Midterms - Reviewer

NOV.
9, 2013
Oral arguments on PDAF. This is going to be THE oral arguments of

the year.
-
If you thought the RH oral arguments are the oral arguments of

the year, NO.
PUTTING IN PERSPECTIVE WHAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THIS

SEMESTER.
-
Last semester, we talked about power coming from the

sovereign and DELEGATED to the State.
The mechanism by which the state operates is the government
whereby power is further DISTRIBUTED to 3 branches.
o
For efficient working of the government and check of
exercise of power / prevent abuse.
o
PURPOSES:
This second semester, we will be discussing WHAT THE
MECHANISM is to prevent abuse.
We said that we may want to picture the system as something
like this:
a. POWER
b. RIGHTS
o
Seeking the correct balance.
o
We need to provide for the rights because the
people are the ones who delegated their power.
o
Power is still at the people. People may seek to
get the power back through extra-constitutional
mean.
o
Example: People Power Revolution: when they
were not satisfied how the government is doing
to the detriment of the common good of the
people.
MECHANISM: Constitution also guarantees that the power will
not be abused.
Constitutional Law 2: the mechanism on how such power will
not be abused.
CHECK OF POWER: judicial review.
o
Only within the framework of distribution of power within
government.
o
Object of judicial review was to ensure that they kept
within the boundaries.
o
WON one branch has gone beyond its power and
arrogated the power of another branch.
OBJECTIVE: To go beyond the branches AND LOOK AT THE
STATE AS A WHOLE VIS--VIS THE PEOPLE.
o
Exercise of power of the state as a whole against the
people.
Art. III: Bill of Rights: to identify (not to recognize) what already
exists as rights of individual or of a group of people.
I am not saying that there is no right unless Art. III says there is
a right INCORRECT.
o
Because that means the document gives the right of the
people: NO. THE PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE THEIR
RIGHTS WHICH AROSE BECAUSE THEY ALREADY
HAVE POWER.
o
They created the State. It is the people who did.
o
These rights are INHERENT because you are a human
being. It is not the State that gives you the right.
What At. III does is to identify the rights and provide for
limitations.
Rights are not absolute. If not, that will lead to chaos and not
the common good against the objective of making a state.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2nd SEMESTER MIDTERM NOTES
Example: Husband and wife; children and parents: they have

rights, through practice and constant reminder, there are still
limitations. Funny thing: limitation is post-facto.
o
That will not work for equals: no ex-post facto law.
o
In a household, are husbands and wives equal? Its a
myth
o
Two things a man can do (1) rights to give money to the
wife (2) rights to pay the bills.
FRAMEWORK: when we talk of rights, they are inherent. The
power actually flows from a delegation. Thats why a delegation
of power will always have to be tempered by the rights. The
delegation is only good as long as it does not unnecessarily or
unreasonably curtain the rights of those who have delegated
the power. There is a test: test of REASON and NECESSITY.
We shall be talking about the INHERENT POWERS of the state in a

sense that there will be a rise of three essential powers of the state:
-
They dont have to be stated in the Constitution.

Otherwise, there is no reason to come up with that system:
cannot be sustained.
Preamble, eminent domain, and provisions of taxation
(standards: equitable, uniform).
1. POLICE POWER: the power to legislate for the
common good.
2. EMINENT DOMAIN: power to redistribute or limit the
use and ownership of property.
3. TAXATION: for government to work, everyone must
equitably shoulder the cost of government, the
mechanism for furthering the common good.
These powers can easily be abused because these are
PLENARY (very, very prone to abuse).
So the cases we will be discussing were those that will ensure
that there will be no abuse of those powers.
We will be talking about powers, the inherent powers, then the
limitations of those powers (that they should not unnecessarily
infringe or curtail those rights).
Exercise of power of the State as a whole vis--vis its possible
violation of individual rights or groups of people.
It is difficult to integrate of everything: BASIC FRAMEWORKS.

