Case Digests

VILLAFLOR V. SUMMERS
Key: The court compelled Villaflor to subject herself to an examination of her genitals. The
results of such examination would be used as evidence in the adultery case against her.
On the right against self-incriminatKey:Key:ion:
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This constitutional right protects
only against testimonial compulsion.
STONEHILL V. DIOKNO
Key: 42 search warrants issued against petitioners to search for personal properties books of
accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios,
credit journals, typewriters, and other documents showing all business transactions including
disbursement receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins cigarettes.
On the Searches and Seizures Clause
This case was decided before the exclusionary rule was included in the Bill of Rights (par. 2,
Sec. 3, Art. III: Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.)
Requirements for a valid search warrant:
1) Probable cause
2) To be determined by a judge
3) After examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce
4) Particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized
Exclusionary principle: Evidence obtained in violation of the Searches and Seizures Clause in
the Bill of Rights are inadmissible in court.
The exclusionary principle was adopted to deter the State from violating the Searches and
Seizure Clause by removing the incentive to disregard it. Holding otherwise is to grant the right,
but in reality to withhold its privilege and enjoyment.
Only a competent court can issue a search warrant because the Constitution expressly provides
that a judge issue the search warrant or warrant of arrest.
The finding of probable cause is ex parte, that is, only one party (usually the State) presents
evidence before the judge. This is because informing the other party might result in a
miscarriage of justice because they might hide the evidence. However, this is counterbalanced
by the fact that the State already expends resources in the investigation prior to procuring a
warrant.
There should only be one crime identified in the warrant. This is because in order for there to be
probable cause, each and every element of a particular crime must be shown to be probably
present. This would be very difficult to do if the allegation in the application for a warrant is
general.
Fishing expeditions are not allowed. These are protected against by the requirement that the
particular things to be seized be identified.
MORFE V. MUTUC
Key: Judge Morfe challenges the constitutionality of the 1960 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, particularly the portion requiring all public officers to submit a true detailed and sworn
statement of assets and liabilities every other year.
On the due process clause
The statute was framed with the goal to curtail and minimize the opportunities for official
corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service in mind. But in attaining
this, no constitutional right must be infringed upon.
The statute is a valid exercise of police power. Some rights can be curtailed as long as due
process is observed. The standard for due process is that it must be responsive to the
supremacy of reason and obedience to the dictates of justice.
On right to life, liberty and property
The right to be left alone is the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by
civilized men. The right is recognized independently of its identification with liberty, and is fully
deserving of constitutional protection.
Though public officials are not bereft of this constitutional protection, but they have subjected
themselves to further compulsory revelation of their assets and liabilities by accepting a public
position.
There is a constitutional right to privacy.
On the guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizure and against self-
incrimination
These are protections of the right to be left alone except under responsible judicial compulsion.
Periodical submission of ones financial condition is not violation of the guarantee against
unreasonable search and seizure.
There is no constitutional provision to protect a mans conduct from judicial inquiry or aid him in
fleeing from justice.
LAGUNZAD V. VDA. DE GONZALES
Key: Lagunzad produced a movie entitled The Moises Padilla Story which included
fictionalized dramatizations of Moises Padillas life. Maria Soto Vda. De Gonzales, Moises
Padillas mother, opposed it but consented to the making of the movie on a monetary
consideration.
On the Right to Privacy
Being a public figure does not destroy in toto a persons right to privacy. The right to invade a
persons privacy to disseminate public information does not extend to a fictional or novelized
representation of a person, no matter how public a figure he or she may be.
On the Freedom of Expression
While the freedom of expression occupies a preferred position in the hierarchy of civil liberties, it
is not without limitations. Quoting Gonzales v. Comelec: Freedom of expression is not absolute.
It would be too much to insist that at all times and under all circumstances it should remain
unfettered and unrestrained. There are other societal values that press for recognition.
The standard to be used is the Clear and present rule. That is, there must be a clear and
present danger that the substantive evils sought to be prevented are going to happen.
AYER PRODUCTIONS V. CAPULONG
Key: Ayer Productions envisioned making a movie entitled The Four-Day Revolution which
would be about the historic peaceful struggle of the Filipinos at EDSA. Senator Juan Ponce
Enrile, who had played a major role in the events leading up to EDSA refused to be included in
the movie
On Freedom of Speech and Expression
The circumstances that the production of a motion picture film is a commercial activity intended
to yield monetary profit, is not a disqualification for availing of the freedom of speech and
expression.
In general, assailed acts of government come to the Court with a strong presumption of
constitutionality. Only in freedom of speech cases, and only those that constitute prior restraint,
is this presumption overturned; there is a presumption of unconstitutionality in such cases.
Prior restraint on freedom of speech cases is presumed to be an encroachment on
constitutional rights because the speech has not even been made yet, thus it is unknowable
whether the speech must be censored .
Gonzales v. Katigbak: films are covered by the basic right to free expression. The law makes
no distinction on whether such films are foreign-owned, or even for monetary profit. Speech is
not constrained to the spoken word.
The word law as it appears in Sec. 4 Art III (no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
speech...) means not only Republic Acts but also cases decided by the court.
The public figure doctrine is enunciated here. A public figure is someone who is involved in the
public sphere, as a result of which, his privacy is limited.
Freedom of speech is primordial over any other right. Protected speech may not be denied,
even though it may be false, unless it is false and there is a reckless disregard for the truth (US
v. Bustos).
Freedom of speech is relative to the right of the people to information, especially in the form of
news.
MARCOS V. MANGLAPUS
Key: President Marcos and his family sought to return to the Philippines.
On the right to travel
The right to return to ones country is separate and distinct from the right to travel, and therefore
not covered by the Bill of Rights.
The Court depended on international documents, namely the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which treat the right to return
to ones country as separate and distinct from the right to travel within and outside the country.
On the attendant circumstances of this case
The Court, through Justice Irene Cortes said: This case is unique. It should not create a
precedent, for the case of a dictator forced out of office and into exile after causing twenty years
of political, economic and social havoc in the country and who within the short space of three
years seeks to return, is in a class by itself.
PEOPLE V. MARTI
Key: A private individual opened and searched packages where he found marijuana, exposing
the owner of such articles to criminal prosecution.
On the searches and seizures clause
The Bill of Rights was meant to protect the individual against the awesome powers of the State.
In the absences of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution
cannot be invoked against the State. In this case, it was a private person who opened the
package thus the exclusionary rule is inapplicable.
There would be no constitutional violation if the search was carried out by a private person, but
such cannot be done with impunity.
Fruit of the poison tree: a metaphor to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. If the source
of the evidence is tainted, then anything gained from it is tainted as well.
OPLE V. TORRES
Key: President Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 308 Adoption of a National
Computerized Identification Reference System.
On the doctrine of facial infirmity:
Facial challenges are when a statute is attacked solely on the basis of the text of the statute
itself. There is no actual case or controversy yet.
Previously, facial challenges were only allowed in freedom of expression cases, but this case
enlarges the applicability of such.
In general, statutes can only be challenged when they are implemented, facial challenges are
exceptions to this rule.
This is allowed, for example, in freedom of speech cases, because of the chilling effect that a
statute might have. A statute that is alleged to violate freedom of speech may have already
produced the evil sought to be prevented by its very enactment.
On the right to privacy
The Court here used the reasoning in Griswold v. Connecticut on the existence of the right to
privacy. Such reasoning is now binding since it was adopted in our jurisdiction via Morfe v.
Mutuc.
Broadness, vagueness and overbreadth will put peoples right to privacy in clear and present
danger.
The strict scrutiny test is used to protect privacy. It is applied by asking the following questions:
1) Is there a compelling state interest?
2) Is the statute narrowly drawn?
ESTRADA V. SANDIGANBAYAN
Key: Deposed President Estrada seeks to have the Plunder Law declared unconstitutional for
being vague.
On the constitutionality of statutes
When the constitutionality of statutes are questioned, there is a presumption of constitutionality.
This is premised on the separation of powers.
If there is some other basis for a decision of a case, the issue of constitutionality of the law will
not be touched.
On the due process clause
Void-for-vagueness doctrine: A statute may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible
standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in
its application.
Vagueness is repugnant to the Constitution because it violates the due process as there is no
fair notice and it leaves law enforcers with unrestrained discretion.
KMU V. ERMITA
Key: President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued EO 420 entitled Requiring all government
agencies and government-owned and controlled corporations to streamline and harmonize their
identification systems, and authorizing for such purpose the Director-General, National
Economic and Development Authority to implement the same, and for other purposes.
On the differences between AO 420 (KMU v. Ermita) and AO 308 (Ople v. Torres)
AO 420 was held valid, whereas AO 308 was annulled:
