was placed in possession of the lands. The Republic 2. Entrance into private property must be for more than a
alleged that the fair market value of the lands was not more than 2000 per momentary period
hectare when AFP first had the taking of the property so their lands are 3. Entry intro property should be under warrant of legal authority
REPUBLIC v CASTELVI residential with a fair market value of not less than 15 sq/m. 4. Property must be devoted to public use or informally
Airforce appropriated
HELD: The taking of the Castellvi property for the purposes of eminent domain 5. Utilization of property for public use must be in such a way as to
cannot be considered to have taken place in 1947 when the Republic deprive the owners of the enjoyment of the property
commenced to occupy property as lessee. #2 and #5 were lacking as
Castellvi and AFP entered into a contract of lease that was renewable from When the owner is deprived of the use of your property, then that is
year to year and that she still remained as owner of the land and paid when taking happens.
monthly rentals.
Ayala Corporation executed a deed of donation which covered Jupiter and

Regulation
Orbit Street to vehicular traffic. The Mayor of Makati opened these streets to
BEL-AIR v IAC There was not taking. They still own
ease traffic. Petitioners contend that they own the streets and should not be
Gate sirain deprived of due process.
the land, it was just being utilized by
the city
HELD: The opening of these streets does not amount to deprivation of

property without due process of law without just compensation as there was
no taking of property involved. The purpose of opening the same was to
ease traffic in Makati. The duty of local executives is to take care of the
needs of the greater number at the expense of the minority.
The President issued Proclamation 1811 which reserved a land for EPZA. San
Diego, which were the registered owners of the land, claim that these lands
were expropriated to the government without them reaching an agreement
as to compensation.
JUST COMPENSATION is the
EPZA v DULAY HELD: Congress cannot provide for the amount of just compensation
equivalent for the value of the
Port bayad because it is within the functions of the Supreme Court. There should be a
property at the time of its taking
hearing in the court to make a justification why a certain property should be
expropriated. Furthermore, tax declarations presented by the petitioner as
basis for just compensation is below the acquisition cost of present owners
would be confiscatory. Congress expropriated for the property with the
amount already provided for just compensation, which is WRONG.
NPC entered into negotiations with the spouses for the purchase of land for
the construction of an access road to its Angat River Hydroelectric Project.
The issue to be addressed is only the compensation which trial court put at
NPC v CA 3.75 but CA said 7 sq/m. Reckoning period is the time of
Bayad ko bakit mo taking for computation of just
tinaasan HELD: The basis for just compensation should be the price at the time it was compensation
taken from the owner and appropriated to the government. The just
compensation should be 3.75 because the construction of the access
already commenced and that benefited the people.
Taking under Eminent Domain v Taking under Social Justice Clause

DE KNECHT v BAUTISTA
REPUBLIC v DE KNECHT
Petitioners are the owners of two large estates known as the Tambunting
Estate and Sunog-Apog in Tondo, Manila, both of which were declared
expropriated in two decrees issued by President Marcos, PD 1669 and PD
1670. The petitioners contend that the decrees violate their constitutional
right to due process and equal protection since by their mere passage their
EMINENT DOMAIN
properties were automatically expropriated and they were immediately
Taking invalid because the law that
deprived of the ownership and possession thereof without being given the
said so provided for an absolute
MANOTOK v NHAf chance to oppose such expropriation. The government on the other hand
prohibition to contest the amount of
contends that the power of eminent domain is inherent in the State and
compensation.
when the legislature or the President through his law-making powers
^^ a violation of due process
exercises this power, the public use and public necessity of the expropriation
and the fixing of the just compensation become political in nature and the
courts must respect the decision.
HELD: The challenged decrees are unfair in the procedures adopted and the
powers given to the NHA. The Tambunting subdivision is summarily

proclaimed a blighted area and directly expropriated by decree without the
slightest semblance of a hearing or any proceeding whatsoever. The
expropriation is instant and automatic to take effect immediately upon the
signing of the decree. No deposit before the taking is required. There is not
provision for any interest to be paid upon unpaid installments. Not only are
the owners given absolutely no opportunity to contest the expropriation, or
question the amount of payments fixed by the decree, but the decision of
the NHA are expressly declared beyond judicial review. PD 1669 and 1670
are declared unconstitutional. Such singling out of properties does not
foreclose judicial scrutiny as to whether such expropriation by legislative act
transgresses the due process and equal protection and just compensation
guarantees of the Constitution
Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition against Ordinance 4670 contending

that the ordinance was beyond the powers of the Municipal Board of Manila
to regulate due to the fact that hotels were not part of its regulatory powers.
EMINENT DOMAIN
They were a violation of due process because the hotels would be open for
It was a valid exercise of eminent
inspection from city authorities, a prohibition on age and they cannot lease
ERMITA MALATE HOTEL domain. Liberty is understood to be
any room more than twice within 24 hours, violating such would cause
v CITY OF MANILA automatic cancellation of hotel licenses.
regulated by law for the good of
the individual and peace and order
of society
HELD: It was a valid exercise of eminent domain. Liberty is understood to be
regulated by law for the good of the individual and peace and order of
society
Article XIII of the Constitution on Social Justice and Human Rights includes a
call for the adoption by the State of an agrarian reform program. The
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. sought exception
from the land distribution scheme provided for in R.A. 6657, as their lands
were less than 7 hectares. In another case, Nicolas Manaay questioned the
validity of the agrarian reform laws (PD 27, EO 228, and 229) on the ground
that these laws already valuated their lands for the agrarian reform program
and that the specific amount must be determined by the Department of
Agrarian Reform despite the fact that it should be determined by the
ASSOC OF SMALL courts.
SOCIAL JUSTICE
LANDOWNERS v SEC HELD: The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform is not violative of due process. It is
AGRARIAN REFORM true that the determination of just compensation is a power lodged in the
courts. However, there is no law which prohibits administrative bodies like the
DAR from determining just compensation. In fact, just compensation can be
that amount agreed upon by the landowner and the government even
without judicial intervention so long as both parties agree. What is
contemplated by law however is that, the just compensation determined by
an administrative body is merely preliminary. If the landowner does not agree
with the finding of just compensation by an administrative body, then it can
go to court and the determination of the latter shall be the final
determination

The President approved RA 6657 which includes the raising of livestock, swine
and poultry in the CARP. The petitioners question their inclusion in the
Agrarian Reform law as they were working in the business of raising livestock,
swine and poultry.
LUZ FARMS v SEC
HELD: The livestock is excluded in the concept of agriculture so it cannot
be expropriated per the Agrarian Reform Law. The transcripts of the
Constitutional Commission of 1986 show that it was never the intention of the
framers of the Constitution to include the livestock and poultry industry in the
Agrarian program
Forbes Park Association is a non-profit corporation whose members are

bound by the rules and regulations stipulated in the Deed of Restrictions.
Cariday Investment Corporation is the owner of a residential building in the
Forbes Park Subdivision. Cariday decided to construct a one-storey
residence with the interior that can be occupied by two occupants, leasing
CARIDAY v CA it to one lessor and another to Proctor and Gamble.
[dissent will come out HELD: The purpose of the restriction is to avoid overcrowding both in the
in the test he says] houses and subdivision which would result In pressure upon common facilities
and accelerate the deterioration of roads.
DISSENT: It would not lead to overcrowding and the millions of properties of

single-storey residences would make the spending more. We have to curb
the lifestyle of the rich people in Forbes against ostentatious of wealth.

No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
III. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

Defensor-Santiago, The New Equal Protection,
{Consti. Art. III, Sec. 1} 58 Phil. L. J. 1
(March 1993)
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. [will come out in the test he says]
Sir: Theres no such thing as absolute equality. As long as there is equality There are at least three standards of judicial review over equal protection
among equals an act/restriction/policy regarding a certain class is valid. cases.
Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be FIRST, old equal protection doctrine, which applies the rational basis test.
treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. Similar Under this test, the Court will uphold a classification, if it bears a rational
subjects should not be treated differently, so as to give undue favor to some relationship to an end of government, which is not prohibited by the
and unjustly discriminate against others. Constitution.
REQUISITES FOR VALID CLASSIFICATION SECOND, new equal protection doctrine, which applies the strict scrutiny test.
The Court will require the government to show that it is pursuing a compelling
(a) It must rest on substantial distinctions which make real
or overriding end, of which the Court reserves for itself the right to make an
differences;
independent determination of whether the classification is necessary to
(b) It must be germane to the purpose of the law; promote that compelling interest.
(c) It must not be limited to existing conditions only. two categories of civil liberties cases:
(d) Apply equally to all members of the same class. (a) when the governmental act classifies people in terms of their
ability to exercise a fundamental right; and
(b) when the government classification distinguishes between
{Consti. Art. II, Sec. 14} persons, in terms of any right, upon some suspect basis,
such as race, national origin, or alienage.
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law. THIRD, newer equal protection doctrine called two-tiered level of review, and
applies the intensified means test. The first tier consists of the rational
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until relationship test, and the second tier consists of the strict scrutiny test. Strict
the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and judicial scrutiny is applied when legislation impinges on fundamental rights, or
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against implicates suspect classes, and legislation is upheld only if it is precisely
him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face tailored to further a compelling governmental interest.
to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of It becomes important to determine whether a given right is fundamental
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after and whether a given class is suspect. Fundamental rights include rights to
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: marriage and procreation, voting, fair administration and justice, and other
Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is constitutional rights. Suspect classes include race or national origin, religion
unjustifiable. and alienage.
{Consti. Art. II, Sec 22} The Philippine Court has applied the rational relationship test to equal
protection cases, more notably to cases involving alienage which is

apparently considered a relevant status because of constitutional differences
in the treatment of aliens and citizens.
In the Philippines, the equal protection clause, phrased as it is after the

American model, may pose problems of legislative and administrative
classifications of the extent of the compatibility of political liberty and
economic equality.
In the resolution of these problems, the "new" equal protection could prove to
be a useful and equitable technique of judicial analysis, in the hands of a
Supreme Court sentient to the continuing need to prevent invidious
discrimination against disadvantaged victims of legislative classification or in
the exercise of certain fundamental rights by the Filipino people, as a justice
constituency.
*see table -> for summary. The whole thing is basically the standards of judicial
review
For Sir: Santiagos point is that the modern context of equal protection, the
court goes beyond merely scrutinizing whether the law adheres to the
Constitution but rather see whether it really serves its intended purpose.
STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Level of Scrutiny Classification Made Requisites for Validity
Rational Basis Classifications, in general Test of valid classification

Substantial distinction;
Germane to the purpose of the
law;
Not limited to existing conditions
only;
Must apply equally to all within the
class
Intermediate/He Gender, illegitimacy Substantial government interest
ightened Availability of less restrictive means
Scrutiny
Strict Scrutiny Affects fundamental rights; or Compelling state interest
suspect classification Absence of less restrictive means
Suspect classification:
PHL: A class given special
protection by the Constitution
US: Race