-
Constitutional Law is taught as it is presented in your case

books.
Its up to you to figure out what the fuck they are all about
SC justices who write these opinions intentionally make it
difficult for law students to understand. They expect you to be
able to weave through the thick mud to end up with purified
water.
Re: PDAF: WON there has been a misappropriation (constitutional

question).
-
What is your analysis of that system where the legislator

identifies projects which are already in the budget of line
agencies? That is the question.
It is easy because one can go back to the jurisprudence.
NOT a legal issue: WON there has been a misappropriation.
LEGAL ISSUE: WON PDAF is a violation of the Constitution
(PHILCONSA).
DAP issue: savings pool funding of different projects.
Constitutional or not?
o
This is the one that is difficult. Would you want another
exam next week?
Page 1 - Bantay
How did the DBM justify the DAP? Cited the provisions
of the Administrative Code on savings, which predated
the 1987 Constitution. Issued by Aquino when she was
exercising power of the Freedom Constitution.
An act of Congress tested vis--vis the
constitution: provision on augmentation.
o
BUT you cant use the Administrative Code if the issue
is constitutional. The Court can just nullify the
provisions of the Administrative Code.
o
Demetria vs. Alba: start from the constitution and take a
look at the jurisprudence.
Figure out how the doctrine would not affect the
DAP.
PD of Marcos was deemed superseded by the current
Constitution because the Constitution came later.
o
EDU VS. ERICTA:

-
POLICE POWER: legislation. The nature is for the common good and
to promote common good.
-
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION: to promote health, morals,

education, public safety, public order.
o
There must be a public purpose because it is the
reason why we been bonded in the first place. When
we say those things, is that exclusive? NO.
o
In our pursuit of the common good, we have gone
beyond the traditional aspirations.
o
A century ago, we thought what will give us good life is
health, peace and order, and morals.
o
NOW, how do we formulate? PREAMBLE. We
expanded what to us will be necessarily for us to live a
good life to provide a justification why we bonded and
delegated power to the State.
EFFECT: proscription of acts of people.
It is the legislature exercising power for the pursuit of such
things laws that we can ensure that there is love
o
Is there anything wrong with that? NO, it is now an
aspiration for us.
o
Example: at the center of education is the child.
o
Its not education as the very reason and the child at
the periphery. It is the child who is in the center,
o
There are many things that we have decided in our
Constitution, in our preamble, that is within the scope of
common good and which may now impinge or limit the
rights of others.
MEANS: legislation.
PURPOSE: common good.
EFFECT: possible impairment of rights.
COMMON GOOD: not everyone is in agreement of what is for
the common good. And now we have a problem. Some people
will feel that there is a violation of their right.
o
Bawal umihi dito: some people will think that they can
pee wherever they want to. Its human nature.
o
TENSION: the public purposes which presupposes a
benefit for many; which will necessarily imply a
limitation in the right of one or a few.
o
On the other hand, the right of that one person, or the
right of group of person.
o
That tension needs to be addressed and the conflict
must be resolved between the benefit to the many, and
the curtailment to the right of the few.
o
There is no hard and fast rule. There are only certain
tests how to strike the perfect balance.
MMDA: to put their (something) at the backs of the helmets of

motorcycle riders.
-
Objective: peace and order.

Reasonable: Constitutionally doubtful. National basis test; test
of reason.
Can it actually lead to detection? NO, because if you are going
to kill or rob someone, while you actually wear something like
that?
ERMITA-MALATE VS. MANILA FAILED.

-
The Reflector Law is the issues.

1960s: owners of cars are required to put reflectors both on the
side and back.
Reflectoral tapes. Orange and yellow in color.
Why was it being challenged? Violation of right to PROPERTY.
Why is it an unnecessary imposition? It will cost him money. He
is also prevented from using his car, which is his property.
He has a theory that he has a full enjoyment of those rights that
the state cannot limit (doctrine of laissez-faire).
o
There can be no limitations between contractual cases:
ATKINS VS. POMAR (no minimum wage: depends
upon the agreement of the employee and the employer.
o
BUT that is the thing of the past.
o
1930s: Court: NO, we cannot, a this day and age, still
countenance laissez-faire.
o
A new doctrine arose: SOCIAL JUSTICE: to remove the
inequities and to remove disparities between sectors.
o
Allowing everyone to exercise all their rights is an
inequitable distribution of wealth. It widens the gap
between the rich and the poor.
NOT ALLOWED BY THE COURT: it is founded by an
argument long gone because of the realities.
What are we going to do now? To find out if such regulations
are necessary and if they are reasonable?
NECESSARY? YES. PUBLIC SAFETY. Valid purpose.
REASONABLE? What is the test of reason? If the measure
removes doubt of arbitrariness. If the tape will lead to the
accomplishment of the purpose. Will it? YES.
DEFINIETELY, it will warm people that there is a car that has
tolled.
NOW: the problem with stickers is that they fade. In fact, they
dont even last a year. Thats why the requirements are now
changed to EWDs.
Property rights of the motel-owners are being violated? YES.