1) AO 420 did not require appropriation as the funds would be sourced from the budget
of the agencies concerned.
2) AO 420 was not mandatory to the public, it only affected government employees.
3) AO 420 prescribed the gathering only of routine information.
IN RE: PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ALEJANO
Key: The petitioners in the Oakwood Mutiny, including Alejano and Trillanes, were being
detained at the Intelligence Service of the AFP.
On the right to privacy
Expectation of privacy is less for detained persons, but reading the correspondence between a
prisoner and a lawyer cannot be breached because of the constitutional right to retain counsel.
The doctrine of reasonable expectation of privacy looks at the context/circumstances present.
Letters read by ISAFP were not confidential communication between the detainees and their
lawyers. The detention officials should not read the letters but only open the envelopes for
inspection in the presence of the detainees- this was not the case here.
On cruel and unusual punishment
The putting up of plywood between the metal bars and other means by which the ISAFP
controlled detainees contact with visitors were not unusual punishment.
The detainees were trained military personnel, as such, there was reason to secure their
imprisonment in a different manner from that of regular prisoners.
MERCADO V. SECURITY BANK CORPORATION
Key: Mercado, who was embroiled in litigation with Security Bank Corporation, wrote a letter to
Chief Justice Davide accusing him of placing tremendous pressure on the ponente to decide in
favour of Security Bank.
On the freedom of expression
There is a different standard when it comes to permissible speeches when it comes to the
Supreme Court. This is because to fallaciously impute wrongdoing to Justices would put the
entire judicial system into disrepute.
On the privacy of communications and correspondences
In Re Laureta: letters addressed to individual Justices, in connection with the performance of
their judicial duties become part of the judicial record and are a matter of concern for the whole
court.
SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. V. SOLUTA
Key: Silahis barged into the Union Office and found illegal drugs there.
On the searches and seizures clause
What is being discussed here is the civil liability of Silahis against the Union officers. The Court
here protected a statutory right (Art. 32 of the Civil Code).
An additional consequence of violating the searches and seizures clause is civil liability. Unlike
the exclusionary rule though, this civil liability applies to both public and private individuals.
MIGUEL V. GORDON
Key: There was an inquiry in aid of legislation by the Senate on the anomalous losses incurred
by the POTC, PHILCOMSAT and PHC. PCGG Commissioner Sabio refused subpoenas, citing
Sec 4(b) of EO 1.
On the right to privacy
Inquiries in aid of legislation are necessary so that the legislature and the public will be
informed. However, in such proceedings, rights still have to be respected. The rights referred to
here are those found in the bill of rights.
The Court must determine whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and, if so,
if it has been unreasonably intruded.
In the present case, the petitioners have no reasonable expectation of privacy. The inquiry is
focused on acts committed in the discharge of duties which are matters which the government
has interests- such interests are of public concern.
The right to privacy is not absolute it must be tempered by overriding state interests. Public
figures enjoy a more limited right to privacy.
On the right against self-incrimination
This right can only be invoked when an incriminating question is already being asked. It is not a
blanket protection.
SJS V DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD
Key: RA 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 was passed. Its provisions on
mandatory random drug testing were challenged.
On the right to privacy
Right to privacy yields to certain paramount rights of the public and defers to the States
exercise of police power.
The right to privacy has been accorded recognition in this jurisdiction as a facet of the right
protected by the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.
Minor students have contextually fewer rights than an adult and are subject to the custody of
their parents, guardians and schools.
Reasonableness is the touchstone of the validity of a government search or intrusion. The
reasonableness standard is judged by the balancing of the government-mandated intrusion on
the individuals privacy interest against the promotion of some compelling state interest.
Considering the reduced expectation of privacy on the part of the employees, the compelling
state concern likely to be met by the search, and the well-defined limit set forth in the law to
properly guide authorities in the conduct of the random testing, the State measure adopted here
is constitutional.
In general, the following must be complied with by the statute:
1) What is the reasonable expectation of privacy?
2) What is the compelling state interest involved?
3) Are the means employed in line with the reasonable expectations of privacy?
IN RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTY. MIGUEL
MORALES
Key: In investigating Atty. Miguel Morales, the computer he used for work and files found therein
were seized.
On the searches and seizures clause
A computer given by the employer to the employee for official use is analogous to the concept of
lease. Such computer is still subject to the protection given by the Constitution against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
An exception to the requirement of a warrant is consented search. To have valid consent, the
following must be shown:
1) The right exists
2) The persons involved had the knowledge (actual or constructive) of the existence of
the right
3) The person had actual intention to relinquish the right.
The third requirement was not present in this case.
WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION V. CITY OF MANILA
Key: Ordinance No. 7774 was issued by the City of Manila prohibiting short-time admission,
wash-up rates, and other similar terms in hotels, motels, inns, lodging houses, pension houses
and similar establishments.
On third-party standing
In general, there must be actual harm sustained for a party to have standing.
An exception to this is third-party standing, which may be availed of when the following are
present:
1) the litigant must have suffered injury-in-fact, thus giving him or her a sufficiently
concrete interest
2) litigant must have a close relation to the third party
3) there must be a hindrance to the third partys ability to protect his or her own interests
The overbreadth doctrine is applicable when the statute is so overbroad that it needlessly
restrains even constitutionally guaranteed rights. This is also a manner by which standing can
be granted.
On the validity of an ordinance
An ordinance, for it to be valid, must have the following characteristics:
1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute
2) must not be unfair or oppressive
3) must not be partial or discriminatory
4) must not prohibit, but may regulate, trade
5) must be general and consistent with public policy
6) must not be unreasonable
On due process
Procedural due process refers to procedures that the government must follow before it deprives
a person of life, liberty, or property. It includes notice and the right to be heard.
The following questions are used in determining whether there is substantial due process:
1) Is there a legitimate state interest?
2) Are the means used legitimate?
[3) Is there no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of
private rights?] (added by Justice Tinga in this case)
4) Is there a reasonable relation between the purposes of the measure and the means
employed for its accomplishment?
It must appear that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, require an interference with private rights and the means must be reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of private rights. It
must also be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less
intrusive of private rights can work. More importantly, a reasonable relation must exist between
the purposes of the measure and the means employed for its accomplishment...
POLICE SUPERINTENDENT CASTILLO V. CRUZ
Key: Cruz was being evicted from his home with the help of the police.
On the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data
The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty
or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of
data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved
party.
The coverage of the writs is limited to the protection of life, liberty and security. It includes not
just actual, but also threats of unlawful acts or omissions.
There must be an allegation of data gathering/collecting/storing otherwise the writ cannot issue.
The writs will not issue to protect purely property or commercial concerns nor when the grounds
invoked in support of the petitions are vague or doubtful.
ROMINES V. PEOPLE
Key: Romines was charged with illegal possession of drugs after she was searched by a police
officer.
On the searches and seizures clause
The following are exceptions to the requirement of a search warrant:
1) consented searches
2) search made incident to a lawful arrest
3) searches of vessels and aircraft for violations of immigration, customs, or drug laws
4) searches of moving vehicles
5) searches of automobiles at borders
6) prohibited articles are in plain view
7) searches of buildings/premises to enforce fire, sanitary, or building regulations
8) stop and frisk operations
Reasons for stop and frisk operation:
1) general interest of effective crime prevention
2) more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation of police officers
Requirements for stop and frisk operation to be valid:
1) genuine reason of officer based on his
a) experience
b) surrounding circumstance
2) warranted belief of the presence of
a) contraband
b) weapon
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND
THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF MELISSA C. ROXAS
Key: Melissa Roxas alleges having been illegally detained and tortured by the military.
On the Writs of Habeas Corpus, Habeas Data and Amparo
These writs are extraordinary remedies to provide fast judicial relief. They are remedial
measures and directives to address violations of constitutional rights.
Unlike regular proceedings, it is the interlocutory that is important in these Writs.
The Writ of Amparo is used to protect life, liberty or security when it is being violated or
threatened to be violated.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus is used against illegal confinement or restraint. The person being
deprived of liberty is ordered to be rpesented before the court to determine whether the reason
for his detention is reasonable.
The Writ of Habeas Data is used to protect the truth, it allows the prevention, rectification or
destruction of wrongful information to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty, or security
is violated or threatened.
On accountability versus responsibility
Responsibility is the extent to which the actors have participated as established by substantial
evidence.
Accountability is exhibited involvement without bringing persons to the level of responsibility, as
with persons with imputed knowledge of an enforced disappearance but did not disclose such,
or those who carry the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation but failed to
discharge it.

