Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Required Textbook
Bernas S.J., Fr. Joaquin (2011) The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer,
Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc.
Bernas S.J., Fr. Joaquin (2003) The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A
Commentary, Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc.
Nachura, Antonio (2006) Outline Reviewer in Political Law, Quezon City: VJ Graphil Arts, Inc.
Classroom Policies
Students are expected to have read the assigned materials for the class sessions and will be called
for recitation.
Attendance is checked. University rules governing absences are observed.
Cell phones and other electronic devices must be kept in silent mode. Students must refrain from
using these devices during classroom sessions.
Plagiarism and cheating are grave offenses of intellectual dishonesty and are punishable by
university rules.
Consultation and discussion is available upon request of the student. Email me:
ebaddiri@gmail.com
Article III Bill of Rights
Section 1. 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 law.
1. Purpose of the Bill of Rights
2. Three Great Powers of Government
3. Police Power
Lozano v. Martinez, GR No. L-63419, December 18, 1986
4. The Seat of Police Power
MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association, etc GR No. 135962, March 27, 2000
5. Primacy of Human Rights
Republic v. Sandiganbayan GR 104768, July 21, 2003
Mijares v. Ranada, GR 139325, April 12, 2005
6. Hierarchy of Rights: Life, Liberty, Property
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co. Inc., 51
SCRA 189
Salonga v. Pano, GR No. L-59524, February 18, 1985
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, GR No. L-25246, Sept. 12, 1974
Social Justice Society, et al v. Atienza, Jr., GR No. 156052, February 13, 2008
7. Due Process: In General
Tupas v. CA, 193 SCRA 597
Asilo v. People, 645 SCRA 41
8. Procedural Due Process
1
In General
Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca 37 P 921
Aspects of the Proceedings
Galvez v. CA 237 SCRA 685
State Prosecutor v. Muros 236 SRCA 505Martinez v. CA 237 SCRA 395
Espeleta v. Avelino 62 SCRA 395
Rabino v. Cruz 222 SCRA 493
Ysmael v. CA 273 SCRA 165
Carvajal v CA 280 SCRA 351
People v. Castillio 289 SCRA 213
Cosep v. PEO 290 SCRA 378
Rodrigo v. Sandiganbayan GR 125498 Feb. 18, 1999
People v. Huli 338 SCRA 2000
People v. Cabiles 341 SCRA 2000
Gozum v. Liangco 339 SCRA 253
Soriano v. Angeles 339 SCRA 253
Villanueva v. Malaya 330 SCRA 278
Almendras v. Asis 330 SCRA 69
Dayot v. Garcia 353 SCRA 280
People v. Hapa GR 125698 July 19, 2001
Aguirre v. people GR 144142 August 23, 2001
Puyat v. Zabarte 352 SCRA 738
Baritua v. Mercader 350 SCRA 86
Barbers v. Laguio 351 SCRA 606
People v. Herida 353 SCRA 650
People v. Medenilla GR 1311638 Mar. 26, 2001
People v. Rivera GR 139180 July. 31, 2001
People v. Basques GR 144035 Sept. 27, 2001
Cooperative Development v. DOLEFIL GR 137489 May 29, 2002
Garcia v. Pajaro GR 141149 July 5, 2002
Briaso v. Mariano, GR 137265, Jan. 31, 2003
Macias v. Macias GR 1461617, Sept. 3, 2003
Albior v. Auguis, AM P-01-1472, June 6, 2003
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, GR 152154, Nov. 18, 2003
Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, 422 SCRA 649
People v. Larranaga, 412 SCRA 530
R. Transport v. Philhino 494 SCRA 630
Trans Middle East v. Sandiganbayan 499 SCRA 308
Uy v. First Metro 503 SCRA 704
Deutsche Bank v. Chua 481 SCRA 672
People v. Santos 501 SCRA 325
Victoriano v. People 509 SCRA 483
Santos v. DOJ 543 SCRA 70
DBP v. Feston 545 SCRA 422
Ruivivar v. OMB 565 SCRA 324
Borromeo v. Garcia 546 SCRA 543
Cesar v. OMB 553 SCRA 357
DAR v. Samson 554 SCRA 500
Hilano v. People 551 SCRA 191
Pastona v. CA 559 SCRA 137
Bibas v. OMB 559 SCRA 591
Espina v. Cerujano 550 SCRA 107
Geronga v. Varela 546 SCRA 429
OMB v. Magno GR 178923, Nov. 27, 2008
Avenido v. CSC 553 SCRA 711
Romuladez v. COMELEC 553 SCRA 370
Multi-Trans Agency v. Oriental 590 SCRA 675
Siochi v. BPI 193872, October 18, 2011
Catacutan v. People 656 SCRA 524
In General
Lao Gi v. CA 180 SCRA 756
Domingo v Scheer, 421 SCRA 468
Rates
Philcomsat y. Alcuaz 180 SCRA 218
Randiocom v. NTC 184 SCRA 517
Maceda v. ERB 199 SCRA 454
Globe Telecom c. NTC, 435 SCRA 110
2. Profession
Corona v. UHPAP 283 SCRA 31
Dismissals, Suspension, Reinstatement etc.