TENSION between the rights of the owners to earn money vis-vis public morals.
What legislative finding did the city council find? Those who go
to motels are men who bring with them prostitutes or women
who are not their wives.
o
Bringing those women is immoral, will harm public
morals because it will destroy families.
o
To ensure that there is fidelity and monogamy.
VALID? YES because at the heart of the society is the family.
FEES? The purpose of the fee is to regulate. A fee for
regulation is necessary. Is the amount reasonable? YES. P6k
or P4k/month only. It is a business tax.
Court: it is a fixed tax and not a percentage tax. Would a fixed
tax be reasonable? YES if the only purpose is regulation, it is.
A percentage tax is appropriation for income. But if it is only for
regulation, it is reasonable.
NO SHORT-TIME? REASONABLE. No more than two per day.
Why is 12 hours reasonable? Because the purpose for going
there is to REST.
LOGGING IN: it will require them to reveal their identities and
Page 2 - Bantay
their relationships to their guests.

o
Most difficult issue. Why is that valid?
o
Isnt that encroachment of rights? It MIGHT be but it is
not an infringement of the motel-owners rights.
o
If you dont want to go because you do not want to
reveal yourself, then the motels do not care.
o
You need not even have to present an ID. But despite
that, the rules were changed.
The Court upheld the regulation as police power in order to
promote public morals.
POLICE POWER IN EMPLOYMENT

-
A century ago, the principle of employment is governed by the

doctrine of laissez-faire.
The theory is that these are covered by the contract provisions
and these are property rights. It is up to the parties to negotiate
what they want to agree on and government cannot intervene.
Great depression: shift of Pres. Roosevelt to intervene in the
matter of employment in order to ensure an opportunity to
work.
During the Great Depression, many people lost their jobs and
people were just begging.
GREAT DEAL: where the idea is to allow everyone to engage
in work in a very humane way that will require a lot of
intervention (minimum wages, benefits, safeguards for women
workers) met with a lot of dissentions.
Business groups said this infringed on their right for business.
SOCAL JUSTICE ARGUMENT: If the government will not
intervene, the gap will increase and that will not do good to the
society and can lead to revolt that may bring down the
government.
Despite the lobby of big industrial groups, the SC was made to
adopt this new doctrine.
SC during that time is full of Republicans (pro-business,
conservative). Eventually, they changed their thinking.
SOCIAL JUSTICE became a norm.
SC Phil., led by Justice Laurel, put the end to the doctrine of
laissez-faire. It is a turning point as it abandoned the contract
laws and property rights as a defense to government
intervention to employment.
CURRENT BACKDROP: 1 out of 10 Filipino adults capable of
work is actually working in some other country. For every 10
Filipinos who are working, 1 will actually be working overseas.
National interest: what is keeping the economy afloat is the
remittance of those Filipinos working overseas.
That 1 out of 10 is a hero because he is carrying a heavier
burden than any other Filipino.
o
He sends the money back to the country, and his family
spends it hers, it spurs economic activity.
As far as marketing is concerned, they are mostly directed to
OFWs; in the Internet or websites visited by OFWS.
o
Those who are selling cars, their biggest sales are to
those OFW families.
o
In the provinces, for subdivisions, same thing.
OFWs play very, very important roles.
BUT OFWs undergo a lot of abuse in other countries and the
government is trying to really protect them.
o
OFW dug mules in China and we cannot do anything to
stop it.
o
DHs are prone to abuse.
But government has tried to find ways to prevent abuse to the
point of regulating the recruitment agencies and this has
created a lot of tensions with the agencies and OFWs
themselves.
WHITE LIGHT VS. MANILA PASSED.