MERALCO V. LIM
Key: Lim was reassigned by Meralco to a different office due to various letters made by
anonymous persons against her.
On the Writ of Habeas Data
The Writ of Habeas Data can only be directed against public officials or employees, or private
individuals or entities engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or information
regarding an aggrieved partys person, family or home.
Employment constitutes a property right under the context of the due process clause. Pure
property rights are not the subject of the writs of habeas data and amparo.
PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYEES! ORGANIZATION VS.
PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO.
Key: Union wanted to hold demonstration against Pasig Police. PBM wanted 1
st
shift workers to
go to work the next day.
On the Right to Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression holds a primordial position in the hierarchy of rights.

Human rights are prioritized over property rights. Proof is that to violate property rights,
government acts must only pass a reasonable relationship test, while to violate human
rights, they must pass a clear and present danger tests.

Employment is a form of property.

On the Right to Procedural Due Process

Procedural rules should not be used to defeat the ends of justice.

CIR can be more flexible in its application of the rules of procedure when substantive
justice would be otherwise impaired.
ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS DAR
Key: Landowners challenged the constitutionality of the Comprehensive Land Reform Program.
On Substantive Due Process:

When inquiring about the purpose behind an act, if it is found in the Constitution, then it
is always a legitimate state purpose.
On Equal Protection:

Cited People v. Cayat in listing the four requirements for a valid distinction under the
equal protection of the laws
1. Based on substantial distinctions
2. Germane to the purpose of the law
3. Not limited to existing conditions only
4. Must apply equally to all members of the class
On the Power of Eminent Domain

Requirements of a Compensable Taking, citing Republic v. Vda. De Castellvi

1. Expropriator enters
2. Entry is for more than a momentary period
3. The entry is under color, warrant, or title of authority
4. The taking is for a public use
5. The taking ousts the owner of his beneficial ownership

Requirements of a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain

1. Public Use
2. Just Compensation

On just compensation
1. Just compensation is nothing more than the full and fair equivalent of the
property taken from its owner by the expropriator
2. Traditionally, the payment of just compensation is made in money. However, the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is more than the usual exercise of the
power of eminent domain; it is revolutionary. Therefore, it will involve more than
millions.
! Thus, the payment in GOCC stocks, DBP and LBP bonds is valid.
! There is no precedent for this decision in either Philippine or American
jurisprudence.
RUBI VS. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO
Key: Mangyans were to be relocated to Tigbao, Mindoro Occidental.
On due process

Citing US jurisprudence on Native Americans, it was held that even though non-Christian
tribes were of a low level of civilization and intelligence, still they had the right to due
process, in particular the right to petition for habeas corpus.

Liberty does not mean license, but always implies restriction by the government for the
common good. Thus, it may be taken away with due process of law.