CASES
Congress passed RA 1180 which was to prevent persons who are not citizens of
PH from having a stranglehold upon peoples economic life. Inchong
contended that the Act denies alien residents of their liberty and property
without due process and equal protection.
ICHONG v HELD: Equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality among Equality among equals
For as long as classification is based
HERNANDEZ residents but requires that all persons should be treated alike. The difference in Persons belonging in the
status between citizens and aliens constitutes a basis for reasonable on sufficient grounds, it is
[inicha business ni same category should
classification in the exercise of police power. The law does not violate the equal constitutional
ichong] be treated alike
protection clause of the Constitution because sufficient grounds exist for the
distinction between alien and citizen in the exercise of the occupation
regulated, nor the due process of law clause, because the law is prospective in
operation and recognizes the privilege of aliens already engaged in the
occupation and reasonably protects their privilege.
President Roosevelt issued an executive order authorizing military authorities to

prescribe military areas. The Japanese-Americans, although of American
citizenship, were required to be placed in a military reservation. Korematsu, an
American citizen of Japanese descent, refused to leave his home so he was
KOREMATSU v US imprisoned. Compelling state interest is an
example of a sufficient reason
HELD: The purpose the order was to prevent espionage and sabotage as the US
was still in a time of war so the order was upheld as not being violative of the
EPC.
A Louisiana statute required separate railway cars for blacks and whites and it
authorized the railway authorities to make the person move to the seat he is
supposed to be in or imprison him. Plessy who was of mixed blood, took a seat in
PLESSY v FERGUSON the car designated for whites and refused to move to the car reserved for Separate but equal
blacks. He challenged the statute for being in violation of EPC. Race being the lone
[aint no one whiter If segregation and separation would
factor in favoring
than Fergie. still yield substantially equal
HELD: The law is within constitutional boundaries, basing it on the separate but treatment, it is valid. someone is
Separate train cars]
equal doctrine. The separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the EPC. In unconstitutional
the decision of the Court, they contended that segregation does not in itself
constitute unlawful discrimination.
African American minors had been denied admittance to certain public

BROWN v BOE
schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race,
[dark brown students
arguing that such segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause. They were
DENIED] denied relief based on the precedent set by Plessy v. Ferguson, which
established the separate but equal doctrine that stated separate facilities for

the races was constitutional as long as the facilities were substantially equal.
HELD: It reserved the decision of Plessy v Ferguson about the separate but
equal doctrine as a violation of EPC. The segregation of public education
based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a detrimental effect on the
education and personal growth of African-American children.
Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to
the University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times.
The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for
"qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, in an
effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical
profession. Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those
of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's applications
were rejected. Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the
UNIV of CALI v BAKKE Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of
[magBAKKE ka na race.
lang, wag na med]
The school created a quota for certain groups of minorities so the only
qualification for them to be accepted is the color of their skin.
HELD: The school used a racial quota in the admission policy. That qualification
is a violation of the EPC. Aside from the color of your skin, there should be other
factors other than the color of the skin. Color should not be the lone decisive
factor in admission to a school.
The University of Michigan receives a high volume of applicants each year to its
College of Literature, Science and the Arts. To help with admission decisions, the
University implements a point system. A student that is an underrepresented
group automatically receives 20 points towards his of her over all score. The
groups of students typically come from African-American, Hispanic, and Native
GRATZ v BOLLINGER American backgrounds. A student with extraordinary artistic talent only receives
[GRATZi not why 5 points under the admission system. A group of white students, that were
score? This aint a determined qualified by the University, were denied admission.
boll game]
HELD: The policy was treated as valid because it merely promoted diversity in
the school so it was valid. An admission system that grants points for certain
characteristics such as race is not an individual assessment.
The type of scrutiny

BRADWELL v ILLINOIS Myra Bradwell was a nice lady who applied for a license to practice law. She that will be given to a
accompanied her petititon with the all the requirements needed and on due classification is
[Bradwell not well examination was found to possess the requisite qualification to obtain a license. dependent on which
enough for law] The Supreme Court of Illinois denied her application on the ground that the type it is. Check the
practice of law is a privilege and said that God designed the sexes to occupy table for standards of

different spheres of action and that it belonged to men to make, apply and judicial review
execute the laws. Bradwell questioned the ruling: Can a female citizen, DULY
qualified in respect of age, character and learning be given a license to
practice
HELD: Original Constitution: 'The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.' Under this provision
each State could determine for itself what the privileges and immunities of its
citizens should be. A citizen emigrating from one State to another carried with
him, not the privileges and immunities he enjoyed in his native State, but was
entitled, in the State of his adoption, to such privileges and immunities as were
enjoyed by the class of citizens to which he belonged by the laws of such
adopted State. But the fourteenth amendment executes itself in every State of
the Union. Whatever are the privileges and immunities of a citizen in one State,
such citizen, emigrating, carries them with him into any other State of the Union.
There was a Michigan statute that required all bartenders to hold licenses in
cities with populations greater than 50,000 wherein women could not be issued
a license unless she was the wife or daughter of the male owner of a liquor
establishment. The petitioners challenged the law on the ground that it violated
the EPC. A three-judge panel of the District Court of Michigan rejected their
GOESART v CLEARLY claim.
[cant see clearly
after going to a bar] HELD: The statute was upheld as the Court looked into the social and moral
implications if women were allowed to become owners of liquor establishments
or become barmaids.
DISSENT: It is discriminating
What was assailed was a provision in an insurance contract. California

operated a disability insurance system that supplemented workers
compensation, which provided for payments for disabilities not covered by
workers compensation BUT excluded pregnancy related conditions.
GEDULDIG v AIELLO HELD: Provision is constitutional. California could constitutionally choose which
[AIEEEEEEO, disabilities to insure. The excluded conditions do not affect women alone, but
PREGGOO] both men and women with the savings given by the program
DISSENT: the exclusion discriminates against women. singling out for less
favorable treatment a gender-linked disability peculiar to women, thus creating
a double standard.
MISSISSIPPI UNIV
SCHOOL for WOMEN Joe Hogan, a dude, is a registered nurse but does not hold a degree in nursing.
v HOGAN He applied for admission to the School of Nursing in the Mississippi University for
[all girls school. Women, an all-girls school. Although he was otherwise qualified, he was denied

Hogan.] admission solely because he was a dude, but was told he would still take
nursing classes, he just cannot enroll for credit. The school and lower court
maintained that in keeping the institution exclusively for girls, they are merely
exercising the States legitimate interest in providing the greatest practical
range of educational opportunities for its female students.
HELD: The Supreme Court found the policy unconstitutional. The University failed
to substantially support the allegation that the women will be disturbed if a
dude would study there. The school even propagated the discrimination that
nursing is for women.
Michael M raped a 16 y/o girl. He was charged for violating the California
Statutory Rape Law, which defines unlawful sexual intercourse as an act of
sexual intercourse accomplished with a female an act of sexual intercourse
accomplished with a female not the wife of the perpetrator, where the female
MICHAEL M v is under the age of 18. He challenged the statute for being violative of Equal
SUPERIOR COURT Protection Clause since it unlawfully discriminates on the basis of gender.
[Michael learns to Minority a valid classification
rockback and HELD: The statute intends to equalize, not discriminate against men. The Court
forth on a kid] considered the suffering of the women, which is more burdensome, compared
to men in rape cases. But the main justification is that the legislature sought to
prevent illegitimate teenage pregnancies. The Court held that the statute is
justified related to the states objectives.
Feeny is a female who had been applying for higher paying jobs under the civil
service. Even though she passed the exams with high marks, veterans have
been favored over her. There is a Massachusetts legislation that provides that
qualified veterans should be preferred over non-veterans. The statute grants an
[will come out in the test he says]
absolute lifetime preference to veterans by requiring that any person male or
4 elements of valid distinction
female, including a nurse qualifying for a civil service position, who was
[classification]:
honorably discharged from the US Armed Forces after at least 9- days of active
PERSONNEL service, at least one day in wartime, must be considered for appointment to a
1. substantial distinction
ADMINISTRATOR v 2. germane to the purpose of the
civil service position ahead of any qualified non-veterans.
FEENEY law
3. must not be limited to existing
[Pinersonal si Feeney HELD: the classification veteran is a gender-neutral concept, so the system
conditions
sa trabaho] does on discriminate women. The case is unusual in that it involves a law that by
4. must apply equally to all
design is not neutral. This is just an example of a well-accepted form of benefit
members of the same class
given to people who have sacrificed a lot in the service for the country. Since
the purpose of the statute is to benefit veterans, then the obvious consequence
is that non-veterans would be disadvantaged; but if everyone agrees that the
distinction is a valid kind of policy, then there is no problem. It all boils down to
seeing whether the purpose of the law is valid.
YICK WO v HOPKINS
[WO-ah dur. An ordinance was passed in California regulating the laundry business and
Laundries] prescribing certain limits as a precaution to prevent accident cases of fires. Only

Yick Wo was imprisoned for failing to pay the fine for violating the ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors then denied licenses to operate laundries to Yick Wo,
along with 200 other Chinese operators. The Board, however, granted licenses
to non-Chinese operators who were similarly situated as the Chinese.
HELD: The Chinese were discriminated because they monololized the laundry
business. But that aside, the ordinance violated the equal protection clause. It
was evident that the Boards granting ordinances were discriminating through
race. The Chinese are also protected by the constitution as they fall under the
USs jurisdiction Even thoough the Chinese laundry owners were not American
citizens, they were still entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
The intention of the ordinance was to reduce to risk of fire but the Court noted
that only Chinese laundries were affected. The Court concluded that the
statute was intended to reduce Chinese laundries rather than the risk of fire.
Fragante, aged 60, immigrated from the Philippines to Hawaii. He applied as an

entry level CSC job, entailing tasks, which includes providing routine information Requirements to be considered a
to the public over the telephone and at an information counter. He took the prima facie case of discrimination on
test for the position and even got the highest score among 700+ takers. When the basis of national origin:
he was interviewed, as part of the selection process, the supervisors stressed
FRAGANTE v CITY OF that the ability to speak clearly was one of the most important skills needed for 1. identifiable national origin
the position. But due to Fragantes Filipino accent, both interviewers had a 2. qualified for a job that the
HONOLULU
difficult time understanding him, eventually giving him a negative employers were seeking
[Fragments lang 3. that he was rejected despite his
recommendation. From #1 he was dropped to #3 and the job was given to the
natira. No job] qualification
top two applicants. Fragante alleged that he was discriminated on the basis of
his national origin. the position remained open and the
employer continued to seek
HELD: The SC found that there was no discrimination. The job was imbued with applicants from the persons of
public interest and language was essential to the job. complaints qualification
New Equal Protection
The International School Alliance hires both foreign and local teachers as
members of its faculty and classifies them into two-categories, either as a local-
fire or as a foreign hire. The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not
accorded to local hires. Moreover, foreign-hires receive 25% higher salary
compared to the local-hires. A collective bargaining agreement began
INTERNATIONAL negotiations which contested the difference in salary rates between foreign Sir: they should have considered the
SCHOOL ALLIANCE v and local-hires, eventually causing a deadlock. DOLE broke the deadlock by dislocation factor for those leaving
QUISUMBING ruling in favor of the school saying that the equal protection clause is not their countries to stay in the
[internationals > violated by legislation or private covenants based on reasonable classification. Philippines. A premium must be
local] They found a substantial distinction between foreign-hires and local-hires, given somehow
concluding that the reason for favoring them is to attract them to join the
faculty of the School.
HELD: The policy is discriminatory and violates the EPC. There is no evidence in a
difference of workload nor performance, so the presumption is that all the
employees are performing at equal levels.