1. Dismissals in Government Boards and Commissions
Abalos c. CSC 196 SCRA 81
GSIS v. CSC 201 SCRA 661
Macayayong v. Ople 204 SCRA 372
Gonzales v. CSC 226 SCRA 66
Go. V. NPC 271 SCRA 447
CHR v. CSC 227 SCRA 42
Uy v. COA 328 SCRA 607
Lameyra v. Pangilinan 322 SCRA 117
NPC v. Zozobrado, 487 SCRA 16
PAGCOR v. CA, GR 185668, December 13, 2011
2. Dismissals in Private Sector
Hellinic v. Siete 195 SCRA 179
Salaw v. NLRC 202 SCRA 7
Conti v. NLRC, GR 119253 April 10, 1997
Aparente v. NLRC, GR 117652
Lopez v. Alturas 647 SCRA 566
3. Preventive Suspension
Alonzo v. Capulong 244 SCRA 80
Castillio Co v. Barbers 290 SCRA 717
Bacsasar v. CSC 576 SCRa 787
Carabeo v. CA 607 SCRA 390
Ordinance/Status/Memo Cir/Rules
People v. Nazario 165 SCRA 136
Franscisco v. CA 199 SCRA 595
Misamis Or. V. DOF 238 SCRA 63
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan GR 148560 Nov. 19, 2001
Motion for Reconsideration
Mendenilla v. CSC 194 SCRA 278
Mendenilla v. CSC 221 SCRA 295
Rodreguez v. Proj. 6 247 SCRA 528
Lazo v. CSC 236 SCRA 469
Salonga v. CA 269 SCRA 534
Bernardo v. CA 275 SCRA 413
Casuela v. Ombudsman 276 SCRA 635
Cordenillio v. Executive Secretary 276 SCRA 652
Chua v. CA 287 SCRA 33
De la Cruz v. Abelle 352 SCRA 691
Rodreguez v. CA GR 134275 August 7, 2002
Gonzales v. CSC 490 SCRA 741
Berboso v. CA 494 SCRA 583
Pontejos v. Desierto 592
I. Suretyship
Stronghold Insurance v. CA 205 SCRA 605
J. Tariff and Customs Code
Feeder v. CA 197 SCRA 842
K. Appeal
Alba v. Deputy Ombudsman 254 SCRA 753
Telan v. CA 202 SCRA 246
Rivera v. CSC 240 SCRA 43
Singson v. NLRC 274 SCRA 358
Building Care v. Macaraeg 687 SCRA 643
L. Closure Proceeding
CB v. CA 220 SCRA 536
Rural Bank v. CA 162 SCRA 288
Phil. Merchants v. CA GR 112844 June 2, 1995
M. Biddings
Concerned Officials v. Vasquez, 240 SCRA 502
N. UDHA RA 7279
Perez v. Madrona 668 SCRA 696
O. Cancellation of Property Rights/Privileges
American Inter-Fashion v. OP, 197 SCRA 409
Alliance of DFLO v. Laguesma, 254 SCRA 565
ABAKADA v. Ermita, 469 SCRA 1
British American Tobacco v. Camacho 562 SCRA 511, 585 SCRA 36
P. Administrative and Preliminary Investigation-Ombudsman
Roxas v. Vasquez GR 114944 June 19, 2001
Ocampo v. Ombudsman 322 SCRA 17
Serapio v. Sandiganbayan GR 148468 Jan. 28, 2003
9. Substantive Due Process
US v. Toribio 15 Phil. 85
For Arrest:
People v. Syjuco, 64 Phil 667
Alvarez v. CFI , 64 Phil 33
Webb v. De Leon, GR 121234, August 23, 1995
For Search:
Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800
Prudente v. Dayrit, 180 SCRA 69
II. Who Determines Probable Cause?
People v. CA, GR 126005, Jan 21, 1999
III. Kind of Evidence Needed to Establish Probable Cause
Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp, GR 140946, Sept. 13, 2004
IV. In General
Nala v. Barroso, GR 153087 Aug. 7, 2003
Betoy v. Judge AM NO. MJJ-05-1108, Feb 26, 2006
20th Century Fox v. CA, 162 SCRA 655
Columbia Pictures v. CA, 262 SCRA 219
B. Personally Determined by the Judge
Placer v. Villanueva, 126 SCRA 463
Lim v. Judge Fenix, 194 SCRA 292
People v. Inting, 187 SCRA 788
People v. Delgado, 189 SCRA 715
Allado v. Diokno 232 SCRA 192
Gozos v. Tac-an GR 123191, Dec. 17, 1998
Flores v. Sumaljag 290 SCRA 568
C. Personal Examination (After Examination Under Oath or Affirmation the Complainant and
the Witnesses He May Produce)
Bache & Co. v Ruiz 37 SCRA 823
Soliven v. Makasiar, GR 8287, Nov. 14 1981
Luna v. Plaza, 26 SCRA 310
Kho v. Judge Makalintal, GR 94902-06, April 21, 1999
Alvarez v. Court, 64 Phil 33
Bache v. Cruz, 37 SCRA 823
Borlongan v. Pena, GR 143591, Nov. 23, 2007
People v. Mamaril, GR 147607, Jan 22 2004
Ortiz v. Palaypayon 234 SCRA 391
D. Particularity of Description
People v. Veloso 48 Phil 169
Alvarez v. CFI 64 Phil. 33
Corro v. Lising 137 SCRA 541
Pangandaman v. Casar, 159 SCRA 599 (1988)
Stonehill v. Diokno (1967)
People v. Martinez 235 SCRA 171
Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp (2004)
Burgos v. Chief of Staff, AFP 133 SCRA 890
Frank Uy v. BIR , 344 SCRA 36
Yousex Al-Ghoul v. CA GR 126859 Sept. 4 , 2001
People v. CA 291 SCRA 400
Paper Industries v. Asuncion, GR 122092 May 19, 1998
Malalaon v. CA, 232 SCRA 249
People v. Estrada GR 124461, June 26, 2000
4. Only a Judge May Issue a Warrant
Salazar v. Achcoso, 183 SCRA 145
Republic (PCGG) v. Sandiganbayan, 255 SCRA 438
10
11
2. The person making the arrest has probable cause to believe, based on his personal knowledge
of facts and circumstances, that the person to be arrested committed it.
*There must be immediacy between the time the offense is committed and the time of the arrest.
Go v. CA 206 SCRA 138
People v. Manlulu, 231 SCRA 701 (1994)
People v. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791 (1992)
People v. Enrile, 222 SCRA 586
People v. Jayson, 282 SCRA 166 (1997)
People v. Del Rosario, GR 127755, April 14, 1999
People Samus, GR 135957, April 14, 1999
People v. Cubcubin, GR 136267, October 2, 2001
People v. Gorente, 219 SCRA 756
Padilla v. CA, GR 121917, March 12, 1997
People v. Burgos 144 SCRA 1
People v. Sucro 195 SCRA 388
People v. Briones 202 SCRA 708
People v. Sequino 264 SCRA 79
People v. Nazareno 260 SCRA 256
People v. Mahusay 282 SCRA 80
People v. Alvario 275 SCRA 529
Larranaga v. CA 287 SCRA 521
People v. Olivarez GR 77865, Dec. 4, 1998
Cadua v. CA 312 SCRA 703
People v. Cubcubin 360 SCRA
People v. Compacion 361 SCRA 540
Posadas v. Ombudsman 341 SCRA
People v. Acol 232 SCRA 406
C. Escaped Prisoner
D. Waiver
E. Procedural Rules
People v. Rabang 187 SCRA 682
People v. Lopez 246 SCRA 95
Velasco v. CA 245 SCRA 677
People v. Buluran 325 SCRA 476
Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by
law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding.
Scope: Tangible and Intangible Objects.
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 437 (1967): the US Supreme Court held that the act of FBI
agents in electronically recording a conversation made by petitioner in an enclosed public
telephone booth violated his right to privacy and constituted a search and seizure. Because
the petitioner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in using the enclosed booth to make a
personal telephone call, the protection of the Fourth Amendment extends to such area. In the
concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, it was further noted that the existence of privacy right
under prior decisions involved a two-fold requirement: first, that a person has exhibited an actual
(subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, that the expectation be one that society is
prepared to recognize as reasonable (objective).