What is due process of law depends on circumstances. It varies with the subject matter
and necessities of the situation. (citing Moyer v. Peablody)

Due process does not always require a trial-type proceeding. Rather, all that is required
is that
1. Law prescribed is in harmony with the general powers of the legislature
2. Law is reasonable in its operation.
3. It shall be enforced according to regular modes of procedure prescribed.
4. The law is applicable alike to all citizens of the state or to all of a class.
CRUZ V. NCIP
Key: Challenges to IPRA.
Persuasive Arguments (NOT DOCTRINAL):
-That the IPRA is constitutional
PUNO:

The Regalian Doctrine in the Philippines has a long history stretching back to the laws of
the Indies, through the American Occupation, down to the Public Lands Act and the
Torrens Title System.
CARINO V. INSULAR GOVERNMENT
Key: Igorot Ancestral Lands
On due process
Even provincial tribes are covered under person in the due process clause
Even property not covered by formal title under Spanish laws, when acquired as property under
tribal customs, is considered property under the due process clause.
On the Regalian Doctrine
The Regalian Doctrine is an aspect of Spanish sovereignty. Under it, all lands are owned by the
Crown and one can only gain private property by showing that the Crown has granted one the
ownership of land.
In this case, the United States Supreme Court held that the Regalian Doctrine was not
controlling, rather it was McKinleys Instructions that governed. Such document included the
following words: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law.
A Torrens title does not grant ownership, it merely evidences it. Carino had time-immemorial
possession, therefore the land was never public land.
ANG TIBAY V. CIR
Key: 89 labourers were laid off by Ang Tibay, a company which makes shoes.
On due process
Even though the Court of Industrial Relations is more an administrative body than a judicial one,
it must still observe due process. The requirements of administrative due process are:
1. right to a hearing (opportunity to present case and submit evidence)
2. duty to deliberate (must consider evidence presented)
3. conclusion must be supported by evidence
4. the evidence which support the conclusion must be substantial
5. decision must be based on evidence presented at the hearing
6. CIR must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts
7. CIR should render a decision such that the parties know
a) the issues involved
b) the reason for the decision rendered
NON V. DAMES
Key: Students who protested against Mabini Colleges were barred from enrolling.
On due process
5 requirements of due process in the school setting:
1. informed of the proceeding
2. given chance to answer charges
3. informed of evidence raised agains thtem
4. right to adduce evidence in their own behalf
5. decision rendered based on evidence duly considered
In general, the Bill of Rights may only be invoked against the State but in this case, the State
was able to intervene in a case involving a private college because of the right to education
which is imbued with public interest.
ROXAS AND CO. INC. V. CA
Key: Three haciendas of Roxas were being expropriated by the State (Haciendas Palico,
Banilad and Caylaway)
On due process
In the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, two notices were required to be served upon the
owners of the properties to be expropriated these are: 1) Notice of Coverage and Letter of
Invitation to preliminary conference and 2) Notice of Acquistion.
The law provided that these must be served to either the president, the manager, secretary,
cashier or director of the owner of the properties to be expropriated. The State did not comply
with this requirement, it served notice to Jaime Pimentel who was not the proper party to be
informed.
Thus, it is a requirement of due process that notice must be served to the proper party/parties.
TANADA V TUVERA
Key: Various laws promulgated by Marcos were not published.
On Due Process
Publication is required before a law becomes effective even though the law itself may provide
for its own date of effectivity.
Publication is the basis of the legal maxim ignoratia legis non excusat.
ERMITA MALATE HOTEL V. MAYOR OF MANILA
Key: Ordinance No. 4760 was promulgated by the City of Manila, directing hotel operators to
require their clients to fill out a prescribed form, increasing the license fee for such operators,
and banning the renting of rooms for more than twice within 24 hours.
On the Police Power
Police Power is the most essential, insistent and least limitable of powers.
There is a presumption of validity in this case, and the burden to show evidence of
unconstitutionality is on the petitioner.
The Judiciary should not lightly set aside legislative action when there is not a clear invasion of
personal or property rights under the guise of police regulation.
The action of the elected representatives of the people cannot be lightly set aside. The
councillors must, in the very nature of things, be familiar with the necessities of their particular
municipality and with all the facts and circumstances which surround the subject and
necessitate action. The local legislative body, by enacting the ordinance, has in effect given
notice that the regulations are essential to the well being of the people. -Justice Malcolm
On due process
Due process is hostile to any official action marred by lack of reasonableness.
There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. It furnishes though a standard
which the governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty or
property, in each appropriate case be valid.
The standard of due process which must exist both as procedural and substantive requisite is
responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. Arbitrariness
must be ruled out and unfairness avoided.
MAGTAJAS V. PRYCE PROPERTIES
Key: Sangguinang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro enacted Ordinance No. 3353 prohibiting the
issuance of business permits for the operation of casinos and the use of existing business
permits for the operation of casinos and other gambling activities. Pryce Properties had leased a
portion of its building to PAGCOR.
On valid ordinances
The requirements of a valid ordinance are the following:
1. must not contravene the Constitution
2. not unfair/oppressive
3. not partial/discriminatory
4. must not prohibit trade but may regulate it
5. must be general and consistent with public policy
6. must not be unreasonable
CARLOS SUPER DRUG V. DSWD
Key: RA 9257 or the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003 was passed, providing for, among
others, a provision requiring drug stores to grant discounts to purchases made by senior citizens
subject to reimbursement by the State either by tax credit or by tax deduction.
On just compensation
Tax deduction does not offer full reimbursement, thus does not meet the definition of just
compensation. However, the law is a legitimate exercise of police power which has general
welfare for its object.
Property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because property rights, though
sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare.
The State, in the exercise of police power, can intervene in the operations of a business which
may result in an impairment of property rights in the process.
Right to property can be relinquished upon the command of the State for the promotion of the
common good.
MMDA V. VIRON TRANSPORT
Key: MMDA, pursuant to EO 179, was planning on removing all bus terminals along EDSA to
ease the flow of traffic.
On police power
The two tests for validity of a police power measure are:
1) Interest of the public generally (not just a particular class)
2) means employed are reasonably necessary for accomplishment of purpose
SJS V. ATIENZA
Key: Removal of oil companies from the Pandacan area.
On Mandamus
Mandamus is an extraordinary writ that is employed to compel the performance, when refused,
of a ministerial duty that is already imposed on the respondent and there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The petitioner should have a well-defined, clear and certain legal right to the performance of the
act and it must be the clear and imperative duty of respondent to do the act required to be done.
Public officers cannot refuse to perform their duty on the ground of an alleged invalidity of the
statute imposing the duty.
PEOPLE V. CAYAT
Key: An Ifugaro was caught with A-1-1 gin, which act was prohibited by Act No. 1639
On equal protection
Equal protection is not violated by a legislation based on a reasonable classification:
1. must rest on substantial distinctions
2. must be germane to the purposes of the law
3. must not be limited to existing conditions only
4. must apply to all members of the same class
On due process
Due process means:
1. there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative
2. that it shall be reasonable in operation
3. that it be enforced according to regular methods of procedure prescribed