Rotary International is a nonprofit corporation composed of local Rotary Clubs.
Its members are all men. Although women are permitted to attend meetings,
give speeches, receive awards, and form auxiliary organizations, the Rotary
constitution excludes women from membership. The Rotary Club of Duarte
admitted 3 women to active membership, International notified Duarte that
admitting women members is contrary to the Rotary constitution. After an
internal hearing, the women, together with Duartes charter, were removed.
BoD v ROTARY CLUB They filed a complaint alleging that the termination violated the Unruh Civil
Rights Act, which entitles all persons, regardless of sex, to full and equal
[Bad ng BoD. sexist]
accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, and services in all business
establishments in the State. Rotary is saying they have a right to reject women
and it is protected by the First Amendment
HELD: The Unruh does not violate the right of expressive association of the Rotary
Club. They failed to show that the admission of women will affect their
expressive activities
James Dale was a brilliant member of the Boy Scouts. After coming out as gay,
his membership was revoked.
HELD: Applying New Jersey's public accommodations law to require the Boy
BOY SCOUTS of Scouts to readmit Dale violates the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of
AMERICA v DALE expressive association. Homosexual conduct is against what Boy Scouts want to
instill as the purpose of organization is to foster clean and morally straight
[gay scouts of
membership.
america]
DISSENT: By allowing petitioner to revoke the respondent's membership, the
Supreme Court was allowing the organization to prevail over the anti-
discrimination laws of the state (Justice Stevens).
Massachusetts Department of Public Health denied 7 marriage licenses for

GOODRIDGE v DEPT same sex couples on the ground that the state does not recognize same-sex
OF PUBLIC HEALTH marriage.
HELD: same sex couples have marital rights.
The petitioners are 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners
OBERGEFELL v are already deceased. They claim that the respondents violate the Fourteenth
HODGES Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have their marriages
[ober sila. Lgbt fell lawfully performed in another State. The respondents, on the other hand, are
inlove] state officials responsible for enforcing the laws in question. They believe that
legalizing same-sex marriage would demean a timeless institution if the concept
and lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of the same sex.

The Court of Appeals held that a State has no constitutional obligation to
license same-sex marriages or to recognize same-sex marriages performed out
of State.
HELD: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage

between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between
two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and
performed out-of-State. The goal of the Constitution is to constantly break
barriers in identifying and protecting the fundamental rights. The right to
personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual
autonomy. The right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person
union and it safeguards children and families, drawing from related rights like
procreation and education. Therefore, the Court has long held the right to
marry is protected by the Constitution as it is considered to be a fundamental
right.
Richard Loving (a caucasian male) and Mildred Jeter (a Negro woman) left
their home state of Virginia and went to the District of Columbia to get married.
Shortly after their marriage they returned to Virginia and settled in Caroline
County. The grand jury charged the couple of violating Virginias ban on
interracial marriages. After they pled guilty to said charges they were both
sentenced to one year in jail but a judge suspended their sentence for 25 years
on the condition that both prevent themselves to returning to Virginia together The freedom to marry resides within
the individual and any statute or law
LOVING v VIRGINIA for the same amount of years. The Lovings left but continued to pursue the
cases and all the courts up to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed limiting this freedom based on racial
[love knows no color] classification alone is in violation of
the decisions. The Courts argued that the Tenth Amendment left marriage
the 14th Amendment of the US
HELD: The state must regulate marriage within the limits set upon them by the
Fourteenth Amendment. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth
Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial
discrimination in the States.
FPJ's citizenship was being assailed because his mother was an American citizen
but his father is Filipino.
TECSON v COMELEC
[TECka FPJ, HELD: Filipino, if paternity is clear, because of jus sanguinis, which makes no
distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children. It would make a
citizenship]
distinction between legitimate and illegitimate child so the Court upheld the
candidacy of FPJ.

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such
circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present
IV. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION danger that they will bring about substantive evlis that Congress has a right to
prevent. [Schneck v. US] This requires that the evil consequences sought to be
{Const. Art. III, Sec. 4} prevented must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of [likelihood of it happening] is extremely high [American Bible Society v City of
the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Manila]
government for redress of grievances.
Doctrine of Compelling-State Interest Test
This basically means that the State has an interest, which is so important that is
WHY THE SAFEGUARD? outweighs individual rights. The reason here is so great that it justifies the
Freedom of expression is a fundamental foundation of our constitutional limitation of fundamental constitutional rights. There is compelling state
system. This was a right elevated to constitutional status reflecting our own interest when the state has a compelling reason/interest to reach into such
lesson of history that freedom of speech is an indispensable condition for legislation infringing into the private domain, and that there is no other
nearly every other form of freedom. It assures the broadest possible exercise alternative to achieve it.
of free speech and free press inasmuch as the constitutions basic guarantee
of freedom to advocate ideas is not confined to ideas of the majority only 3. SPEECH PLUS: SYMBOLIC SPEECH
specially in a democratic republican country. [Chavez v Gonzales] Symbolic speech is a form of speech nonverbal gestures and actions that
expresses or communicates an idea or emotion [legal-dictionary.com]. This
A. Protected Speech type of speech is also protected under the freedom of expression.
1. PRIOR RESTRAINT Examples:

Does not concern public lives of persons. Just public issues and publications Burning a draft card/flag, wearing armbands, picketing
This refers to official governmental restrictions on the press and other forms of
expression IN ADVANCE of actual publication or dissemination. They carry a
4. ASSEMBLY AND PETITION
The right to freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble, and petition the
heavy presumption of unconstitutionality. [Newsounds Broadcasting Network
government for redress of grievances are fundamental personal rights of the
v. Dy]
people guaranteed by the contitutions of democratic countries. [Primacias v
Fugoso] Peaceable assembly in public places like streets or parks cannot be
Censorship is a form of prior restraint. Censorship conditions the exercise of
denied. [JBL Reyes v Bagatsing]
freedom of expression upon the prior approval of the government. The censor
serves as the arbiter for people, usually applying his own subjective standards
Right to Assembly
in determining what is good and what is not.
A right on the part of citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to
public affairs.
2. SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT
Freedom of speech includes freedom after speech. Without this assurance, Right to Petition
the citizen would hesitate to speak for fear he might be provoking the Any person or group of persons can apply, without fear of penalty, to the
vengeance of the those he criticized [the chilling effect]. If criticism is not to appropriate branch or office of the government for redress or grievances
be conditioned on the governments consent, then neither should it be
subject to the governments subsequent chastisement. The right to assembly and petition prevails over economic rights.
Doctrine of Clear and Present Danger test

5. FREE SPEECH AND SUFFRAGE 3. OBSCENITY
People can support whom they like, this is part of freedom of speech. Clear These are offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and
and present danger should be applied, wherein the expression is traceable to decency. It offends moral principles and repugnant.
the ideas expressed. In some cases, like Gonzales v COMELEC, Balancing of
interest test is also applied. This test is applied when two legitimate values not *for rules and good law regarding obscene speech, see cases below. Take
involving national security crims compete. note of the Miller Test on how to determine obscenity.
6. USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AS A FORUM FOR OTHERS 4. DEFAMATION AND DISCRIMINATION IN C.

SPEECH MACKINNON, ONLY WORDS
In C.Mackinnons article Only Words, she distinguishes between expression
A privately owned shopping center, to which the public is invited might restrict
that are defamatory against those which are discriminatory. Defamatory
expressive activities of its goers regulate manners that will minimize any
speech focuses on the contents of the expression if the expression does not
interference with its commercial functions. So long as the people using the
offend in anyway, it cannot be deemed as defamatory. However, expressions
place as a forum for speech are orderly and does not cause disturbance or
such as pornography are discriminatory even though they are not
harm, their expression is allowed.
defamatory. The effects of discriminatory expression go beyond words.
Pornography may be considered as a valid expression only in words, but its
B. Unprotected Speech effects cannot be discounted.
Slander or libel, lewd and obscene speech, as well as fighting words are not
entitled to constitutional protection and may be penalized. These are the acts
being subjected to subsequent punishment. Clear and Present Danger Rule Dangerous Tendency Rule
the evil consequence of the comment If the words uttered create a
1. DEFAMATORY SPEECH or utterance must be extremely serious dangerous tendency which the state
Defamatory speech is either written (Libel) or stated (Slander) malicious and the degree of imminence has a right to prevent, then such
extremely high before the utterance words are punishable.
statements that damages the good reputation of someone. Defamatory
can be punished
speech in media is regulated by the constitution.
The danger to be guarded against is It is sufficient that such acts be
*for rules and good law regarding defamatory speech, see cases below. Take the 'substantive evil' sought to be advocated in general terms and if the
note of the differences between those of private vs. governmental speech, prevented natural tendency and probable effect
of the utterance be to bring about the
and whether the offended party is a public figure/official or not.
substantive evil which the legislative
body seeks to prevent.
2. FIGHTING WORDS, OFFENSIVE WORDS It provides the criterion as to what

The right of free speech is not absolute. Limitations include lewd and obscene, words may be publicly established.
the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or fighting words.
Fighting words are such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of
ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit
that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in
order and morality. [Chaplinsky v New Hampshire]
These are words that inflict harm or injury, or tend to incite an immediate
breach of the peace; intent and circumstances should be taken into account

CASES

Prior Restraint
Jay Near together with a former mayor, Howard Guilford, began publishing in
The Saturday Press articles that attacked local officials, members of other press
companies, the Jewish Race, the members of the Grand Jury of Hennepin
County, and focusing mainly on the incumbent mayor and Chief of Police.
Under Minnesota Public Nuisance Law of 1925, the County Attorney of
Hennepin County brought an action to enjoin the publication of what they
described as a " maliciThe articles charged in substance that a Jewish gangster
was in control of gambling, bootlegging and racketeering in Minneapolis, and
that law enforcing officers and agencies were not energetically performing
their duties. The chages against the Chief of Police were gross neglect of duty,
illicit relations with gangsters, and with participation in graft.ous, scandalous and
defamatory newspaper, magazine and periodical. Near challenged the
NEAR v MINNESOTA
constitutionality of the Public Nuisance law alleging that their right to free
[MIN SObra ng
speech and freedom of the press was protected by the US and Minnesota
allegations sa gang] Constitutions
HELD: It is unconstitutional for violating the liberty of the press safeguarded by

the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Such freedom is essential to
the nature of a free state. The liberty of the press is not an absolute right and the
State may punish its abuse. But the prior restraint on publication is the very thing
that the 1st amendment of the Constitution is trying to protect. The statute is
directed not only at the circulation of scandalous material itself, but at the
continued publication of it by newspapers and periodicals, which by their very
nature create public scandal. To forbid what right a freeman has to lay his
sentiments is to destroy the freedom of the press, but if he publishes what is
improper, or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity.
In 1971, the US had been in an ongoing war with Vietnam for almost 6 years. The
New York Times and Washington Posts had obtained a copy of documents Clear and present danger here. Lagi
known as The Pentagon Papers. The US Espionage Act was the cited law for excuse threat to national security
trying to enjoin the publications from publishing said articles alleging that the
NY TIMES v US information being published "could be used to the injury of the United State or DISSENT: Executive also had to be
[war TIMES, advantage of the foreign nation. These Papers were illegally copied and then given broader authority. Only those
espionage. leaked to the press. who view the First Amendment as an
Pentagon papers] absolute in all circumstancesa
HELD: Members of the majority, held that the 1st Amendment is absolute. view I respect, but rejectcan find
Although the justices thought that the New York Times had probably gone too such cases as these to be simple or
far in publishing the Pentagon Papers, they found nothing in the law to prevent easy
the newspaper from doing so.
FREEDMAN v
MARYLAND Ronald Freedman challenged the constitutionality of a Maryland Motion Picture Subsequent punishment na lang
[FREE and MAN to State that requires films to be submitted to a board of censors before being dito.