Factors to Determine Violation of the Right to Privacy
In the matter of the Petition for Issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus of Camilo I. Sabio, GR
174340, October 17, 2006: In evaluating a claim for violation of the right to privacy, a court must
determine whether a person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, whether
that expectation has been violated by unreasonable government intrusion.
12
13
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
Overbreadth Doctrine: A ground to declare a statute void when it offends the constitutional
principle that a government purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to
state regulations may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby
invade the area of protected freedoms.
Tests for Valid Government Interference to Freedom of Expression
1.Clear and Present Danger Test
2.Dangerous Tendency Test
3.Balancing of Interest Test
State Regulation of Different Types of Mass Media
1.Broadcast and Radio Media: It is subject to dual regulation: First, procure a legislative
franchise. Second, register and be subject to regulations set by the NTC. (Divinagracia v.
CBS, Inc GR 162272, April 7, 2009)
2.Print Media
The freedom of television and radio broadcasting is lesser in scope that the freedom accorded to
newspapers and print media. (Eastern Broadcasting Corp v. Dans Jr)
Private vs. Government speech
Hecklers Veto: This involves situations in which the government attempts to ban protected
speech because it might provoke a violent response.
1.
Prior Restraint: Refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of
expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination.
Valid Prior Restraint:
1. Movies, television, and radio broadcast censorship in view of its access to numerous
people.
2. Pornography
3. False or misleading commercial statement
4. Advocacy of imminent lawless action
5. Danger to national security (Chavez v. Gonzales)
14
3.
Speech and the Electoral Process
Sanidad v. COMELEC 181 SCRA 529
National Press Club v. COMELEC 207 SCRA 1
Adiong v. COMELEC March 31, 1992
Osmena v. COMELEC 288 SCRA 447
ABS-CBN v. COMELEC 323 SCRA 811
SWS v. COMELEC 357 SCRA 496
Penera v. COMELEC, GR 181613, November 25, 2009
4.
Commercial Speech
Rubin v. Coors Brewing 131 L. Ed. 2d 532
Cincinnati v. Discovery Network 123 L. Ed. 2d 99
Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 US 557
Pharmaceutical v. Secretary of Health, GR 173034, October 9, 2007
City of Laduc v. Gilleo 129 L. Ed. 2d 36
5.
Libel (Unprotected Speech)
Policarpio v. Manila Times 5 SCRA 148
Lopez v. CA 34 SCRA 116
New York Times Co. c. Sullivan 376 US 254
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc. 403 US 254
Gerts v. Robert Wlech 418 US 323
Hustler v. Magazine 485 US 46
In Re Jurado AM No. 90-5-2373, 4 LR 19 Aug09
In Re Jurado 243 SCRA 299
Vasquez v. CA GR 118971 Sept. 15, 1999
Borjal v. CA GR. 126466 Jan. 14, 1999
Vicario v. CA GR 124491 June 1, 1999
Pader v. People 325 SCRA 117
Fermin v. People, GR 157643, March 28, 2008
6.
Obscenity (Unprotected Speech)
Miller v. California 37 L. Ed. 2d 419
Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak 137 SCRA 717
Pita v. CA 178 SCRA 362
Barnes v. Glen Theater 498 US 439
FCC v Pacifica Foundation 438 US 726
Renton v. Playtime Theater 475 US 41
Bethel School District v. Fraser 478 US 675
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier 484 US 260
Fernando v. CA, GR 159751, December 6, 2006
Soriano v. Laguardia, GR 164785, April 29, 2009
7.
Assembly and Petition
Navarro v. Villegas 31 SCRA 73
PBM Employees v. PBM 51 SCRA 189
JBL Reyes v. Mayor Bagatsing 125 SCRA 553
PCIB v. Philnabank Employees, 105 SCRA 314
Malabanan v. Ramento 129 SCRA 359
De la Cruz v. CA, GR 126183, March 25, 1999
Bangalisan v. CA, GR 124678, July 23, 1997
Ruiz v. Gordon, 126 SCRA 233
BAYAN v. Ermita GR 169838, April 25, 2006
GSIS v. Kapisanan, GR 170132, December 6, 2006
In Re Valmonte, 296 SCRA
In Re Petition to Annul 98-7-02 SC
Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights.