4. applicable alike to all citizens of state or to all of a class
To constitute due process of law, notice and hearing are not always necessary. For example, a
persons property may be seized by the government:
1. in payment of teaxes without judicial hearing
2. property used in violation of law may be confiscated
3. when the property constitutes corpus delicti
ICHONG V. HERNANDEZ
Key: RA 1180 An Act to Regulate the Retail Business
On police power
The needs and demands of public interest is constantly hanging and cannot be foreseen,
therefore the extent of police power cannot be defined.
It is, however, limited by Art. III Sec.1 of the Constitution.
On equal protection
Equal protection of the law clause is against undue favour and individual or class privilege, as
well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality.
It is not intended to prohibit legislation, which is limited either in the object to which it is directed
or by territory within which it is to operate.
It does not demand absolute equality among residents; it merely requires that all persons shall
be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and
liabilities enforced.
The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons
falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable
grounds exists for making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who
do not.
On due process
The due process clause has to do with the reasonableness of legislation enacted in pursuance
of the police power.
The police power legislation must be firmly grounded on public interest and welfare, and a
reasonable relation must exist between purposes and means. If distinction and classification
has been made, there must be a reasonable basis for said distinction.
Legislation can enact laws basing citizenship as classification.
Test used to determine the constitutionality of the means employed by the legislature is to
inquire whether the restrictions it imposes on rights secured to individuals by the Bill of Rights
are unreasonable, and not whether it imposes any restrictions on such rights.
TATAD V. DOE
Key: RA 8180 Deregulation of the Oil Industry
On equal protection
A legislative measure may appear not violative of equal protection, but when applied, it may
actually be violative of it. For example, in this case, the tariff differential between importation of
crude oil and refined petroleum products was based on a substantial distinction. However, upon
application, it became evident that the differential favours the big oil companies which own their
own refineries.
ISAE V. QUISUMBING
Key: International School gave higher compensation to foreign-hired educators than to local-
hired educators.
On equal protection
The constitutional provision on equal protection was applied to a private school because the
heart of the controversy was a labour dispute, in which the State has a substantial interest. The
Constitution itself provides that labour is entitled to humane conditions of work and also directs
the State to promote equality of employment opportunities for all.
If an employer accords employees the same position and rank, the presumption is that these
employees perform equal work. The principle of equal work for equal pay must thus be
observed.
REPUBLIC V. VDA. DE CASTELLVI
Key: The lands of appellees Vda. De Castellvi and Toledo-Gozun were being expropriated for
public use
On eminent domain
Compensable taking must have the following characteristics:
1. the expropriator must enter a private property
2. entrance must be for more than a momentary period
3. under warrant or colour of legal authority
4. the property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally appropriated or
injuriously affected
5. the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the
owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property
A lease on a year to year basis by the State does not constitute expropriation.
DE KNECHT V. BAUTISTA
Key: The property of De Knecht was being expropriated for the governments project of
extending EDSA to Roxas Boulevard.
On eminent domain
Arbitrary decisions as to which property will be expropriated should not receive judicial approval.
In the present case, for example, the Court found, based on the facts and the recommendations
of the Human Settlements Commission, that the choice of the direction in which EDSA was to
be extended was arbitrary and thus void.
DE KNECHT V. CA
Key: The De Knechts were no longer the owners of the property they were occupying, which
property was being expropriated by the government.
On eminent domain:
Actual occupants to the property to be expropriated, when they no longer have any legal interest
in the property, do not need to be informed in the action for expropriation.
REPUBLIC V. TAGLE
Key: RTC of Imus, Cavite quashed a writ of possession in an expropriation case on the ground
that the government was already in actual possession of the land.
On eminent domain
The expropriation of real property does not include mere physical entry or occupation of land.
Although eminent domain usually involves a taking of title, there may also be compensable
taking of only some, not all, of the property interests in the bundle of rights that constitute
ownership.
Actual possession of land by the State cannot be reason to quash a writ of possession applied
for by the State pursuant to statute. The State wanted not merely possession de facto but
possession de jure as well.
Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that need not be granted even by the
fundamental law. Constitutional provision merely imposes a limit on the governments exercise
of this power and provides measure of protection to the individuals right to property.
NAPOCOR V. HENSON
Key: National Power Corporation instituted an expropriation proceedings which respondents,
wanting a higher price for their property, sought to dismiss.
On eminent domain
The only consideration for the price of a property to be expropriated is the Fair Market Value.
The fixing of the price in expropriation cases is a power vested in the judiciary.
PEOPLE V. ECHEGARAY
Key: FLAG submitted Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration for Leo Echegaray who was
convicted of raping his daughter
On the death penalty
The Constitutional Convention approved the amendment giving the legislature the option of re-
enacting the death penalty by a 23-12 vote.
There is no indication that the death penalty was abolished, it is merely suspended.
The constitutional requirements for the re-imposition of the death penalty are:
1. Congress defines what heinous crimes are
2. Congress to specify and penalize by death only those crimes that qualify as heinous
3. Congress be singularly motivated by presence of compelling reasons involving
heinous crimes
The legislature cannot and need not foresee and inscribe in law each and every loathsome act
man is capable of. It is sufficient that the law provides the test and yardstick for the
determination of the legal situation warranting the imposition of the penalty of death.
There is no requirement in Art. III Sec. 19 that there first be a positive manifestation in the form
of a higher incidence of crime which is statistically proven before the re-imposition of the death
penalty. Neither does the Constitution require that the death penalty be resorted to only as a last
recourse when all other criminal reforms fail to abate criminality.
Death penalty is not imposed only when a life is taken by another. It should not ennoble the
notion of retributive justice. Forfeiture of life simply because life was taken never was a defining
essence of the death penalty.
Death penalty is meted because they have caused irreparable and substantial injury and since
the repetition of such acts would pose a threat, such criminals must be permanently prevented
from doing so.
Rape is always intrinsically evil and is an outrage upon decency and dignity that hurts not only
the victim but society itsel. (People v. Cristobal)
IN RE EMILIANO JURADO
Key: Jurado wrote several articles criticizing the judiciary, including justices of the SC.
Jurado was held guilty of contempt.
The court cited Zaldivar v. Gonzales which underscored the importance both of the
constitutional guarantee of free speech and the reality that there are fundamental and
equally important public interests which need on occasion to be balanced against and
accommodated with one and the other.
The court also recognized the right to a private reputation of judges in that while they
have voluntarily subjected themselves to norms of conduct, which are more stringent, it
cannot be reasonably said that they have thereby forfeited any right whatsoever to
private honor and reputation.
US V BUSTOS
Key: 34 Pampanga residents petitioned to the Executive Secretary for the ouster of
Justice of the Peace Punsalan, accusing him of bribery, etc. Punsalan sued them for
libel. SC: NOT GUILTY.
Doctrine of privilege exists due to the public policy of unfettered administration of
justice. Privilege is either absolute or qualified. Qualified privilege is prima facie and
lost only if malice is proven.