show films.] exhibited. The board could disapprove films that were obscene, debased or
corrupted morals, or tended to incite crime. Freedman was convicted on the AYER v Capulong take note
basis of that statute after exhibiting the film Revenge at Daybreak at his Schnek v US for clear and present
Baltimore theatre without submitting the picture to the State Board of Censors danger ruling
as required. The State itself concedes that the picture does not violate the
statutory standards and would have received a license if it were properly
submitted. Freedman further argued that the statute is a prior restraint because,
in the context of the remainder of the statute, it presents a danger of unduly
suppressing protected expression.
HELD: The Court established three guidelines as adequate safeguards to protect

against the "undue inhibition of protected expression." These guidelines are to:
(1) place the burden of proving the film is unprotected expression on the
censors, (2) require judicial determination to impose a valid determination, and
(3) require prompt determination "within a specified time period.
Subsequent Punishment
Isaac Perez happened to meet Fortunato Loduvico and engaged in a

discussion regarding the administration of Governor-General Wood which
resulted in Perez shouting a number of times: "The Filipinos, like myself, must use
bolos for cutting off Wood's head for having recommended a bad thing for the
Filipinos, for he has killed our independence. Perez was charged in the CFI with
a violation of Article 256 of the Penal Code having to do with contempt of
ministers of the Crown or other person in authority.
PEOPLE v PEREZ HELD: The law infringed in this instance is not Article 256 of the Penal Code but
rather a portion of the Treason and Sedition Law. Perez has uttered seditious
words. The attack on the Governor-General went beyond the protection of Free
Speech. There is a seditius tendency in the words used by Perez, which could
easily produce disaffection among the people and a state of feeling
incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to the Government, which
includes obedience to the laws. Criticism, no matter how severe, on the
Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary, is within the range of liberty of
speech, unless the intention and effect is seditious.
The Smith Act made it a criminal offense for a person to knowingly or willfully
advocate the overthrowing of any government in the United States by force or
to attempt to commit or conspire to commit the crime the same. It was clear
from the record that the leaders of the Communist Party intended to initiate a
revolution when the opportunity came. The constitutionality of the statute under
DENNIS v US
which the Petitioners were convicted was challenged.
[DEiNS na to the US Protected speech: enumerate here
govt] HELD: The overthrow of the Government by force is certainly a substantial
enough interest for the Government to limit speech. Obviously, clear and
present danger does not mean the government may not act until the coup
has been plotted and on is the verge of being executed.
DISSENT (Hugo Black): While it is true that unfettered communication of ideas

does entail danger, the benefits in the eyes of the Founders of this Nation,
derived from free expression were worth the risk.
Russians held a rally against the US government at the time of war. Abrams and
others were Russian immigrants, self-proclaimed revolutionists and anarchists
who wrote and distributed thousands of circulars advocating a general strike In a time of war
and appealing to workers in ammunitions factories to stop the production of
weapons to be used against Russian revolutionaries. They were convicted under OLIVER WENDEL HOLMES: we should
ABRAMIS v US the 1918 amendments to the Espionage Act that prohibited the curtailment of let the flow of ideas flow. Ideas have
production of materials necessary to the prosecution of war against Germany no danger right away, but when
[ABRA, MIS, kalma sa
with intent to hinder its prosecution. overt acts have been committed,
h8 of US] only then can they be curbed
HELD: The plain purpose of Defendants propaganda was to excite, at the
supreme crisis of war, disaffection, sedition, riots and as they hoped, revolution Clear and present danger: ALWAYS
in this country for the purpose of embarrassing and if possible defeating the left at the discretion of law
military plans of the Government in Europe. Therefore, the First Amendment of
the Constitution does not protect their speech.
This petition was filed to compel the respondents to allow the reopening of
Radio Station DYRE which had been summarily closed on grounds of national
security. The petitioner contended that it was denied due process when it was
closed on the mere allegation that the radio station was used to incite people
to sedition. The respondents' general charge of "inciting people to commit acts
of sedition" arose from the petitioner's shift towards what it stated was the
EASTERN coverage of public events and the airing of programs geared towards public
affairs.
BROADCASTING v
DANS HELD: All forms of communication are entitled to the broad protection of the
freedom of expression clause. Necessarily, however, the freedom of television
and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom
accorded to newspaper and print media. Yet the freedom to comment on
public affairs is essential to the vitality of a representative democracy. The
cardinal primary requirements in administrative proceedings laid down by this
Court in AngTibay v. Court of Industrial Relations) should be followed before a
broadcast station may be closed or its operations curtailed.
Speech Plus: Symbolic Speech
In 1948, the United States instituted a peace-time draft with the Universal Military OBrien test to
Training and Service Act, which required all male American citizens to register determine whether a
Bill of Rights is for an individual. NOT
with a local draft board upon reaching the age of 18. OBrien burned his statute is content-
US v OBRIEN for the government. The latter
selective service registration certificate (draft card) at a Boston courthouse and based or content-
always has power do destroy an
[OOH BUURN iyon was convicted of violating a federal statute making it a crime to mutilate the neutral:
individual and it is the bill of rights
draft card] certificate. The Defendant appealed, noting that his act was symbolic 1. regulation is within
that limits said power. In sirs opinion,
speech and should fall under the protection of the First Amendment of the the constitutional
only individuals may
United States Constitution. power of the
government
HELD: The regulation must 1) be within the constitutional power of the 2. it furthers an

government to enact, 2) further an important or substantial government important or
interest, 3) that interest must be unrelated to the suppression of speech (or substantial interest
"content neutral", as later cases have phrased it), and 4) prohibit no more 3. the government
speech than is essential to further that interest. The Court ruled that the 1965 interest is
Amendment satisfied this test. The Supreme Court found that the governmental unrelated to the
interest in preserving selective service registration cards outweighed suppression of free
Defendants interest in making his symbolic speech and that Congress had a expression; and
legitimate and substantial interest in preventing the destruction of these cards. 4. the incidental
restriction on
DISSENT: The asserted government interest was only valid when the nation was alleged First
in a state of war as declared by Congress (which had not been the case since Amendment
World War II) freedoms is no
greater than is
essential to the
furtherance of
that interest
If the regulation fails

the third prong, it is
content-based
regulation.
The petitioners decided to wear black armbands to their schools in protest of

the Vietnam War and supporting the Christmas Truce called for by Senator
Robert F. Kennedy. The principals of the Des Moines schools learned of the plan
and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that school children
wearing an armband would be asked to remove it immediately. Violating
students would be suspended and allowed to return to school after agreeing to
TINKER v DES MOINES comply with the policy. The participants decided to violate this policy.
SCHOOL DISTRICT
HELD: The actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption
[MOIN is the right to
and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic
wear armbands]
speech. The wearing of the armband was singled out of all other symbolic
speech engaged in by the student body. Student speech may be regulated
when such speech would materially and substantially interfere with the
discipline and operation of a school.
DISSENT: Tinkers' behavior was indeed disruptive.
Asembly and Petition

PBM EMPLOYEES v Conflict is between human or
PBM The leaders of the Union decided to stage a mass demonstration at Malacang political right and economic right.
in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police. PBMEO confirmed the WHICH PREVAILS???
planned demonstration and stated that the demonstration cannot be
Will come out in the
cancelled because it has already been agreed upon but Management Political (right to assembly and
test he says informed them that the demonstration is an inalienable right guaranteed by the petition) > property (economy)
Constitution. The company warned that workers who belonged to first and
[Rallying responsibly] regular shifts who did not report to work the following morning shall be dismissed Right to life liberty and property ->

in violation of existing CBA. Petitioners claim that they did not violate as they property is last. Liberty prevails over
have proper notice of mass demonstration. CIR found PBMEO guilty so property
petitioners filed with CIR a petition for relief from CIR dismissal order.
HELD: The demonstration was an exercise of their freedom of expression as it

was against the abuses of Pasig policemen, not against their employer. The
rights of free expression, free assembly and petition are not only civil rights but
also political rights essential to man's enjoyment of his life, to his happiness and
to his full and complete fulfillment.
The petitioner requested for a permit to hold a peaceful public meeting

however the respondent refused to issue such permit because he found
reasonable ground to believe that similar speeches will be delivered tending to
undermine the faith of the people in the government. Respondent based
refusal on Revised Ordinances of 1927. Theres no legal basis for the denial.
PRIMICIAS v FUGOSO Fear of serious injury cannot alone
HELD: Freedom of speech, free assembly and petition are fundamental justify suppression of freedom of
personal rights of the people recognized and guaranteed by the constitution expression
but these are not absolute. The assembly is lawful and cannot be struck down.
Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify suppression of free speech and
assembly. There must be reasonable ground to believe that evil to be
prevented is a serious one.
The petitioner, acting in behalf of the Movement of a Democratic Philippines,

wrote a letter to respondent Mayor of Manila applying to hold a rally at Plaza
Miranda. Respondent denied on the grounds that they have temporarily
adopted the policy of not issuing any permit for the use of Plaza Miranda for
NAVARRO v rallies or demonstrations during weekdays and suggested they just rally in the
The Mayor possesses reasonable
VILLEGAS Sunken Garden. Petitioner contested denial that it violates his right to peaceful
discretion to determine public
[plaza Miranda assembly.
places to be used for rally
denied]
HELD: The free assembly and petition are not absolute as it is subject to
regulation under police power. It must be exercised in subordination to the
general comfort and convenience and in consonance with peace and good
order. Court believed there was a clear and present danger.
Petitioner sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march Guidelines for issuance of permit:
and rally starting from Luneta to the gates of United States Embassy. 1. applicants should inform the
Respondent suggested that a permit may be issued if it is to be held at the Rizal authority of the date, public
JBL REYES v Coliseum or any other enclosed area where the safety of the participants place, and time of assembly
themselves and the general public may be ensured. Justice Aquino dissented 2. If at a private place, the
BAGATSING
that the rally is violative of Ordinance No. 7295 of the City of Manila prohibiting consent of the owner or that
[Luneta to Embassy] the holding of rallies within a radius of five hundred feet from any foreign entitled to its legal possession is
mission. required
3. The clear and present danger
HELD: With regard to the ordinance, there was no showing that there was test must be applied
violation and even if it could be shown that such a condition is satisfied it does 4. If authority believes there is

not follow that respondent could legally act the way he did. clear and present danger, the
applicants must be heard on
the matter
5. The decision must be
transmitted to the applicants at
the earliest opportunity
6. Applicants have recourse to the
proper judicial authority
Petitioners were officers of the Supreme Student Council of respondent

University. They sought and were granted by the school authorities a permit to
hold a meeting from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. They held a general assembly at
the second floor lobby instead of the one written in the permit. They discussed,
in vehement language, their opposition to proposed merger of the Institute of
Animal Science with Institute of Agriculture. They were informed that they were
MALABANAN v under preventive suspension for their failure to explain the holding of an illegal
RAMENTO assembly.
Sir: very liberal decision
[Palaban na mga
estudyante] HELD: The rights to peaceable assembly and free speech are guaranteed to
students of educational institutions. The peaceable character of an assembly
could be lost, however, by an advocacy of disorder under the name of dissent,
whatever grievances that may be aired being susceptible to correction through
the ways of the law. If the assembly is to be held in school premises, permit must
be sought from its school authorities, who are devoid of the power to deny such
request arbitrarily or unreasonably.
Free Speech and Suffrage
RA 4880 prohibited the early nomination of candidates and limited the period
of election campaigns. Petitioner Cabigao was an incumbent councilor in the
4th District of Manila and the Nacionalista Party official candidate for VM of
Manila while Gonzales is a registered voter in Manila. There was the further
allegation that the nomination of acandidate and the fixing of period of
election campaign are matters of political expediency and convenience which
only political parties can regulate by and among themselves through self-
GONZALES v restraint or mutual understanding or agreement and that the regulation and
COMELEC limitation of these political matters invoking the police power, in the absence of
Kailangan ng 2/3 votes to declare a
[early list of clear and present danger to the state, would render the constitutional rights of
law unconstitutional
nomination of petitioners meaningless and without effect. Respondents contend that the act
candidates] was based on the police power of the state.
HELD: The prohibition of any speeches, announcements or commentaries, or

the holding of interviews for or against the election of any party
or candidate for public office and the prohibition of the publication or
distribution of campaign literature or materials, against the solicitation of votes
whether directly or indirectly, or the undertaking of any campaign literature or
propaganda for or against any candidate or party is repugnant to a
constitutional command.