15
Purpose
I. Non-Establishment Clause
Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201
Garces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510
School District v. Schempp, 394 RS 203
Board of Education v. Allen, 392 US 236
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602
Tilton v. Richardson, 403 US 672
Country of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 57 LW 504
Zobrest v. Catalina, No. 92-94 June 18, 1993
Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinetter & Ku Klus Klan, US No. 94-780, June 29, 1995
Lee v. Welsman, US No. 90-1014, June 24, 1992
Manosca v. CA, 252 SCRA 412
Islamic Dawah v. ES, GR 153888, July 9, 2003
Taruc v. Dela Cruz, 453 SCRA 123
UCCP v. Bradford, 674 SCRA 92
Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014
II. Free Exercise of Religion
Tests
a) Clear and Present Danger Test: When words are used in such circumstance and of such nature
as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about the substantive evil that the State has
a right to prevent.
b) Compelling State Interest Test: When a law of general application infringes religious exercise,
albeit incidentally, the state interest sought to be promoted must be so paramount and compelling
as to override the free exercise claim. Three-step 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? (Estrada v. Escritor)
c) Conscientious Objector Test: Persons who are conscientiously opposed to participation in war
in any form by reason of religious training and belief may be exempted from combat training and
service in the armed forces. Religious training and belief means an individuals belief in relation
to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does
not include essentially political, sociological or philosophical views or a merely personal code.
Victoriano v. Elizalde, 59 SCRA 94
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296
US v. Ballard 322 US 78
American Bible Society v. City of Manila 104 Phil. 386
Ebranilag v. Divison Superintendent 219 SCRA 256; (MR) 251 SCRA
Wisconsin v. Yoder 406 US 205
Goldman v. Weinberger 54 LW 4298
German v. Baranganan 135 SCRA 514
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance 249 SCRA 628
Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos 236 SCRA 197
Church of the Lukumi v. City of Hialeach No. 91-948, June 11, 1993
Lambs Chapel v. School Disctrict No.91-2024, June 7, 1993
In re Request of Muslim Employees in the Different Court of Iligan City, 477 SCRA 648
Estrada v. Escritor AM P-021651, August 4, 2003 (Compelling State Interest Test)
Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014
III. No Religious Test
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 SCRA 488
Pamil v. Teleron 86 SCRA 413
McDaniel v. Paty 435 US 618
Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, GR 190582, April 8, 2010
16
17
18
19
20
sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family. (Rules
of Court, Rule 3, Section 21)
Legal Provisions on Free Access
1. RA 6035: stenographers are required to give free transcript of stenographic notes to indigent
and low-income litigants.
2. Rules of Court, Rule 3, Section 21
3. Constitution, Article 3, Section 12: the court appoints a counsel de officio for an accused who
cannot afford to engage the service of a counsel de parte.
4. Rule on the Writ of Amparo, Section 4: No docket or other lawful fees shall be required for the
filing of the petition.
5. Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, Section 4: No docket and other lawful fees are required from
indigent petitioner.
Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which violate the free
will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as
compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.
I. Custodial Investigation, In General
A. Definition
People Pavillare, GR 129970, April 5, 2000
People v. Bandula - 232 SCRA 566
Navallo v. Sandiganbayan - 234 SCRA 175
Sebastian v. Garchitorena, GR 114028, October 18, 2000
OCA v. Sumulong, 271 SCRA 316
People v. Almanzor, GR 124918, July 11, 2002 (no need for counsel)
People v. Valdez, GR 129296, September 25, 2000
People v. Marra - 236 SCRA 565
People v. Labtan, G.R. No. 127493, December 8, 1999
Manuel v. NC Construction 282 SCRA 326
People v. de la Cruz, GR 137405, Sept. 27, 2002
*People v. Camat- 256 SCRA 52
People v. Evangelista - 256 SCRA 611
People v. Andan 269 SCRA 95
People v. Artellero, GR 129211, October 2, 2000
People v. De Jesus 213 SCRA 345
People v. Legaspi, GR 117802, April 27, 2000
B. Rationale
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436
People v. Canton, GR 148825, Dec. 27, 2002
II. Instances of Custodial Investigations
People v. Isla- 278 SCRA 47
People v. Salazar 266 SCRA 607