Considered privileged communication if: the communication is made bona fide upon any
subject matter in which the party communicating has an interest or duty is made to a
person having a corresponding interest or duty. It is privileged even though it contains
incriminatory matter that without this privilege would be slanderous and actionable.
ESPUELAS V PEOPLE
Key: Espuelas faked a photo in which he appeared to be dead along with a fake suicide
note to the media, blaming the government for his desperation. Guilty of RPC Art. 142,
inciting to sedition.
On the freedom of speech
Freedom of speech by the Constitution does not confer an absolute right to speak or
publish without responsibility whatever one may choose.
The letter is a scurrilous libel against the government. Writings which tend to overthrow
or undermine the security of the government or to weaken the confidence of the people
to the same are against public peace and are criminal because they tend to incite a
breach of peace and are conducive to the destruction of the government.
Criticism is allowed, but should be specific and constructive, not a contemptuous
condemnation.
SANTIAGO V FAR EASTERN BROADCASTING
Key: Far Eastern Broadcasting required for a manuscript of the speeches before they
broadcast the speeches of Popular Front Sumulong (petitioner was this partys
campaign manager).
A speech that may endanger public safety may be censored and disapproved for
broadcasting. If the petitioner had complied with respondents requirement, and the
respondent had arbitrarily refused to permit the speeches to be broadcast, he might
have reason to complain. (In this case, no reason to complain.)
PRIMICIAS V FUGOSO
Key: Mayor refused to grant a permit to hold a public meeting at Plaza Miranda for the
purpose of petitioning the government for redress of grievances. Reason given for
denial: reasonable ground to believe possible breaches of the peace and disruption of
public order. Court ordered the Mayor to grant the permit.
On the discretion of authorities to grant or refuse permits
The delegation of the power to grant or refuse the issuance of a permit to the whim of
men in authority is arbitrary and subverts liberty. In general, right of assembly does not
need permit. However, time, place and manner of that assembly can be regulated. The
mayor can ask for a permit to use a public place.
On the fear of assemblies causing public disorder
The mere fear that there may be breaches of the peace or disruption of public order due
to a public meeting is NOT reason enough to curtail the fundamental right of the people
to free speech and peaceful assembly to petition the government for redress of
grievances.
GONZALES V COMELEC
Key: 2 sections of RA 4880 (amended portions of the Revised Election Code) assailed:
(1) prohibited the too early nomination of candidates and (2) limited the period of
election campaign or partisan political activity.
Court faced the reconciliation of two values: Freedom of expression and safeguarding
the equally vital right of suffrage (the 2 assailed sections will contribute to orderly
elections and safeguard against evils such as violence and corruption). Court held that
if implemented properly, the limitations or exercise of police power here should only
narrowly affect constitutionally guaranteed rights, enough to allow the basic liberty to
remain.
Criterion for permissible restrictions on the freedom of expression (citing
Cabansag v Fernandez; see the case below for more details):
1) Clear and present danger rule
2) Dangerous tendency rule
On the freedom of assembly
Assembly: a right on the part of the citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in
respect to public affairs. As is with the freedom of expression, this right may not be
limited except upon showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that
Congress seeks to prevent.
On the freedom of association
Freedom of association is a constitutional right for purposes not contrary to law (Sec.
8, Art. III). Court said that this is another way of expressing the clear and present
danger rule. Unless an association/society is shown to create an imminent danger to
public safety, there is no justification for abridging this right.
ARREZA V GREGORIO ARANETA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
Key: After rallying and holding demonstrations, 4 graduating students were refused
enrollment.
As in the similar case of Malabanan v Ramento, Court held that, infractions of
University rules or regulations by petitioner-students justify the filing of appropriate
charges (e.g. suspension). What cannot be justified is the infliction of the highly-
disproportionate penalty of denial of enrollment and the consequent failure of senior
students to graduate, if in the exercise of the cognate rights of free speech and
peaceable assembly, improper conduct could be attributed to them.
Malabanan v Ramento: Students enjoy like the rest of the citizens the freedom to
express their views and communicate their thoughts to those disposed to listen. !
particularly in rallies and demonstrations.
BADOY V FERRER
Key: Badoy, candidate for delegate to the 1970 Constitutional Commission assailed the
constitutionality of the Revised Election Act Sec. 12(f), alleging that the provision
imposes limits on the freedom of speech of candidates by providing guidelines relating
to the publishing of their campaign materials.
Petition was denied because there was a clear and present danger (substantial evil:
having the electoral system being perverted). Also, the provision actually enforces the
equal protection of the laws (equal spaces for all competing candidates required in the
media).
As in Gonzales v COMELEC, freedom of expression can be subjected to police power
when the restriction imposed is narrow enough to allow the basic liberty to remain.
The balancing of interests test
The state interest in the provision (to preserve the purity of the ballot and equal
protection of the law) far outweighs interests of the state in preserving the liberty of
expressing. Furthermore, the law provides other ways a candidate can express himself,
including but not limited to the freedom of assembly.
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB V COMELEC
Key: Petitioner assailed the validity of RA 6646 Sec. 11(b), which disallowed mass
media to sell/give time/space to candidates. Media personalities also made to take a
leave of absence.
The provision is valid. The objective is to equalize the candidates and to minimize the
disadvantage of poor candidates. Art IX-C(4) of the 1987 Constitution provides for
Comelec to regulate the enjoyment or utilization of franchises or permits for the
operation of media of communication and information. The purpose of this regulation or
supervision is to ensure equal opportunity, time, space and the right to reply, as well as
uniform and reasonable rates for the use of such media facilities in connection with
public information campaigns and forums among candidates.
On the freedom of speech, expression, and of the press
The aforementioned Art IX-C(4) should be taken with Art. III, Section 4 (protecting
freedom of speech, of expression and of the press). Art IX-C(4) is only applicable
temporarily (i.e. during the election period). While the rights of free speech and free
press are given primordial status in our jurisdiction, they are not unlimited, and are not
the only important and relevant values in a democratic society. As is consistent with Art.
II, Sec. 26, the State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service
and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.
Felciano, J.: The right of the general listening and viewing public to be free from such
intrusions and their subliminal effects is at least as important as the right of the
candidates to advertise themselves through modern electronic media and the right of
media enterprises to maximize their revenues from the marketing of packaged
candidates.
The Court also differentiated paid political advertisements from news reports,
commentaries, opinions, etc. The latter is not affected by the resolution.
PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE V COMELEC
Key: Petitioner assailed the validity of Comelec Resolution No. 2772 for violating (1) the
Constitutional prohibition against the taking of private property for public use without just
compensation; (2) the guarantee of freedom of speech, of the press and of expression;
and (3) Comelec requiring publishers to give free Comelec Space and to process raw
date to make it camera-ready constitute impositions of involuntary servitude.
On eminent domain (Sec. 9, Art. III)
To compel media to donate Comelec Space is tantamount to the taking of private
personal property for public use. Requisites to such taking: (1) necessity of the taking
and (2) legal authority to effect the taking. Comelec has not proved #1 and has not
shown that it has the legal authority. Furthermore, the taking of property for public use
requires just compensation.
On the freedom of expression
Petitioners have no legal standing: no actual or imminent injury.