Marcos issued PD No. 991 calling for a national referendum on 16 Oct 1976 for
the Citizens Assemblies to resolve the issues of martial law, the interim assembly,
SANIDAD v
its replacement, the powers of such replacement, the period of its existence,
COMELEC
the length of the period for the exercise by the President of his present
powers. He issued another decree, PD 1031 providing for the manner of voting
and canvass of votes in barangays
Petitioners in these cases consist of representatives of the mass media, which

are prevented from selling or donating space and time for political
advertisements. Petitioners maintain that the prohibition imposed by Section 11
(b) amounts to censorship, because it selects and singles out for suppression
NATIONAL PRESS and repression with criminal sanctions, only publications of a particular
CLUB v COMELEC content, namely, media-based election or political propaganda during the
[no donation of election period of 1992.
airtime for political
shit] HELD: The Court considers that Section 11 (b) has not gone outside the
permissible bounds of supervision or regulation of media operations during
election periods. It is limited in the duration of its applicability and
enforceability. The limiting impact of Section 11 (b) upon the right to free
speech of the candidates themselves is not unduly repressive or unreasonable
COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2347. Section 15(a) of the resolution

provides a list of election propaganda prohibiting the posting of decals and
stickers in mobile units like cars and other moving vehicles.
ADIONG v COMELEC HELD: The prohibition unduly infringes on the citizens fundamental right of free
[car decals] speech enshrined in the Constitution (Sec. 4, Article III). Significantly, the
freedom of expression curtailed by the questioned prohibition is not so much
that of the candidate or the political party. The regulation strikes at the freedom
of an individual to express his preference and, by displaying it on his car, to
convince others to agree with him
Use of Private Proper
PruneYard has a policy not to permit any visitor or tenant to engage in any
publicly expressive activity, including the circulation of petitions, which is not
directly related to its commercial purposes. Respondents set up a table in a
PRUNEYARD corner of the courtyard and distributed pamphlets in support for their opposition
SHOPPING CENTER v Although Pruneyard is a private mall,
to a United Nations resolution against Zionism. Respondents seek to enjoin
it assumed the character of a public
ROBINS Appellants from denying them access to the property to circulate their petitions.
forum because it has opened its
[pamphlets vs establishment for public use
Zionism] HELD: The requirement that appellants permit the students to exercise their
protected rights of free expression and to petition on shopping center property
clearly does not amount to an unconstitutional infringement of appellants
property rights under the taking clause. The shopping center may restrict
expressive activity by adopting time, place, and manner regulations that will

minimize any interference with its commercial functions. Petitioners have failed
to show that the right to exclude others is so essential to the use or economic
value of their property that the state-authorized limitation of it amounted to a
taking.
Unprotected Speech
Defamatory Speech
even if its true, it must be fair ->>

Policarpio filed charges against Herminia Reyes causing the latter to be
The way the
separated from service. Reyes filed complaint against Policarpio for Elements of libel: information is
malversation of public funds and estafa thru falsification of public documents so 1. Defamatory imputation presented to the public
Policarpio filed for libel to Manila Times for publishing two libelous articles, which [damaging the good is given weight, EVEN IF
POLICARPIO v tended to dishonor and discredit Reyes. reputation of someone] the information might
MANILA TIMES 2. Malice be true.
HELD: Newspapers must enjoy a certain degree of discretion in determining the 3. Publication
[malversation is bad] manner in which a given event should be presented to the public but to enjoy 4. Person defamed/maligned If the way you said it is
immunity, a publication containing derogatory information must be not only must be identifiable to malign the
true, but, also, fair, and it must be made in good faith and without any
reputation of the other,
comments or remarks. In the case at bar, the Aug 11 article presented her in a *note that it must be directed to a it becomes libelous
worse predicament than that in which she, in fact was. person
Fidel Cruz, sanitary inspector assigned to Babuyan islands, sent distress signals to
US Airforce planes which forwarded such message to Manila. Using the radio set
Cruz reported to the authorities in Manila that the locals were living in terror due
to a series of killings committed on the island since Christmas of 1955. Philippine
defense forces led by Major Encarnacion discovered that Cruz fabricated the
story because he wanted transportation back home. This Week Magazine of
the Manila Chronicle made reference to Cruz but photos used were of a
different person, a businessman. The company published statements correcting
their misprint and explained that confusion and error happened due to the rush
LOPEZ v CA to meet the Jan 13th issues deadline. Cruz sued for libel.
[LOLpez. Fake distress
HELD: Mistake is no excuse to absolve publishers because libel is harmful on its
signal. Wrong person face by the fact that it exposes the injured party to more than trivial ridicule,
with same name] whether it is fact or opinion is irrelevant. Libel cannot be used to curtail press
freedom however it also can not claim any talismanic immunity form
constitutional limitations. So long as it was done in good faith, the press should
have the legal right to have and express their opinions on legal questions. To
deny them that right would be to infringe upon freedom of the press.
DISSENT: Manila Chronicle should be absolved because there was no evidence

of actual malice, the article does not ascribe anything immoral or any moral
turpitude and the negligence performed by Manila Chronicle should be
considered excusable negligence
PUBLIC OFFICER Covers false

NEW YORK TIMES v
The respondent sued New York Times for printing an advertisement about the Distinction between public officials accusations even if

SULLIVAN civil rights movement in the south that defamed him, the Commissioner of and private individuals what you said was
[police Montgomery. He claimed that it referred to him indirectly. false.
maltreatment] Difference in applying malice
HELD: The constitutional guarantees require a federal rule that prohibits a public
official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his
official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual
malice that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of
whether it was false or not.
Petitioner was a distributor of nudist magazines in the Philadelphia metropolitan

area. Respondent Metromediaradio station, which broadcast news reports
every half hour, broadcast news stories of petitioner Rosenblooms arrest for
possession of obscene literature and the police seizure of "obscene books.
ROSENBLOOM v These latter stories did not mention petitioner Rosenblooms name, but used the
METROMEDIA terms "smut literature racket" and "girlie-book peddlers." Following petitioner's
PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
[iba pala nag bloom. acquittal of criminal obscenity charges, he filed this action seeking damages
*wink wink*] under Pennsylvania's libel law.
HELD: There is no libel unless there is malice. Malice must be proven in matters
involving either public figures or private individuals
Petitioner McElroy and his movie production wanted to make a movie out of
the EDSA Revolution. Enrile declared that he will not approve the use,
appropriation, reproduction and/or exhibition of his name, or picture, or that of
any member of his family in any cinema or television production, film or other
medium. Petitioners acceded to this demand and the name of Enrile was
deleted from the movie script. However, Enrile filed a complaint invoking his
AYER PRODUCTION v right to privacy.
CAPULONG
[Si Enrile pikon. Movie HELD: Freedom of speech and of expression includes the freedom to film and
rights] produce motion pictures and exhibit such motion pictures in theaters or to
diffuse them through television. The projected motion picture was as yet
uncompleted and hence not exhibited to any audience.
Neither private respondent nor the respondent trial Judge knew what the
completed film would precisely look like. There was, in other words, no "clear
and present danger" of any violation of any right to privacy. Subject matter is
one of public interest and concern.
Soliven broadcasted the statement that President Aquino hid under her bed
SOLIVEN v MAKASIAR during a coup d' etat. The President sued for libel. Soliven claimed that he can't
[nakakaASIAR, di be sued because the President was immune from suit.
kasya sa ilalim ng
bed] HELD: Beltran died and the case was not adjudicated but Soliven should have
been acquitted. The words he used were obviously a figure of speech
MVRS v ISLAMIC accusation is not directed to an Elements of libel:

DAWAH COUNCIL Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines filed in the RTC a complaint for individaual 1. directed to a
damages in their own behalf and as aclass suit in behalf of the Muslim members person
nationwide against MVRS Publications, Inc.,arising from an article published in 2. element of malice
the 1 August 1992 issue of Bulgar, a daily tabloid. According to them, the 3. made in public
libelous statement was insulting and damaging to Muslims because it referred to
them as pig worshippers but MVRS Publications claimed that the article did
not mention respondents as the object of the article and it was merely an
expression of belief or opinion.
HELD: Declarations made about a large class of people cannot be interpreted

to advert to an identified or identifiable individual. Absent circumstances
specifically pointing or alluding to a particular member of a class, no member
of such class has a right of action without at all impairing the equally
demanding right of free speech and expression, as well as of the press. The fact
that the language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by
itself. Declarations made about a large class of people cannot be interpreted
to advert to an identified or identifiable individual. Absent circumstances
specifically pointing or alluding to a particular member of a class, no member
of such class has a right of action without at all impairing the equally
demanding right of free speech and expression, as well as of the press .There
was no fairly identifiable person who was allegedly injured by the Bulgar article.
Since the persons allegedly defamed could not be identifiable, private
respondents have no individual causes of action; hence, they cannot sue for a
class allegedly disparaged.
accusation is not directed to an

Citizens of the Province of Pampanga prepared and signed a petition to the
individual.
Executive Secretary charging Punslan, justice of the peace, with malfeasance
in office and asked for his removal. After filing a motion for new trial, the judge
Doctrine of privilege:
of first instance ordered the suppression of the charges and acquitted the
The people have the right to
justice of the peace of the same. Criminal action was then begun against the
scrutinize, comment, or condemn
US v BUSTOS petitioners, now become the defendants, charging that portions of the petition
the conduct of their public officials
presented to the Executive Secretary were libelous. The trial court found thirty- Scalpel part of the
[Bustos ni Justice sa as long as their comments are made
two of the defendants guilty and sentenced each of them to pay a nominal decision
pampanga] in good faith and with justifiable
fine.
ends; they are insulated from
prosecution or damage suits for
HELD: Express malice was not proved by the prosecution. Good faith
defamation even if such views are
surrounded the action of the petitioners. Their ends and motives were
found to be inaccurate or erroneous;
justifiable. The guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the right to
the burden of proving malice is
criticize judicial conduct.
shifted to the plaintiff
Fighting Words, Offensive Words