-
What did the motel owners learned from ERMITA-MALATE and

how did it approach it differently?
ARGUMENT: public morals argument is now weak. The
argument HAS CHANGED.
Things have changed in Manila. What was the public purpose?
IT WAS PEACE AND ORDER NOW because the hotels in
Manila are now being used from drug transactions, NOT
PUBLIC MORALS ANYMORE.
In fact, motels in Manila lost their business as far as prostitution
and infidelity is concerned.
There has been a shift in the public purpose so White Light
attacked the ordinance in a different way. PROPERTY
RIGHTS; NOW: PRIVACY of the customers.
The Court has rejected an assertion of public right vis--vis
public morals in Ermita because public rights (property) are
ranked the lowest in the hierarchy of rights (life liberty
property).
Now, the rights of liberty, second rank, were used and the
Courts accepted the standing of the hotel owners to represent
its customers.
o
Who has standing? Those who will suffer injury
(customers).
o
The court said that precisely, if the claim is privacy,
then the customers are not allowed to go to court. If
they did, then they are deemed to have waived such
right of privacy.
o
Third party: noble way of allowing the standing of the
petitioner because there is a substantial relationship
(owners) to the customers.
o
Actually White Light is the one that provided the
environment where the person can demand that the
customers can be accorded their privacy.
o
They were careful NOT to assert a business interest
(3rd and lowest) rank.
PURPOSE: peace and order.
NECESSARY: The Court did not go into that.
REASONABLE: WON the means used will it further the end
(peace and order); NOT REASONABLE.
o
Because it is OVERBROAD: no distinction between
those who will go there for illegal actions to those from
who will use it for illicit relations and rest.
o
ACTUALLY, the customers might actually be going
there to rest. There is no presumption for illicit sex
because prostitutes were already driven away.
There are MANY MORE LAWS AND MEANS where the matter
of drug trades is to be regulated.
ACTUALLY, no relation between hotel and motel use to drug
trade.
Whatever it was in the 60s is already pass. The Court is
already aware of such change.
From a constitutional perspective, you see a change in public
purpose and the technique used in attacking the ordinance (the
right being asserted) has killed the ordinance and that makes a
difference.
PASE VS. TORRES (recitation)

-
Overseas employment and government regulation.

Petitioner Phil association of exporters filed a prohibition and
TRO against sec of DOLE and POEA from enforcing the
DOLE DEPT ORDER #16 and POEA MEMIRADUM
CIRCULARS 30 & 37 which temporarily suspended the
recruitment of private employment agencies in deploying
domestic helpers to Hong Kong and vesting DOLE the grant
to process the task of deploying them.
Page 3 - Bantay
REASON OF ORDER: problem of abuse of Filipinos maids

and protection of Filipino helpers
POEA also issued circular on the processing of employment
contracts of DHs to HK
Petitioners contention: (1) respondents committed grave
abuse of discretion in issuing said circulars as abuse in rule
making authority (2) said circulars are unconstitutional (3)
not in accordance with duly published rules
ISSUE : WON said circular is unconstitutional. NO.
1. Art 36 of Labor Code grants the Sec of DOLE the
power to restrict and regulate recruitment and
placement activities (vesture of quasi-legislative and
quasi-judicial powers in administrative bodies is not
unconstitutional).
2. However they are invalid for failure of publication in the
Office of National Admin. Register.
JMM PROMOTION AND MANAGEMENT. INC VS CA

-
ISSUE: governments power to control deployment of Female

entertainers in Japan by requiring an ARTIST RECORD BOOK
(ARB) as a precondition to the processing of POEA of any
contract for overseas employment.
Petitioners contention: right to overseas employment is
property right therefore violation of due process.
FACTS (following death of entertainer Mariciris Sioson 1991)
deployment ban by Aquino.
FETMOP filed case where afterward petitioner JMM Promotion
intervened.TC denied both petitions and also CA contending
that the issuances constituted a valid police power.
HELD: Yes. States police power to promote general welfare. It
is to lessen the room for exploitation by unscrupulous
individuals and agencies. Any profession are required with
strict requirements in working abroad
as a separate state, it is allowed.