JBL REYES V BAGATSING
Key: Petitioners asked for a permit to rally in front of the US Embassy. Mayor invoked
Ordinance 7295, which prohibited the holding of assemblies in front of consulates/
embassies. Furthermore, there were intelligence reports that said terrorists planned to
infiltrate the rally.
The right to freedom of speech and assembly should always be in a context of non-
violence. Parties should be allowed to speak their minds, even if they are contrary to
public opinion. (However, as in US v Apurado, utmost calm is not required. Some
degree of excitement is to be expected.)
General rule
A permit should recognize the right of the applicants to hold their assembly at a public
place of their choice
Exception to the general rule
Another place may be designated by the licensing authority if it be shown that there is a
clear and present danger of a substantive evil if no such change were made. Clear and
present danger must be proven, and not based on mere speculation, as is with this case
GONZALES V KATIGBAK
Key: Petitioners question the Board of Review for Motion Pictures (1) authority to
classify (rate) movies and (2) the test upon which classifications were made.
Motion pictures are a medium for communication, expression, and opinion. This is
regardless of the nature of the movie, that is, that there is no clear distinction whether
the movie is meant for entertainment or education.
Classifying versus censorship
The Board has the authority to classify films according to contemporary Filipino
standards/values. EO 876 calls for applying contemporary Filipino cultural values as
standard. However, there is no power of censorship.
The presumption is against the validity of prior restraint.
Movies versus TV
The standard applied in this case is only applicable to movies. A less liberal approach is
applied on TV and Radio programs because of their pervasive reach and influence. To
watch a movie, one has to pay first. The state as parens patrae is called upon to
manifest attitude of caring for welfare of youth.
EBRALINAG V SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU
Key: Students refused to salute the Philippine flag (Jehovahs Witnesses), violating RA
1265 and Dept. Order No. 8. They were dropped from the roll of enrollees.
The flag is protected by the Constitution (Art. XVI, Sec. 1) because it is an emblem of
national sovereignty, etc. However, this protection is subject to exemptions, such as
when such decree violates another constitutional right.
On the violation of other constitutional rights
In this case, the right to freedom of religion (Art. III, Sec. 5) and the right to free
education (Art. XIV) are violated. The refusal to salute the flag does not produce
imminent danger to the public.
PEOPLE V FERRER
Key: Is the Anti-Subversion Act (RA 1700) a bill of attainder? (Art. III, Sec. 22; RA 1700:
An Act to Outlaw the Communist Philippine Party of the Philippines and Similar
Associations, Penalizing Membership Therein, and for Other Purposes.) (In that it
acted as a usurpation of judicial power by pronouncing guilt of the CPP without the
benefit of trial and that it has created a presumption of organizational guilt, which the
accused can never overthrow.)
In its actual operation, RA 1700 does not specify the CPP or its members for the
purpose of punishment.
Bill of attainder defined
A legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of
the legislative for a judicial determination of guilt.
Why RA 1700 is not a bill of attainder
Under the Act, the government is yet to prove at the trial that the accused joined the
party knowingly, willfully, and by overt acts, and that they joined the party to overthrow
the government by force. The act specifically provides that the membership must be
knowing and with intent to overthrow the government as manifested by their overt acts.
(Note: RA 1700 has been repealed by RA 7636.)
BABST V NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE BOARD
Key: 1984. Petitioners were journalists who were summoned by a military Special
Committee under the National Intelligence Board (NIB) regarding their work, feelings,
sentiments, beliefs, associations, and even private lives. Two were sued for libel by a
general.
Petition was dismissed because it was moot and academic. (Proceedings had already
been terminated).
On the validity of the NIB order/invitation
Ordinarily, an invitation to attend a hearing and answer some questions is not illegal or
constitutionally objectionable. However, considering the power of the group where the
invitation come from and the situation the invitation was made, such invitation can easily
be taken as an authoritative command which one can only defy at his peril.
On the libel charges
Gen. Tiadar filed the libel charges on his personal capacity (not NIB). The right to
redress when libeled is a personal and individual privilege of the aggrieved party. Thus,
this should be addressed in the correct forum (i.e. where the libel case is being heard).
PEOPLE V KOTTINGER
Key: 6 postcards with pictures of non-Christian inhabitants of the Philippines
confiscated. Owner charged with having kept for sale in the store obscene and
indecent pictures, in violation of Sec. 12 of Act No. 277 (Philippine Libel Law).
Obscene: Offensive to chastity, decency or delicacy
Indecency: Act against good behavior and a just delicacy
The pictures merely depict persons as they actually live, without attempted presentation
of persons in unusual postures or dress. The aggregate judgment of the Philippine
community or the moral sense of all the people in the Philippines would NOT be
shocked by photographs of this type. Therefore, the pictures cannot be characterized
as offensive to chastity or considered foul or filthy.
Community standard
This case established the concept of community standard in determining decency/
obscenity.
PEOPLE V PADAN
Key: A Fighting Fish exhibition was held in a shed, with Padan (female) and Espinosa
(male) having sex in front of a crowd. CFI held them guilty of violating Article 201, RPC
(immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows).
(Guys nuod tayo! Based on my estimate considering inflation, it should be around
P100-P200 per ticket. The V-Crew)
Court: As far as we know, this is the first time that the courts in this jurisdiction, at least
this Tribunal, have been called upon to take cognizance of an offense against morals
and decency of this kind.
In the past, offenses like the exhibition of still moving pictures of women in the nude
have been condemned by the SC for obscenity and as offensive to morals. In such
exhibitions, it MIGHT be possible to claim that there involved is an element of art. But
an actual exhibit of a sexual act has NO REDEEMING VALUE. No room for art here.
PITA V CA
Key: In furtherance of the Anti-Smut Campaign, Manila Mayor initiated a seizure and
confiscation (and later burning) of materials believed to be pornographic and indecent.
On the power of censorship
There must be objective and convincing proof, (not subjective or conjectural) of the
existence of a clear and present danger, and that it is essential for the validity of prior
restraint or censorship that the authority does not rely solely on his own appraisal of
what the public welfare, peace or safety may require.
Rules in determining seizure of materials similar to the objects in this case:
1. The authorities must apply for the issuance of a search warrant from a judge, if in
their opinion, an obscenity rap is in order;
2. The authorities must convince the court that the materials sought to be seized
are "obscene", and pose a clear and present danger of an evil substantive
enough to warrant State interference;
3. The judge must determine whether or not the same are indeed "obscene:" the
question is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis and on the judges sound
discretion.
4. If, in the opinion of the court, probable cause exists, it may issue the search
warrant prayed for;
5. The proper suit is then brought in the court under Article 201 of the Revised
Penal Code;
6. Any conviction is subject to appeal. The appellate court may assess whether or
not the properties seized are indeed "obscene."
As highlighted in #3, what is held to be obscene depends on what a judge thinks is
obscene (judges sound discretion).
IGLESIA NI CRISTO V CA
Key: Some series of the TV program Ang Iglesia ni Cristo were given an X-rating and
prohibited from airing by the MTRCB board upon review, based on the opinion that the
opinions in the show were offensive to other religions (particularly Catholicism).
MTRCB, an administrative body, has the power to review (PD 1986). Justice Cruz says
there are two aspects to the right of religion:
1. Freedom to believe absolute within the realm of thought
2. Freedom to act on ones beliefs police power can be exercised to prevent
religious practices inimical to society; clear and present danger test applies
Therefore, the MTRCB power to review includes religious shows.
On the presumption of invalidity of any act that restrains speech