CHAPLINSKY v NEW Chaplinsky was convicted under a State statute for calling a City Marshal a Lewd and obscene, the proface,
HAMPSHIRE God damned racketeer and a damned fascist in a public place. the libelous, and the insulting or
Fighting words walang
[will come out in the fighting words those which, by
artistic value, walang
test he said] HELD: Fighting words are not entitled to protection under the First Amendment their very utterance, inflict injury or
exposition of ideas
[goddamn of the United States Constitution. Such words are of such little expositional or tend to incite an immediate breach
racketeer] social value that any benefit they might produce is far outweighed by their of the peace. It has been well
costs on social interests in order and morality observed that such utterances are

no essential part of any exposition of
ideas, and are of such slight social
value as a step to truth that any
benefit may be derived from them is
clearly outweighed by the social
interest in order and morality.
we cannot indulge the facile

A 19-year-old department store worker expressed his opposition to the Vietnam assumption that one can forbid
War by wearing a jacket emblazoned with "FUCK THE DRAFT. STOP THE WAR". particular words without also running
COHEN v Cohen was charged under a California statute that prohibits maliciously and a substantial risk of suppressing ideas
CALIFORNIA willfully disturbing the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or person by in the process. Indeed, governments
[will come out in the offensive conduct. might soon seize upon the
test he says] censorship of particular words as a
[Cohen touch this. HELD: The expletive was not directed toward anyone. There was no evidence convenient guise for banning the
FUCK THE DRAFT!] that people in substantial numbers would be provoked into some kind of expression of unpopular views to
physical action by the words on his jacket. The Court protected two elements discern little social benefit that might
of speech: emotive and cognitive. result from running the risk of opening
the door to such grave results
Obscenity
The United States passed a law that prohibited the mailing of lewd, obscene,
or lascivious book, pamphlet, picture or other publication of an indecent
character. Roth conducted a business in New York in the publication and sale
of books, photographs and magazines to be used to solicit sales. He was
convicted of violating the statute because he mailed sexually explicit
advertisements and a book to requesters.
ROTH v US HELD: The First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance or form
[mailed sexually of expression, such as materials that were "utterly without redeeming social
explicit ads] importance." The test to determine obscenity was that the material must
provide no literary or social value and it must have a tendency to excite lustful
thoughts.
DISSENT: The tests by which these convictions were obtained require only the
arousing of sexual thoughts. Any test that turns on what is offensive to the
community's standards is too destructive of freedom of expression to be
squared with the First Amendment.
Miller was convicted under the California Penal Code for mailing Miller obscenity test. Material is
advertisements for books and a film that contained adult material. Miller obscene when:
MILLER v CALIFORNIA appealed to Appellate Division of Superior Court, arguing that the jury 1. The average person, applying
[mailed ads with instructions did not use the standard set in Memoirs v. Massachusetts which said contemporary community
adult material] that in order to be judged obscene, materials must be utterly without standards would find that the
redeeming social value. He argued that a national standard for obscenity work, taken as a whole,
could be applied. appeals to prurient interests;
2. The work depicts or describes

HELD: If a state law that regulates obscene material is thus limited, as written or in a patently offensive way,
construed, First Amendment constitutional values are adequately protected by sexual conduct specifically
the ultimate power of appellate courts to conduct an independent review of defined by the applicable
constitutional claims when necessary. state law;
3. The work, taken as a whole,
DISSENT: To send men to jail for violating standards that they cannot understand lacks serious literary, artistic,
due to vagueness, denies them of due process. The statute is unconstitutional. political, or scientific value.
Antonio Gonzales, president of Malaya Films, claimed that his film Kapit sa
Patalim, was rated for adults only by a subcommittee of the movie review
board together with the required cuts and scene deletions.He justified that
these requirements were without basis and were restrains on artistic expression.
Upon appeal to SC, the Board claimed that the deletions were removed and
GONZALES v KALAW the requirement to submit the master negative was taken out but the film was
still rated for adults only.
KATIGBAK
[sibak. Kapit sa HELD: Press freedom may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and
patalim movie] truthfully any matter of public concern without censorship or punishment.
Movies are within the constitutional protection of freedom of expression, so that
censorship is presumed to be valid as constituting prior restraint. The only case
when the Board of Censors can order a deletion is when there is a clear and
present danger of a substantive evil against national security or public morals or
other public interest.
Pita procedure on sexually explicit

expression when authorities seek to
seize materials for being obscene:
1. Authorities myst apply for a
search warrant
2. They must convince the judge
that the materials to be seized
Special Anti-Narcotics Group, and the Manila Police, seized and confiscated
are obscene, and pose a clear
from dealers along Manila sidewalks, magazines believed to be obscene and
and present danger
burned them. One of the publications was Pinoy Playboy published by Leo Pita.
3. The judge must determine
Mayor Bagatsing admitted the confiscation and burning of obscence reading
whether or not the materials
PITA v CA materials but admitted that these were surrendered by the stall owners and the
are obscene, to be resolved
establishments were not raided.
on a case-to-case basis and
through the judges discretion.
HELD: If they are not exactly used for arts sake, but for commercial purposes,
4. If, in the courts opinion,
they are not entitled to constitutional protection. The courts must intervene in
probable cause exits, it may
the determination whether a material is obscene; it cannot be left to the
issue the search warrant
discretion of the police. There must always be a court order.
5. Authorities may sue under Art.
201 of the PRC
6. Any conviction is subject to
appeal. The appellate court
may assess whether or not the
properties seized are indeed
obscene

Defamation and Discimination in C. MacKinnon, ONLY WORDS
Two provisions of the Communications Decency Act sought to protect minors

from harmful material on the internet. It criminalized the act knowing
transmission of indecent images to those under 18 was assailed on the grounds
that the word indecent was too vague.
RENO v ACLU
HELD: CDA is unconstitutional for failing to provide definitions of indecent and
patently offensive. It was struck down for over breath. The prohibition of
messages even between consenting adults. The safeguards in the law are too
burdensome for companies.
After the Reno case, Congress enacted Child Online Protection Act, which
narrowed down the CDA into messages for commercial purposes and
harmful to minors as well as to the World Wide Web only as opposed to
covering all modes of communication. This was assailed on the ground that it
created an effective ban on the constitutionally protected speech by and to
ASHCROFT v ACLU adults.
HELD: The community standards is applicable to the internet and the web.
Community standards need not be defined by reference to a precise
geographic area. The value of work as adjudged using community standards
does not vary based on the degree of local acceptance it has won.

Benevolent Neutrality Doctrine
This is also called the doctrine of accommodation, which allows the
V. CHURCH AND STATE: THE WALL OF SEPARATION government to take religion into account when creating government policies
to allow people to exercise their religion without hindrance. It protects
religious realities, tradition and established practice with a flexible reading of
{Const. Art. II, Sec. 6} the principle of separation of church and state. Benevolent neutrality could
The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. allow for accommodation of morality provided it does not offend compelling
state interests [Estrada v Escritor]
{Const. Art. III, Sec. 4}
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of Doctrine of Conscientious Objector (CO)
the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the A person may refuse to render a service or do something on the grounds of
government for redress of grievances. moral principle or religious belief. A CO is exempt from compliance with
mandates of a law. Being compelled to act contrary to his religious belief and
conviction would amount to a violation of the principle of non-coercion
{Consti. Art. VI, Sec. 29(2)} enshrined along side the right to free exercise of religion. [Imbong v Ochoa]
No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or So long as there is no compelling state interest, which would limit the free
employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, exercise of COs they can freely do whatever it is they want to do. [keep in
church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any mind clear and present danger test]
priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except
when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed To be considered a CO, the act being defended by it must adhere to this
forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium. criteria:
a) There must be a belief in something, occupying a central
Religion is a reference to ones views of his relations to his Creator and to the place in the believers life
obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character and of b) Belief must involve a moral code transcending individual self
obedience to his will [David v Beason]. This is expanded to non-theistic beliefs c) Demonstrable sincerity in the said belief. [the courts cannot
such as Buddhism or Taoism. inquire into its truth or reasonableness]
d) There must be associational ties with the act and belief
[Estrada v Escritor]
A. Establishment Clause
This clause does not call for absolute separation of church and state but only
prohibit excessive government entanglement with, endorsement or C. Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices
disapproval of religion.
The limited entanglement of government and the religious sect includes tax
exemptions, operation of sectarian schools, religious instruction in public
schools and limited public aid to religion.
* take note of the Lemon Test enumerated below
B. Free Exercise Clause

This clause affords absolute protection for individual convictions. However,
freedom to act on these convictions is subject to

CASES
Establishment
- the law favors a particular sect resulting in the prejudice of another sect.
THERE IS NO VIOLATION. Since there

was a map of the Philippines there,
they were just promoting the country
world wide.
To commemorating the 33rd international Eucharistic Congress, the BSP issued
postage stamps. It has a secular purpose of increasing
tourism
AGLIPAY v RUIZ HELD: There was no violation of the establishment clause. However, the stamp
really favors the Roman Catholic Church. What they just want to say is that they Sir: Stamp would obviously use
are trying to promote the Philippines around the world. government funds to make and
distribute the stamps. It cannot be
denied drawing of the stamp here
shows that it is a roman catholic
church.
Resolution no. 5 authorizing the revival of the socio. This resolution involved the
purchase of a wooden image and construction of benches for the fiesta
(image of San Vicente Ferrer). Mass was held. The priest refused to return the
wooden image thus the barangay came to the SC with the contention that
GARCES v ESTENZO they are the rightful owners of the image.
HELD: The image was funded by private entities. Unless they donate the image
to the church, its ownership belongs to them
LEMON TEST WILL COME

OUT IN THE TEST:
If yes to all the
There was a law providing for financial aid subsidizing parochial schools. The aid
questions below, then
was to be given to teachers who were not teaching religion subjects Petitioners LANDMARK CASE FOR SEPARATION the statute is
contend that the said law violates the establishment clause. The law was OF CHURCH AND STATE constitutional:
defended claiming that its purpose was to save the crisis in public schools and
1. Does the statute
LEMON v KURTZMAN to aid the private schools. 1. PURPOSE: Giving salaries to have a secular
[will come out of the teachers [as aid] in religious legislative
test he says] HELD: The law was declared unconstitutional. The restrictions and surveillance schools BUT does not handle purpose.
necessary to ensure that teachers play a strictly non-ideological role and the courses or subjects on religion. 2. Does its primary
state supervision of nonpublic school accounting procedures required to
effect neither
establish the cost of secular as distinguished from religious education resulted to
advance nor
excessive government entanglement between the state and religion
inhibit religion?
3. Does the statute
not foster an
excessive

entanglement
with religion
The Education Law of New York contains a provision, which requires all local
school boards to purchase textbooks and lend those textbooks free of charge
to all students in grade 7 through 12. The classification of students included
those attending in private parochial schools. The provision is being assailed for
being violative of the Non-Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Pinapahiram books BUT
NOT EXCLUSIVELY TO
BOARD OF
HELD: The non-establishment clause does not prevent state from extending RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS,
EDUCATION v ALLEN incidental lang sila.
benefit of laws to all citizens regardless of religion. The express purpose of the
assailed law is furtherance of educational opportunities for the young, merely Walang pinaboran
making available to all children the benefits of a general program to lend
schoolbooks for free. Ownership remains with the state, so no funds or books are
furnished to parochial schools.
Respondents alleged that the display of a creche and a Chanukah menorah in