People v. Casimiro, GR 146277, June 20, 2002
People v. Castro 274 SCRA 115
People v. Bolanos 211 SCRA 262
People v. Lim - 196 SCRA 809
III. Rights When Under Custodial Investigations
21
A. Procedural Requirements
*Miranda v. Arizona- 384 US 436
People v. Mahinay GR 122485 February 1, 1999
People v. Camat - 256 SCRA 52
B. Duty of an Officer During Custodial Investigation
People v. de la Cruz, GR 137405, Sept. 27, 2002
People v. Salcedo 273 SCRA 473
C. When the Rights of Custodial Investigation May Be Invoked
People v. Loveria - 187 SCRA 47
Sebastian v. Garchitorena, GR 114028, October 18, 2000
People v. Tan 286 SCRA 207
D. The Right to Remain Silent
People v. Bandin 226 SCRA 299
People v. Lacbanes 270 SCRA 193
People v. Morico 246 SCRA 214
People v. Ang Chun Kit 251 SCRA 660
People v. De Las Marinas 196 SCRA 504
People v. Castro 274 SCRA 115
People v. Enriquez 204 SCRA 674
E. The Right to Counsel
a. When to Invoke
People v. Sunga, GR 126029, Mar. 29, 2003
People v. Labtan, G.R. No. 127493, December 8, 1999
People v. Sapal, GR 124526, March 17, 2000
People v. Lamsing - 248 SCRA 471
People v. Maqueda - 242 SCRA 565
People v. Macam 238 SCRA 306
People v. De Jesus 213 SCRA 345
People v. Dimaano 209 SCRA 819
People v. Compil - 244 SCRA 135
People v. Loveria - 187 SCRA 47
b. When Presence of Counsel is Required
People v. Rodriguez - 232 SCRA 227
Estacio v. Sandiganbayan 183 SCRA 12
People v. Bandula - 232 SCRA 566
People v. Isla- 278 SCRA 47
People v. Jimenez - 204 SCRA 719
People v. Cortes, 323 SCRA 131
People v. Rous - 242 SCRA 732
People v. Espanola 271 SCRA 689
People v.Zuela, 325 SCRA 589
People v. Macabalang 508 SCRA 282
c. Effective and Vigilant Counsel Defined
*People v. Sunga, GR 126029, March 27, 2003
People v. Velarde, GR 139333, July 18, 2002
People v. Culala, GR 83466, October 13, 1999
People v. Gerolago 263 SCRA 143
People v. Paule 261 SCRA 649
People v. Delmo, GR 130078, Oct. 4, 2002
People v. de la Cruz, GR 137405, Sept. 27, 2002
People v. Lucero - 249 SCRA 425
People v. Espanola 271 SCRA 689
People v. Bacor GR 122895 April 30, 1999
People v. Sahagun 274 SCRA 208
People v. Taliman, GR 109143, October 11, 2000
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Right to Be Informed
*People v. Regala 113 SCRA 613
Enrile v. Salazar - 186 SCRA 217
People v. Taguba - 229 SCRA 188
People v. Barte - 230 SCRA 401
People v. Vitor - 245 SCRA 392
Sabiniano v. CA 249 SCRA 24
People v. Reyes - 242 SCRA 264
People v. Legaspi - 246 SCRA 206
People v. Ramos - 245 SCM 405
People v. Namayan - 246 SCRA 646
Pecho v. People 262 SCRA 518
People v. Laurente - 255 SCRA 543
People v. Rosare 264 SCRA 398
People v. Evangelista - 256 SCRA 611
People v. Cruz 259 SCRA 109
People v. De Guzman 265 SCRA 228
Salud Imson-Souweha v. Rondez 279 SCRA 258
People v. Manansala 273 SCRA 502
People v. Palomar 278 SCRA 114
People v. Ortega 276 SCRA 166
People v. Antido 278 SCRA 425
People v. Sadiosa 290 SCRA 92
People v. Villamor GR 12444 October 7, 1998
People v. Rosare 264 SCRA 398
People v. Llaguno 285 SCRA 124
People v. Bugayong GR 126518 December 2, 1998
People v. Manalili 294 SCRA 220
People v. Dimapilis GR 128619 December 17, 1998
People v. de Guzman 289 SCRA 470
People v. Quitlong 292 SCRA 360
People v. Perez GR 122764 September 24, 1998
People v. Renido 288 SCRA 369
People v. Venerable 290 SCRA 15
People v. Lozano GR 125080 September 25, 1998
People v. Padilla GR 126124 January 20, 1999
People v. Acosta, G.R. No. 142726, October 17, 2001
People v. de la Pena G.R. No. 138358-59 Nov. 19, 2001
People v. Abino, G.R. No. 137288, December 11, 2001
People v. Tan, GR 116200-02, June 21, 2001
People v. Tagana, GR 137608-09, July 6, 2001
People v. Alcalde, GR 139225, May 29, 2002
People v. Mejeca, GR 146425, Nov. 21, 2002
People v. Esurina, 374, SCRA 429
People v. Togud, 375 SCRA 291
People v. Espejon, 377 SCRA 412
People v. Lavador, 377 SCRA 424
People v. Hermanes, 379 SCRA 190
People v. Portugal, 379 SCRA 212
People v. Baluya, 380 SCRA 533
People v. Arofo, 380 SCRA 663
People v. Cana, GR 139229, June 6, 2002
People v. Soriano, GR 135027, July 3, 2002
People v. Radam, GR 138395, July 18, 2002
People v. Abala, GR 135858, July, 23, 2002
People v. Romero, GR 137037, Aug. 5, 2002
People v. Magtibay, GR 142985, Aug. 6, 2002
People v. Miclat, GR 137024, Aug. 7, 2002
People v. Guardian, GR 142900, Aug. 7, 2002
People v. Ocampo, GR 145303, Aug. 7, 2002
People v. del Ayre, GR 139788, Oct. 3, 2002
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Parties
Metrobank v. Meridiano, G.R. No. 118251, June 29, 2001
Ordinance and Statute
*People v. Relova - 148 SCRA 292
Applied to Impeachment
*Estrada v. Desierto, GR 146710-15 and GR 146738, March 2, 2001and MR-GR
146710-15 and 146738, April 3, 2001
People v. Logan, G.R. No. 135030-33, July 20, 2001.
Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
Ex Post Facto Laws and Bills of Attainder
*People v. Ferrer - 48 SCRA 382
*Virata v. Sandiganbayan - 202 SCRA 680
Trinidad v. CA - 202 SCRA 106
People v. Taguba - 229 SCRA 188
People v. Sandiganbayan 211 SCRA 241
Co v. CA 227 SCRA 444
Rosales v. CA - 255 SCRA 123
Subido v. Sandiganbayan 266 SCRA 379
Sesbreno v. CBAA 270 SCRA 360
People v. Burton 268 SCRA 531
*Lacson v. Executive Secretary, GR 128096 January 20, 1999
People v. Nitafan, GR 107964-66 February 1, 1999
Fajardo v. CA, GR 128508 February 1, 1999
People v. Valdez, GR 127663 March 11, 1999
People v. Ringor, G.R. No. 123918, December 9, 1999
People v. Magbanua, G.R. No. 128888, December 3, 1999
Republic v. Desierto, GR 136506, Aug. 23, 2001
People v. Torres - 501 SCRA 591
Salvador v. Mapa - ____SCRA 34 [2008]
Republic v. Eugenio - 545 SCRA 384
Valeroso v. People - 546 SCRA 450
Presidential v. Desierto - 548 SCRA
Article IV. CITIZENSHIP
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship
upon reaching
the age of majority; and
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Valles v. COMELEC, GR 137000, August 9, 2000
Ong Chia v. Republic, GR 127240, March 27, 2000
Children of Filipino fathers or mothers
*Gatchalian v. Board of Commissioners 197 SCRA 853
*Tecson v. Comelec, 423 SCRA 277
Go v. Ramos 598 SCRA 266
Gonzales v. Rennisi 614 SCRA 292
Cabiling v. Fernandez 625 SCRA 566
Paragraph (3)
*Co. v. Electoral Tribunal - 199 SCRA 692
*Republic v. Sagun 666 SCRA 321
Paragraph (4)
39
40
Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and
enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political
inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for
the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property
and its increments.
Policy to Remove Inequities
*International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing, GR 128845, June 1, 2000
Section 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic
opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
LABOR
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and
negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with
law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage.
They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and
benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers
and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall
enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of
labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns
to investments, and to expansion and growth.
Eagle Security v. NLRC - 173 SCRA 479
SSS Employees v. CA (supra, Right to Form Association)
De Vera v. NLRC 200 SCRA 439
Republic v. CA - 180 SCRA 428
MPSTA v. Laguio (supra, Right to Form Association)
Union v. Nestle 192 SCRA 396
Jacinto v. CA 281 SCRA 657
Telefunken Employees Union v. CA, GR 143013-14, December 18, 2000
Lanzaderas v. Amethyst Security, GR 143604, June 20, 2003
Standard Chartered Bank Employees v Confesor, GR 114974, June 16, 2004
Agabon v. NLRC, GR 158693, Nov. 17, 2004
Agrarian Reform
Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertaken an agrarian reform program founded on the right
of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands
they till or in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this
end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject
to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into
account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just
compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small
landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.
Section 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and landowners, as well
as cooperatives, and other independent farmers' organizations to participate in the planning,
organization, and management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through
appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other
support services.
Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever
applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources,
including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to
prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their
ancestral lands.
41
The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which
shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law.