But through time, the right transformed itself. Anyone
can buy a gun. And Chavez asserted that right.
Court: the historico-legal context is completely different in the
Philippines. It is a privilege granted by the State (Law on
Firearms).
o
Robin Padilla law: to favor Robin Padilla to shorten
the sentence for illegal possession.
PROPERTY RIGHTS: the license, NOT a property right.
o
However, the license is a mere privilege which can be
revoked by the State.
DUE PROCESS: is there need to notice and hearing? NONE. It
being a clear privilege.
The higher value: TO ENSURE PUBLIC SAFETY.
Is it necessary and reasonable? YES. The old system was a
mockery of regulation. Even a dead person can apply for a
gun. It was so easy to own a fire arm.
Objective: only those who are qualified can issue firearms.
REASONABLE: to have the tests? What are the other stricter
requirements? Personal appearance.
The thing is the purpose is to ensure that only those who are fit
are to be issued with firearms.
But is there a relation between the object and the means?
YES. BUT CHAVEZ said that it only makes it difficult for those
who are qualified to apply for a license. Those who are
committing crimes do not have licences anyway. Why did the
Court say that that is reasonable? Now that we know, anyone
who is not in the roster of owners is presumed to be violating
the law. There is a presumption that will arise in the law itself:
here is a presumption against those who do not have licenses.
o
At least there is connection, Court said.
o
PREFERENCE OF CREDITS
-
REGULATIONS OF FIRE ARMS

-
Provision in the Civil Code: there is a system of preference of

credits. What is its whole idea? Foreclosures. That for instance
that somebody goes bankrupt, who is to be paid first? If he
owes to much and he only has this much left, who has to be
paid first?
There is a system and preferred creditors.
CHAVEZ VS. ROMULO

-
Side note: Chavez has died.

What was the regulation and why was Chavez challenging it.
GMA has given a verbal instruction to the PNP Chief.
Cancelling of all those licences to apply again based on stricter
standards.
Why? There were so many lose firearms being used in crimes.
Chavez: the implementation of this new regulation curtails the
property right of gun-owners through their licences. Right to
bear arms is a constitutional right. AND due process argument
(revocation without notice and hearing).
o
Are these powerful enough to defeat the power of the
state to exercise police power.
State: what is the nature of this regulation? This is a police
power regulation (peace and order, public safety).
Court: right to bear arms is ONLY a statutory right.
o
What is its nature? Why is there a provision to bear
arms in the American Constitution? Collective right to
bear arms to protect the state.
o
To have a militia in order to defend the state in times of
war.
o
Federal government has no resources. It is relying on
the separate states and the resources of those states.
The states have no armies (only volunteers).
o
They were armed, despite not being trained.
o
War of Independence: please come and when you
come, please bring your on gun, food, blanket and
everything: VOLUNTARY.
o
Because it was essential to the maintenance of the US
NDC vs. PVB:

-
PD of Marcos suspended payments for all liens against Agrix

so it can be rehabilitated.
Agrix was set up in Laguna and they got money from
investments of professors of UP Los Banos. For a while, they
were really profiting. Then it ventured to other businesses. It
went bankrupt because it over-extended its businesses.
o
UP professors went to Marcos and Mr. Marcos tried to
save Agri and be taken over by NDC and suspend
payments of all liens.
o
Otherwise, if its assets will be liquidated, the investors
will get nothing because they were not the preferred
credits.
Veterans is one of the preferred creditors and were estopped to
claim. But it is no longer Martial Law. Still, they were saying
that the PD was a legitimate exercise of police power.
Was it a proper exercise of power? NO. It provided for
UNEQUAL protection and violated the rule for equal protection.
Favoured a particular group and not the other groups.
PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ONE GROUP against the
PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE OTHER GROUP. Which groups
property rights take precedence?
It is easy to solve. It took it out of the mantle of police power
and just rights vs. rights that is provided for by law in the Civil
Code.
Mr. Marcos cannot create an exception because there is no
exception in the Civil Code. It discriminated other creditors in
Page 4 - Bantay
contravention to the preference of credits constitutional

violation (equal protection).
You cannot use police power as a mantle to protect the
property rights of one group vis--vis another.
Art. 2242: Taxes mortgages etc.
CONFISCATION OF LICENSES
DOH extended the period. Mooted. They were given enough

time.
You have to connect the means (substantive due process) and
the objective. The means must really be something that is
reasonable considering the objective. In this case, definitely,
closing down with a phase-out period can be deemed
reasonable as it was established the necessity.
It takes it out of the covers of man: blood donating became a
business.
Blood bank: 1:4, because probably only 1 will qualify.
MMDA VS. GARIN