government buildings by petitioners violated the Establishment Clause. They
contended that the displays had the effect of endorsing religion.
COUNTY OF HELD: The petitioners sent an unmistakable message that it supported and
ALLEGHENY v ACLU promoted the Christian praise to God that was the creche's religious message,
and held that the display of the creche was unconstitutional. The display of the
menorah in its particular setting was a visual symbol for a holiday with a secular
dimension
Christmas display was put up in a park located in the citys shopping district. The
display includes, in addition to such objects as Santa Clause house and all other
typical Christmas decors, a banner that reads SEASONS GREETINGS, a crche,
which has been a part of this annual display for 40 years or more.
HELD: The crche is constitutional. The opinions states that the inclusion of the
LYNCH v DONNELY crche in the display was not an advancement or endorsement of religion
but the opinion offers no discernible measure for distinguishing between
permissible and impermissible endorsements. It was observed that any benefit
the government gave to religions from the display of crche was no more than
indirect, remote, and incidental, promotion without saying how or why. The
Lemon test was applied. It merely depicts the origins of holiday.
There was a law that was passed prohibiting teachers from teaching human
EPPERSON v evolution. Epperson, a public school teacher, sued claiming the law violated
ARKANSAS her First Amendment right to free speech as well as the Establishment Clause.
HELD: It was not valid. The use of state power to prohibit the teaching of

material objectionable to a particular sect amounted to an unconstitutional
Establishment of religion.
School required students to read Bible parable at the opening of each school
day. The school district sought to enjoin enforcement of the statute. The district
court ruled that the statute violated the First Amendment, even after the statute
SCHOOL DISTRICT v had been amended to permit a student to excuse himself.
SCHEMPP
HELD: It was invalid and unconstitutional because such opening exercises were
religious ceremonies. Compulsory Bible readings were clearly religious exercises
that violated the concept of strict neutrality.
Public schools were required to voluntrarily conduct prayer at the start of each
class. This was an attempt to defuse politically potent issue by taking it out of the
hands of local communities.
ENGEL v VITALE
HELD: It was invalid and unconstitutional because New York approved religion.
The provision allowing students to absent themselves from this activity did not
make the law constitutional because the purpose of the First Amendment was
to prevent government interference with religion.
Ohio started up a Pilot Project Scholarship Program aimed at any family in an

Ohio school district which was under federal control owing to a court decree.
Cleveland City School District had a dismal performance compared to others.
This program specifically provides aid in terms of education. They sought to Take note of all the
ZELMAN v SIMMONS- invalidate the program on the basis of the violation of the establishment clause. differences. They vary
HARRIS but justification is the
HELD: A school voucher program which allows parents to send their children to same.
a private school is not in violation of the Establishment Clause, where the vast
majority of participating private schools are affiliated to religious groups. Ohio
does not coerce or promote the parents to send children to religious schools.
The Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 provides grants for college and
university academic facilities, excluding those used for sectarian instruction,
religious worship or those primarily used in connection with any part of the
program of a school or department of divinity. There was a law that was passed
TILTON v for the strong demand for the college and facilities.
RICHARDSON
HELD: The law was valid. The appellants were unable to identify any coercion
directed at the practice or exercise of their religious beliefs. The court
concluded that the Act did not violate the religion clauses except for the
provision which states the 20-year limitation on the religious use restrictions

SJS filed a petition for declaratory relief before RTC against Velarde for the
interpretation of constitutional provisions on the separation of state and church
and the constitutionality of acts of religious leaders endorsing a candidate for
an elective office.
VELARDE v SJS
HELD: SJS has failed to convince the Court that there are enough factual and
legal basis to resolve the paramount issue. It is not legally possible for the Court
to take upon the merits the paramount question involving a constitutional
principle
The professor in UP Law was a Born-Again Christian. An atheist questioned his

praying before the class starts.
HELD: The RTC said that saying a prayer before class in a public school is Saying a prayer before class in a
ARIAS v UP BOARD
unconstitutional. The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals. BUT NO public institution [UP] is a violation of
OF REGENTS the constitution
UPDATE ON THE CASE.
Sir: Since UP is a government school, it is unconstitutional.
Free Exercise Clause
American Bible Society has been distributing and selling bibles and/or gospel
portions throughout the Philippines and translating the same into several
Philippine dialect. City Treasurer of Manila informed American Bible Society that
it was violating several Ordinances for operating without the necessary permit
and license, thereby requiring the corporation to secure the permit and license
fees. To avoid closing of its business, American Bible Society paid the City of *remember ADE: absolutely, directly,
AMERICAN BIBLE Manila its permit and license fees under protest. American Bible filed a exclusively used for
SOCIETY v CITY complaint, questioning the constitutionality of Ordinances 2529 and 3000 as religious/educational purposes not
they are not required to pay any license fee. subject to tax
HELD: They cannot be taxed because it is part of their religious freedom.

Applying the said provision would impair their exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship as well as its rights of dissemination of religious
beliefs.
Petitioners belong to the Jehovahs Witness whose children were expelled from
their schools when they refused to salute, sing the anthem, and recite the
pledge during the conduct of flag ceremony, in violation of Department Order
GERONA v SEC OF No. 8 issued by DECS pursuant to RA 1265 which called for the manner of
EDUCATION conduct during a flag ceremony. RTC said that DO 8 is invalid and contrary to
the Bill of Rights.
HELD: RA 1265 is valid. The flag is not an image but a symbol of the Republic of
the Philippines, an emblem of national sovereignty, of national unity and

cohesion and of freedom and liberty which it and the Constitution guarantee
and protect. The flag is utterly devoid of any religious significance. Saluting the
flag consequently does not involve any religious ceremony
Similar facts in the previous case: students members of Jehovahs Witness were Two-fold aspect of religious freedom
expelled from public school for refusing to salute the flag. Freedom to believe absolute, as
EBRALINAG v long as its confined to the realm of
DIVISION HELD: The Supreme Court in Gerona failed to apply the clear and present thought.
danger rule. They established the freedom to believe. Love for country does not Freedom to act on ones belief
SUPERINTENDENT
simply mean standing and saluting the flag. The students cannot be compelled subject to regulation, so that it
to salute the flag. cannot prejudice the rights of others.
Reverend Father Gonzaga was elected to the position of municipal mayor of

Albuquerque, Bohol. Petitioner, who was an opposing candidate, filed a
petition for quo warranto on the basis that under the Administrative Code that
there shall not be elected or appointed to a municipal office ecclesiastics,
soldiers in active service, persons receiving salaries from provincial or national
funds. The respondent judge ruled against him, stating that the Election Code of
PAMIL v TELERON 1971 impliedly repealed the provision.
HELD: The challenged Administrative Code provision, certainly insofar as it

declares ineligible ecclesiastics to any elective or appointive office, is, on its
face, inconsistent with the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. To
so exclude them is to impose a religious test. Article 3, Section 5, 1935
Constitution
Tennessee passed a statute prohibiting leaders of religious sectors to run from

public office. McDaniel, a minister, filed to run to become delegate to the
States 1977 limited constitutional convention. The Chancery Court held that the
said section of the statute violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the
Constitution.
MCDANIEL v PATY
HELD: The statute was unconstitutional because it conditions his right to the free
exercise of his religion on the surrender of his right to seek office. The law that
prohibits you from running is unconstitutional. This violates the free exercise
clause.
Petitioners composed of about 50 people converged at JP Laurel St. in Manila

for the purpose of hearing mass at the St. Jude Chapel, which adjoin the
GERMAN v Malacanan ground on the same street. They started marching with raised
BARANGAN clenched fists while shouting anti-government invectives. They were then barred
by the Mayor upon orders from proceeding any further. Despite pleas, they
were not allowed in the church

HELD: The restriction was valid. There was a clear and present danger what
they were doing constituted a threat to the security of the President. While it is
beyond debate that every citizen has the undeniable and inviolable right to
religious freedom, the exercise thereof, and of all fundamental rights for that
matter, must be done in good faith.
Jesse Cantwell, walked along Cassius Street in New Haven, Connecticut with
two family members who were Jehovah's Witnesses. It was a Roman Catholic
neighborhood. They carried religious materials with them, including pamphlets,
books, and records. They also had a portable record player, which played an
anti-Catholic message called Enemies. Jesse Cantwell stopped two Catholic
men on the street. The men agreed to listen to the record, but reacted angrily
when they heard it. They said they were tempted to hit him and told him to
leave. Thereafter, the Cantwells were arrested for solicitation without a permit
CANTWELL v and for inciting a breach of the peace.
CONNECTICUT
HELD: While it is obvious that the principles of freedom of speech and religion do
not sanction incitement to riot or violence, it is equally obvious that a State may
not unduly suppress free communication of views under the guise of
maintaining desirable conditions. There was no evidence of assaultive behavior
or threatening of bodily harm, no truculent bearing, no profane, abusive,
indecent remarks directed to the person of the hearer. Thus, it cannot be said
that Cantwells actions resulted in a breach of the peace or an incitement to a
breach
An Act was passed requiring teachers and students to recite a pledge in

accordance to religious beliefs. The pledge contained the phrase one nation
under God.
NEWDOW v US
CONGRESS HELD: The mandatory recitation in school would tend to discriminate against
atheist students. The Lemon test was applied and it failed. The endorsement test
was applied it failed. The coercion test was applied it failed.
The INC prohibited any of their members from joining any outside association or
organization. There was a Collective Bargaining Agreement between Hacienda
Luisita and the United Luisita Workers that did not include the members of the
INC at the time of the agreement. The CBA states that all employees would be
In case of conflict between union
required to join the Union and must stay in the Union to be able to retain
membership (part of property rights)
ANUCENSION v NLU employment. An Act was assailed for containing a provision saying that
and religious belief, it is the religious
members of religious sects that prohibit affiliation may not be laid off, simply on
freedom that prevails
the grounds of their non-affiliation with any workers union.
HELD: The Act was constitutional. The government should not be precluded
from pursuing valid objectives, secular in character, even if the incidental result
would be favorable to a religious sect.

The INC had a show. This show was given an X rating by the MTRCB because
their episodes contained direct attacks against other religions. Sir: You cannot suppress the freedom
IGLESIA NI CRISTO v
of religion no matter how annoying it
CA HELD: Prohibiting of screening of the show suppresses petitioners freedom of can be
speech and interferes with its right to free exrcise of religion.
The Twitchwells were the parents of a seriously ill two and a half y/o child who
was afflicted with a disease, which could have been easilty cured by surgery.
Instead of having their child undergo surgery, they relied on healing by spiritual
treatment. This resulted in the death of their child. They were charged with
indirect manslaughter due to their wanton, reckless conduct
COMMONWEALTH v
TWITCHELL HELD: The case was remanded to answer some questions of fact. The parents
are entitled to assert an affirmative defense if it is proved that they reasonably
relied on the Atty. Gen.s opinion about whether the statute providing that
spiritual treatment may be enough to prevent a finding of neglect providing a
defense.
The court held that in resolving

claims involving religious freedom:
BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY or
accommodation, mandatory or
permissive, is the spirit, intent, and
framework underlying the religion
Estrada filed a complain against court interpreter Escritor for living with a man clauses
not her husband and having a child with him despite of her still being married to In deciding a plea of exemption
another man. Escritor is a member of Jehovahs Witness and claimed that the based on the Free Exercise Clause,
conjugal arrangement was in conformity with their religious beliefs. COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TEST
must be applied
ESTRADA v ESCRITOR
HELD: Pursuant to the free exercise clause of the Constitution, the law In the 2003 case, the court could not
recognizes actions, which are in accordance to religious beliefs. The court rule on whether Escritor should be
recognizes that state-interests must be upheld in order that freedoms including administratively liable since the State
religious freedom may be enjoyed. was given the opportunity to
adduce evidence that it has a more
compelling interest to defeat the
claim of the respondent to religious
freedom.
The 2003 case was remanded to the