Section 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local
communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland
and offshore. It shall provide supportto such fishermen through appropriate technology and
research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State
shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore
fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a
just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.
Section 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of the agrarian
reform program to promote industrialization, employment creation, and privatization of public
sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored as
equity in enterprises of their choice.
*Assn. of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform - 175 SCRA 343
Tanaka v. Japan - 7 Minshui 1523
*Luz Farms v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform 192 SCRA 51
Natalia v. DAR 225 SCRA 278
Phil. Veterans Bank v. CA, GR 132767, January 18, 2000
Daez v. CA, GR 133507, February 17, 2000
Bautista v. Araneta, GR 135829, February 22, 2000
Corpus v. Grospe, GR 135297, June 8, 2000
Heirs of Santos v. CA, GR 109992, March 7, 2000
Padunan v. DARAB, GR 132163, Jan. 28, 2003
*Hacienda Luisita v. PARC GR No. 171101, July 5, 2011
Urban Land Reform
Section 9. The State shall, by law, and for the common good, undertake, in cooperation with the
private sector, a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make available
at affordable cost decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and homeless citizens in
urban centers and resettlement areas. It shall also promote adequate employment opportunities to
such citizens. In the implementation of such program the State shall respect the rights of small
property owners.
Dee v. CA, GR 108205, February 15, 2000
Reyes v. NHA, GR 147511, Jan. 20, 2003
Section 10. Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwelling demolished,
except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner.
No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate consultation
with them and the communities where they are to be relocated.
Macasiano v. NHA 224 SCRA 236
Jumawan v. Eviota 234 SCRA 524
Filstream v. CA 284 SCRA 716
**People v. Leachon GR 108725 September 25, 1998 (just and humane
manner)
Human Rights
Section 17. (1) There is hereby created an independent office called the Commission on Human
Rights.
(2) The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four Members who must be naturalborn citizens of the Philippines and a majority of whom shall be members of the Bar. The term of
office and other qualifications and disabilities of the Members of the Commission shall provided
by law.
(3) Until this Commission is constituted, the existing Presidential Committee on Human Rights
shall continue to exercise its present functions and powers.
(4) The approved annual appropriations of the Commission shall be automatically and regularly
released.
42
43
Duty of Institutions
*Miriam College v. CA, GR 127930, December 15, 2000
Section 5. (1) the State shall take into account regional and sectoral needs and conditions and
shall encourage local planning in the development of educational policies and programs.
(2) Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.
(3) Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable,
and equitable admission and academic requirements.
(4) The State shall enhance the right of teachers to professional advancement. Non-teaching
academic and non- academic personnel shall enjoy the protection of the State.
(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.
Academic freedom of institutions of higher learning".
*Garcia v. Faculty Admission, 68 SCRA 277
BME v. Judge Alfonso - 176 SCRA 304
Lupangco v. CA - 160 SCRA 848
*University of San Carlos v. CA - 166 SCRA 570
Capitol Medical Center v CA - 178 SCRA 493
Reyes v. CA 194 SCRA 402
Tan v. CA 199 SCRA 212
Camacho v. Coresis, GR 134372, Aug. 22, 2002
Civil Service Commission v. Sojor 554 SCRA 160
Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges of S&T, GR 156109, Nov 18, 2004
Language
Section 6. The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further
developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages. Subject to
provisions of law and as the Congress may deem appropriate, the Government shall take steps to
initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official communication and as language of
instruction in the educational system. Section 7. For purposes of communication and instruction,
the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law,
English.
The regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve as
auxiliary media of instruction therein.
Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis.
Section 8. This Constitution shall be promulgated in Filipino and English and shall be translated
into major regional languages, Arabic, and Spanish.
Section 9. The Congress shall establish a national language commission composed of
representatives of various regions and disciplines which shall undertake, coordinate, and promote
researches for the development, propagation, and preservation of Filipino and other languages.
Science and Technology
Section 10. Science and technology are essential for national development and progress. The
State shall give priority to research and development, invention, innovation, and their utilization;
and to science and technology education, training, and services. It shall support indigenous,
appropriate, and self- reliant scientific and technological capabilities, and their application to the
country's productive systems and national life.
Section 11. The Congress may provide for incentives, including tax deductions, to encourage
private participation in programs of basic and applied scientific research. Scholarships, grants-inaid, or other forms of incentives shall be provided to deserving science students, researchers,
scientists, inventors, technologists, and specially gifted citizens.
Section 12. The State shall regulate the transfer and promote the adaptation of technology from
all sources for the national benefit. It shall encourage the widest participation of private groups,
44
45