-
MMDA confiscated the licence of the motorist for illegal

parking.
Garin: MMDA cannot do so.
MMDA: we can. Exercise of police power.
Can MMDA do so? NO. MMDA has no police power. Police
power is lodged in any legislative body and to the LGUs. It is a
legislative power.
What is the nature of MMDA? Administrative. They are
performing executive duties under the Office of the President. It
is an executive body.
Resolutions of the Mayor, can they empower the MMDA? NO.
Who must pass the law then authorizing confiscation because
of traffic violation? THE SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD.
Each sanggunian should now pass its ordinance authorizing
MMDA to confiscate. Which LGU did not authorize such?
MAKATI; usurpation of function and will be arrested by police in
Makati.
It would depend upon a legislative branch.
LGU exercises police power deputizing MMDA to implement
traffic ordinance for and in behalf of the local government.
Thats why Bayani Fernando had a very difficult time. When
Binay was MMDA chair, MMDAs are allowed in Makati. Can
they do that? YES, in fact they did.
NOT properly delegated and deputized by the LGUs through its
legislative bodies.
Can MMDA confiscate your licence? Now, IT DEPENDS.
RULE: MMDA is not a legislative body, hence, it does not have
police power.
BELTRAN VS. SEC. OF HEALTH

-
The law provides for the phasing out of commercial blood

banks.
They were given two years to phase out, with extension
(depending on the result of the evaluation).
PURPOSE: for government to have its own blood banks
(government hospitals). WHY? What is the rationale?
Commercial blood banks were buying blood. And because they
were buying, anyone who wants money is just selling his blood
and commercial banks are not properly screening (leading to
contaminations: HIV, malaria, syphilis).
o
Professional blood-sellers (from squatters). The
practice was so rampant (especially in UP Campus).
o
What has already been packed can no longer be
checked.
Radical shift in the law so commercial blood banks are
prohibited and were subject to pa phase out period.
Petitioners: violation of equal protection.
DOH: an exercise of police power by the state by the legislative
branch. DOH has only been implementing what has been
provided for by the legislative branch.
TEST? The prohibition on commercial blood banks and the
phase-out period necessary? YES. State objective: public
health and safety.
Are the means reasonable? YES. What were the means?
Closing down through a phase-out period. If it is closed down
NOW, it could be unreasonable.
NOV. 16, 2013

Some constitutional issues: TYPHOON HAIYAN.
-
There was a suggestion to declare martial law: de facto martial