OCA and for the OSG to intervene
Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices

WISCONSIN v YODER Members of the Old Order of Amish religion were convicted of violating

Wisconsins compulsory school-attendance law by declining to send their
children to public or private school after they had graduated from the eighth
grade. They justified their act saying that they sincerely believed that attending
highschool was contrary to the Amish Religion.
HELD: Court ruled in favor of the Amish. The states interest in universal
education is not absolutely free from balancing process when it impinges on
other fundamental rights. In the case at bar, freedom of religion prevail over
states interest. What they did is actually allowed by a law. The traditional
interest of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children is
protected under the free exercise clause.
Respondents were convicted of conspiracy and use of mails to defraud. Their

scheme involved the use of religious doctrines and beliefs, which were alleged
to be false. They claimed that they had supernatural powers to heal the sick
and diseased.
US v BALLARD HELD: Their belief is valid. Although their religion seems incredible to most, it is
not the role of a jury to determine its veracity. The lower court needs to
determine if the defendants honestly believed in good faith. If they did, they
should be acquitted. The Courts may not inquire into the veracity of the subject
of belief but only in the sincerity of the belief.
This involved 3 cases of asking for exemption claims of conscientious objectors

under the Universal Military Training and Service Act. A provision therein exempts
from combatant service in the armed forces those who are conscientiously
opposed to participation in war by reason of their religious training and belief
US v SEEGER
HELD: proof of being a conscientious objector would be decided upon if it can
be shown that the person alleging it possess a sincere and meaningful belief
occupying in his life, a place parallel to that filled by God. The Court expanded
the meaning of religion to cover not just recognized sects but also personal
belief system based on philosophy readings, or based on an analogy to God.
HE IS MUHAMMAD ALI.
Ali refused to be drafted to fight in the Vietnam War, claiming that he is a
conscientious objector. His claim was rejected by the Board w/o giving him a
CASSIUS CLAY v US reason why. Conscientious objector
an individual who has claimed the
[will come out of the
HELD: HE WAS NOT DRAFTED. WENT ON BOXING. 3 tests must be satisfied to right to refuse to perform military
test he said] service on the grounds of freedom of
qualify as a conscientious objector. 1) that he is conscientiously opposed to war
in any form. 2) that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief 3) thought, conscience, and/or religion
that this objection is sincere. Since the Board gave no reason for denying his
claim, it is unknown which ground he did not pass.

VI. UNLAWFUL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
{Consti. Art. III, Sec. 2}

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to
be seized.
CASES
There was a celebration of the 20th anniversary of EDSA. Arroyo proclaimed PD Powers of the President: calling out
1017as there were allegations of ousting Gloria. There were warrantless arrests powers, Martial Law, emergency
and seizures on the basis of the proclamation. David was conducting a rally powers, and residual powers
that was considered anti-Arroyo and was arrested. The Daily Tribune was also The residual powers are
closed down. The lawmakers based the arrest on the proclamation. not explicitly mentioned in
the Constitution but this is
HELD: There was insufficient reason to arrest David. There should have been a an example of the
DAVID v warrant for the Daily Tribune and should be done in the daytime and with President having such to
MACAPAGAL witness unlike what happened which such arrest happened at 1 am in the ensure that the laws are
morning. All the items seized are inadmissible in evidence. being respected.
With the declaration of the state of national emergency, it is the Congress This is an attempt of Arroyo
who has the power to do such and only by law authorize the President. to invoke emergency
Article VII, Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive powers
departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be
faithfully executed.
Acting out on suspicion that Katz was out on gambling dealings, he was
convicted of illegal transmission of information based on recordings gathered
against him from calls in a telephone booth. The police claimed that the
conversation in the booth is public so people can invade the privacy.
KATZ v US
HELD: The one being protected is the person himself so he did not waive any
privacy right. The seizure of Katz based on the conversations heard in the public
telephone booth is inadmissible
The counter-intelligence of Manila found information that a shipment would be

under-valued so they set up a checkpoint. They entered the checkpoint and
Papa and other police seized the items. The owner of the shipment claimed
that tehre was unreasonable search and seizure because there was no warrant.
PAPA vMAGO
As for Papa, he contended that B of Customs has jurisdiction, not the court.
HELD: Given the nature of a moving vehicle, there is no need to secure a search
warrant for suspected illegal goods as the vehicle would have already left the
premises

The accused assured Anita Reyes that the packages were only containing
cigarettes so they did not check it anymore. The boxes were inspected again
and there was a foul order to be reported to the NBI t was dried marijuana
PEOPLE v MARTI leaves contained in cellophane wrappers.
HELD: The protection is against the government and the one who opened the
boxes was a private individual
Diokno made possible search warrants against Stonehill due to alleged

violations of the Internal Revenue Code. Stonehill contended that the warrants
were invalid because they were general warrants.
HELD: No warrants shall issue but upon probable cause and that it should
particularly discuss what needs to be seized. None of requirements has been
complied. A violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal
STONEHILL v DIOKNO
Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code was written so no specific offense/
acts has been alleged thus no probable cause.
DISSENT: Petitioners have standing to quash warrants regardless whether it was

directed against residences or corporations as long as these effects were held
by them under personal control. As it is a fruit of a poisonous tree, it gives them
standing
There was a detective who saw the person who was suspicious and did a body-
search. He saw weapons and arrested the accused.
HELD: The Supreme Court held that there was an exception to the
TERRY v OHIO
unreasonable search and seizures rule when the policeman has a reasonable
suspicion to seize the gun and arrest the person if a crime would hapen. If the
police were not allowed to do such, it would allow criminals to just go about
their way
There was a gunban because there would be elections. A congressman

ordered Aniag to return the guns back to their house. While driving, he entered
a checkpoint where the police saw the briefcase with the gun.
ANIAG v COMELEC
HELD: With checkpoints, what is in plain view should be searched and seized. If
they want to arrest the petitioner, they should secure a warrant first

VII. ACADEMIC FREEDOM
Background reading: Byrne: Academic

Freedom: A Special Concern of the First
Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 25 (1989)
{Consti. Art. XIV, Sec 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
education accessible to all.
{Consti. Art. XIV, Sec 5(5)}

The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure
that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available
talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction
and fulfillment.
There are four essential freedoms of any institution for higher learning: WHO-
WHAT-HOW-WHO who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be
taught, who may be admitted to study. [Garcia v Faculty Admission
Committee]
Intitutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to

decide for itself, its aims and objectives, and how to best attain them
establishing academic and disciplinary standards free from outside coercion
or interference except for compelling state reasons. [covers who-what-how
elements] The right to discipline students falls under the what element.

CASES

Impairment is anything that diminishes the efficacy of the contract [Clements
v Nolting]. The non-impairment clause is a limit on legislative power.
VIII. PROTECTED INTERESTS IN LIBERTY *side note: this is kind of stupid, because jurisprudence dictates that, for
compelling state interest, contracts may be impaired by law -___-
Affirmative Action Policy refers to the policy giving preferential treatment in
hiring and giving education to marginalized groups to help them reach equal
status with mainstream groups. This is a policy favoring those who tend to B. Involuntary Servitude
suffer from discrimination, especially in relation to employment or education
a positive discrimination. {Const. Art. III, Sec. 18(2)}
No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a
This is applied in both instances of employment or education. [In our system, crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
this is applied mostly in policies made in the Mnidanao region]
Involuntary servitude is a condition of enforced, compulsory service of one to
A. Non-Impairment of Obligations of Contracts another forcing another to do something against their will.
Background reading: Padilla IV-A CIVIL LAW
11-42 (1988)(discussion of Art. 1306)
AUTONOMY OF WILL. this is obli we should know this by now. LOL exception: C. Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt
Moratorium laws
{CONST. art. III, sec. 20}
No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
{Const. Art. III, Sec. 10}
No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. How is BP22 [bouncing checks law] constitutional?
BP 22 punishes the issuance of a bad check, which injures public policy. Unlike
{Civil Code. Art. 1306} an issuance of a bad check with intent to defraud in estafa, which, in its
The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and nature malum in se, BP 22 is malum prohibita.
conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to
law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. D. Right Against Self-incrimination
Every accused/witness has rights protected under the Constitution.
A law which changes the terms of a legal contract between parties, either in Safeguarding ones right against self-incrimination furthers this.
the time or mode of performance, or imposes new conditions or authorizes
something different from that provided in the contract is a law which impairs Only applies to compulsory testimonial, and does not apply to material
the obligation of a contract and is therefore null and void. objects [Villafor v Summers; People v Vallejo]

CASES

[below were not discussed by sir not included in the test so not expounded
on. saying lang effort. CHAR.]
IX. SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION
A. Who are entitled to Constitutional Protection
Citizenship and Alienage

Board of Commissioners (CID) v. Dela Rosa et.
al., 197 SCRA 853
Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 9 SCRA
27
Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago, 162 SCRA 840
Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA 364
Labo v. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1
Aznar v. COMELEC, 185 SCRA 703
JURIDICAL PERSONS
Stonehill v. Diokno, supra
Central Bank v. Morfe, 20 SCRA 507
B. Who are subject to Constitutional Prohibitions
STATE ACTION REQUIREMENT

People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, supra
Borjal v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 1, 23, G.R.
No. 126466, Jan. 14, 1999

Consti II Reviewer

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Consti II Reviewer

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.! PLACE OF JUDICIAL POWER ............................................................................................ 2!

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Requisites for exercise

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

A proclamation reserved a parcel of land of public domain in Bataan for

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Mootness: When an act or promulgation have seized to have any legal

Exception: Courts will still decide if:

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Facts & Ruling Doctrine Related cases

Hechanova authorized the importation of foreign rice to be purchased.

Unjieng was convicted of criminal charges and he filed an application for

HELD: The People of the Philippines is a proper party in the proceedings

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Flast objected to federal expenditures destined for sectarian religious schools

Petitioners are questioning the validity of an agreement expanding the power

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Justice Laurel: Locus standi refers to a personal injury sustained by the

The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors construed a state penal statute as

Richardson sued Congress, hoping to compel release of detailed funding

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Engracio Palanca, a Chinese man, mortgaged three parcels of land to

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Petitioners were not allowed to re-enroll to school for participating in student

The UP Administration implemented the socialized scheme of tuition fee

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

[below is included in the test he said]

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Petitioners assailed the validity of an ordinance passed by the Municipal

New Substantive Due Process: Protection for Liberty Interest in Privacy

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

DISSENT OF BRANDEIS: Right to privacy should be most protected. The very

From Skinner up til Bowers,

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Hardwick was charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing

Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence,

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

DISSENT: The policy testing all students who engage in extra-curricular

Fidel Ramos issued AO 308 for the adoption of a National Computerized

Gloria Arroyo issued EO 420 which sought to unify an ID system among

Protected interest in Property

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Petitioners' 6 carabaos were confiscated by the police for having been

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

The Bureau of Telecommunications set up its own government system by

Ayala Corporation executed a deed of donation which covered Jupiter and

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Taking under Eminent Domain v Taking under Social Justice Clause

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition against Ordinance 4670 contending

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

Forbes Park Association is a non-profit corporation whose members are

DISSENT: It would not lead to overcrowding and the millions of properties of

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]

III. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

Block 1 SY 15-16 Dane & TTL [Constitutional Law II - Jamon]