There is a presumption of invalidity on prior restraint on speech, including religious
speech. The X-rating given by the MTRCB constitutes prior restraint.
Overturning the presumption of invalidity
In order for a valid exercise of prior restraint on speech, there must be evidence of a
clear and present danger of a substantive and imminent evil. It cannot be justified by
hypothetical fears or speculations. The MTRCB failed to overturn this presumption.
CABANSAG V FERNANDO
Key: The subject of this case is the allegedly scurrilous and contemptuous letter by
Cabansag addressed to the Presidential Complaints and Action Commission, asking for
a redress of grievance.
2 fundamental rights clashing here: (1) the independence of the judiciary and (2) the
right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Criteria devised for the determination of conflicting rights
1. Clear and present danger rule - Evil consequence of the comment or utterance
must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before
the utterance can be punished. The danger to be guarded against is the
substantive evil sought to be prevented.
2. Dangerous tendency rule - If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency
which the state has a right to prevent, then such words are punishable. It is not
necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force, violence, or
unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient that such acts be advocated in general
terms. Nor is it necessary that the language used be reasonably calculated to
incite persons to acts of force, violence, or unlawfulness. It is sufficient if the
natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance be to bring about the
substantive evil which the legislative body seeks to prevent.
More on the dangerous tendency rule
The test of a limitation on the freedom of expression is justified by the danger or evil of
substantive character that the state has a right to prevent. Unlike the dangerous
tendency doctrine, the danger must not only be clear but also present. The term clear
seems to point to a causal connection with the danger of the substantially evil arising
from the utterance questioned. Present refers to the time element. It used to be
identified with imminent and immediate danger. The danger must not only be probable
but very likely inevitable.
Going back to Cabansags letter, it cannot be said that the act has a dangerous
tendency to undermine the administration of justice because he only exercised his
constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievance. Sufficient
danger not created, given what he said and the respectful way he said it.
AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY V CITY OF MANILA
Key: City Treasurer informed the Society (which distributed books, including Bibles) that
they needed to obtain a mayors permit and pay fees for a municipal license
The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious information.
When can it be restrained?
Any restraint should be upon a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantial
evil that the State must prevent. Here, the imposition of a license tax on the exercise of
the freedom is an act of censorship, and cannot be used to restrain these rights.
TOLENTINO V SEC. OF FINANCE
Key: Petitioners assail the validity of RA 7716 (E-VAT), which provided for the
revocation of the VAT exemption previously granted to publishes or newspapers and
magazines. Allegedly violative of the freedom of the press.
On the due process of law and freedom of expression
The press is not immune from the regulation of the state, which includes non-
discriminatory taxes on business. If the press must now pay VAT, it is not because it
was singled out, but rather a removal of a previously-granted exemption. Hence, no
discriminatory treatment.
On the free exercise of religion (Art. III, Sec. 5)
Taxation of religious books violates freedom of thought and conscience? The free
exercise of religion does not prohibit imposing a generally applicable sales and use tax
on the sale of religious materials by a religious organization.
UNIDO V COMELEC
Key: TV/radio show of Marcos Pulon-Pulong sa Pangulo, campaigining for YES
votes for the constitutional amendments to be voted on in a plebiscite. UNIDO
demanded for the same airtime in the same number of TV/radio stations, citing 3
Comelec resolutions granting equal opportunities, equal time, and equal time in the
media for campaign purposes.
On the freedom of speech and freedom of the press
Art. XII-C Sec. 5 of the 1973 Constitution permits for the media of communication or
information to be supervised or regulated by the Comelec during the election period
for the purpose of free, orderly, and honest elections. This provision is applicable to
plebiscites. Granting equal opportunities, time, and space in the media does not
subvert/curtail the freedom of speech. The limitations are valid since (1) there are
substantial reasons, such as general welfare and public interest, in voters adequate
opportunity and sufficient understanding; (2) it is only applicable during LIMITED
PERIODS (i.e. campaign period); and (3) the Comelec authority only arises when there
is a showing that a sector/member of the media has denied to any party a right to which
it is entitled to.
OSMEA V COMELEC
Key: 1998. Petitioners assail the RA 6646 (Electoral Reform Law) ban on the mass
media sale/donation of print space and airtime for campaign purposes, except to the
Comelec.
There is no actual suppression of political ads, only the regulation of time and manner of
advertising. Therefore, there is no total ban on political ads, much less restriction on
the content of the speech.
There is a substantial/legitimate government interest. The law/states concern here are
not the ads itself but ensuring media equality between candidates with deep pockets.
Furthermore, the provision is narrowly drawn.
On content-neutral restrictions and the clear and present danger test
Content-neutral restrictions on speech are not imposed because of their content, but
rather on their incidents (as is the case here). The clear and present danger test is not
a sovereign remedy for all freedom of expression cases and are clearly not applicable to
cases such as these wherein it is not the content that is the subject of the issue. The
clear and present danger refers to the danger that will arise as a result of the
restriction.
Note: The Court said that there was no case or controversy to decide, only an
academic discussion to hold.
ESTRADA V ESCRITOR
Key: Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness allows Jehovahs Witnesses who have been
abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital relations. However, once all legal
impediments for the couple are lifted, the Declaration becomes invalid and the couple
must legalize their union.
On the Courts jurisdiction on morality
The Court distinguished between public and secular morality and religious morality.
Court jurisdiction only extends to public and secular morality.
Limitation on the free exercise clause
The Constitution adheres to the benevolent neutrality approach, giving room for the
accommodation of religious exercises, as the free exercise clause requires. However,
this is provided that these exercises do not offend compelling state interests. (In this
case the state interest was maintaining a high standard of morality and decency in the
judiciary.)
Compelling state interest test:
1. Has the statute or government action created a burden on the free exercise of
religion?
2. Is there a sufficiently compelling state interest to justify this infringement of
religious liberty?
3. Has the state in achieving its legitimate purposes used the least intrusive means
possible so that the free exercise is not infringed any more than necessary to
achieve the legitimate goal of the state?
Examples
In this case, it was not sufficiently shown that the conjugal arrangement would endanger
any paramount interests.
Muslims under PD 1083 are allowed to have more than one wife.
SORIANO V LAGUARDIA
Key: MTRB suspended the show Ang Dating Daan, after indecent remarks (the putang
babae barrage) supposedly alluding to INC leaders were made by Soriano on the
show.
General concepts on the freedom of speech and expression
Expressions by means of newspapers, radio, television, and motion pictures come
within the broad protection of the free speech and expression clause, but enjoy a lesser
level of protection. Restrictions, be it subsequent punishment or prior restraint, are
anathema to freedom of expression. This freedom, however, is not absolute, and may
be regulated to some extent so serve public interests.
When speech is not protected
Speech would be unprotected if the utterances involved are no essential part of any
exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step of truth that any benefit
that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and
morality.
Here, the Court juxtaposed the fundamental right to freedom of speech, with the right of
the youth to their moral, spiritual, social, and intellectual being protected under the
Constitution.