law (no such thing).
o
What can be more irresponsible than that?
NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS of doing so (rebellion or
invasion, when public safety requires it).
LAWLESS VIOLENCE (looting): calling out power only.
The first thing that should have been done is establishment of
access (information and of the places).
What delayed it is the supplies are actually too much. But no
one thought of clearing the roads.
o
Without the roads, the other alternative is air transport
because the ports were destroyed.
Only DPWH was clearing the entire region.
o
Everyone else was just standing in helplessness.
You want a place to land. Do you want the pilots to clear the
runway?
Logistics nightmare.
The things that you do on the first day are different from the
things you will do on the third day.
Small packs ONLY (must not be):
1. 1 kilo of rice.
2. 2 canned goods.
3. 3 packs of noodles.
4. 1 or 2 liters of water.
You will be stunned with helplessness and you need something
to do. So the best thing is to give them the task of
administering the rationing.
The only province prepared was Albay. On paper, they seem
like it. Everyone is running for cover and LGs are not
functioning.
Family packs (brought through big trucks and air lifts):
1. Mats, blankets, mosquito nets.
2. Basic cooking utensils (pots)
3. Toiletries.
4. Water purification system (portable)
The helicopters we have are no use. They are only good for
recognizance (looking at or surveying the area).
You have to find a way to bring the packages that you pack.
The supplies will not be able to walk by themselves.
Filipinos have the habit of just sitting down and demanding
everything to be brought to them.
Lack of information creates a lot of stress.
Pre-positioning of goods in Manila is completely useless
because it only creates ore problems.
o
At the municipal level; movements must be westward.
Foreign donations (IN CASH): we have a lot of money and we
must find things that we can buy, but they are not available in
the Philippines.
Page 5 - Bantay
Medical teams are helpful but there must be a plan where they
will be placed.
o
Labor intensive; you need to provide for SECURITY.
o
They do not travel light (1,000kg of supplies).
SOLUTION: to provide for access (land, air, sea).
We need to find helicopters that do not need to land (just
hover). The goods are not put inside, they must just be hoisted.
o
If helicopters cannot lot, they can drop the goods. But
what happens when you drop 10 liters of water? 100
kilos of rice?
WHAT CAN YOU DO? LONG-TERM. Prioritize the survivors.
o
Shelter: construction materials
organized tent-cities.
o
First you need to clear an area. Most will be displaced
in Cebu. Those who landed in Viliamor (DSWD).
o
District 2 of QC (Payatas).
o
People are going to Catbalogan.
Its not that government is not doing anything. They are not just
efficient
In Tacloban, they could not even have a quorum to pass
ordinances.
Staying there is not a good idea because you see all of these
bad things. Have you ever been in a situation when you are too
stupefied to do anything? You cannot get out of that stupor.
Stress debriefing takes two weeks. But it is easier to deal with
the stress of the children than adults.
Are we worried about the classrooms? NO. Education is not
centered in classrooms. In fact, there is very little education
done in the classrooms.
FINALS EXAMINATION: Re: Zamboanga question (presidents

emergency powers).
-
You have to tell me under what circumstances the President

can do this or that.
Part of our task is to facilitate the decision-making process by
giving good advice: legal standards.
You never jump into a conclusion only media persons can
do that.
Why do I tell stories? Because many are late.

POLICE POWER: the exercise of the administrative power for the
pursuit of certain valid public purposes.
-
The public purpose comes under the rubric of general welfare

common good.
The realization of the aspiration that we put in our constitution.
If before, we only talk about traditional issues (public health,
public safety). Now we have enlarged what is necessary for a
good life.
o
In our preamble, we even talked about love.
o
EXPANDED VIEW: cover everything where there is the
use of the coercive power of the State in passing its
laws.
o
It will force people to change conduct.
o
WE HAVE TO BE MORE CAREFUL because there is a
guarantee in the constitutions that the rights will be
protected.
BUT THEY ARE NOT ABSOLUTE (100%).
Theoretically all of the things can be the subject of legislation.
What is the essence of the legislation? For the common good.
This pursuit will now limit the rights of individuals or a group of
persons.
We have to make choices: what benefits the greatest number

which results to the inconvenience of the few vs. the benefits of
the few and inconvenience of the many.
The good of the many is the supreme law.
We are not talking about the choice being made by the many.
We are actually talking about the choice of those
EMPOWERED by the constitution: LEGISLATIVE.
Where does the pursuit of the common good end vis--vis the
right of an individual?
o
LINEAR WAY: where is the boundary? Thats why we
have all these cases. But in making a decision on
where there is a perfect balance, you might be
surprised that it moves. The perfect balance can be
arrived even when it is not 50-50 because it will depend
on the STANDARDS OF PROTECTION (Constitution).
LIMITS: substantive DUE PROCESS (reasonableness of the
regulation or the limitation) and EQUAL PROCTECTION (Sec.
1, Art. III).
o
How reasonable it is vis--vis the stated public purpose.
o
You are looking at the causal relation between the
means and the ends. If yes, valid exercise of police
power. If not (Whitelight), it is not.
o
EQUAL PROTECTION: certain effects beneficial or
adverse to certain groups. If there is a VALID
CLASSIFICATION / DISTINCTION, then indeed, they
cannot be treated on the way.
Everyone in Group A will be treated the same.
Everyone in Group B will be treated the same.
The law recognizes the distinction between
Group A and B.
Sex: with distinction. Race: NO distinction;
everyone must be treated the same.
You have to be very cautious when you look at these problems.
POLICE POWER
NOT provided
Constitution.
Power
to
(LEGISLATIVE).
for
EMMINENT DOMAIN
in
the
Provided for in the Constitution:

LIMITATION.
legislate
Power
to
expropriate
(LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE and
JUDICIARY
STATE).
The legislative branch prohibits or

regulates acts (LIBERTY).
The
State
takes
PROPERTY RIGHTS.
Bawal umihi dito: prohibitory

and regulatory.
Because there is taking, there is

JST COMPENSATION.
PUBLIC PURPOSE that pursues

the common good. CHECK:
substantive due process.
TAKING must be based on

PUBLIC USE. CHECK: payment
of just compensation.
There is NO ELEMENT
eminent domain.
There is an ELEMENT of police

power.
Public PURPOSE.
of
away
Public USE.
Page 6 - Bantay
The difference DOES make in the Constitution.

Why should we make a distinction?
Does that mean that there is no due process in eminent
domain? NOW THERE IS.
Police power folded with eminent domain when it comes to
PROPERTY RIGHTS.
o
Just compensation AND violation/observance of equal
protection (BEFORE, only just compensation)
***ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SEC. OF AGRARIAN

REFORMS
Petitioners are the landowners.
ISSUE: WON there is just compensation as required by the

constitution. NO.
Is the power to take being questioned? NO. It is in the Constitution.
What is being questioned is the SYSTEM. The petitioners say it in
violation of the Constitution.
-
Traditionally, the rule is to pay in full and in cash for the

government to expropriate rights.
HERE they are being paid through deferred payments, credits,
bonds.
If you were the land owner, your land will be taken away from
you, then you would have to wait for a long time to get
compensation. Why? The bonds were for how long? 10, 25
years.
FRAMEWORK: why did the Court discuss police power first
before discussing eminent domain? Why did the Court say it is
looking at the practical view?
TEST OF REASON. It brought in police power to bring
in the test of reason. Is it unreasonable and arbitrary
given the realities given for just compensation be given
under this system? NO.
If it is reasonable, then the government will have NO
MONEY for other services of the government.
Court says its going to cost A LOT OF MONEY.
Is there justification to bring in the discussion of police
power? PURPOSE OF CARP: to give the landless
lands and to address social unrest founded on
maldistribution of resources, land being one of those
resources.
Thats why the government now is doing PPP (State
subsidies and incentives [education and health]).
Wealth will be distributed if they go to school and be
healthy.
TO ADDRESS DISPARITIES.
The heart of CARP is compensation, not the retention rights.
REGULATION: you can only have this much because LAND
CANNOT EXPAND.
IF NOT, the disparities will be TOO MUCH and government will
be toppled new State will be established (Peoples
Republic).
This is a very, very big issue that has to be addressed.
AGRARIAN REFORM IS NOT THE END, it is only a MEANS.
THE MEANS SHOULD BE REVOLUTIONARY.
Unless it will be struck down.
THE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THIS CASE HAS NOW BECOME
THE NORM WHEN YOU LOOK AT EMINENT DOMAIN.
Why did the Court marry police power and eminent domain?
Answer: FRAMEWORK.
REYES VS. NHA

-
The owner was not paid and NHA DID NOT develop the place
gave it already to a private contractor (socialized housing
project).
May the owner get the land back? NO.
Was the public use retained? YES, even if NHA has not used
it. The objective still fell under that
USE: to address a general welfare concern urban land
reform and housing providing homes for dislocated informal
settlers.
The interface of police power and eminent domain: expanded
public benefit and interest to benefit the poor who cannot
afford to live in the city and were relocated in Cavite.
EVEN THOUGH the squatters cannot buy such anyway.
Perhaps, only through PAG-IBIG.
BUT GOVERNMENT DID NOT PAY. Can the government use
it before paying it in full?
VALID TAKING (public use) established: government cannot
be evicted anymore. The government is already IN
POSSESSION of it. All they can demand now is just
compensation.
THE POINT: the mere fact that government has not paid, does
that nullify the taking? NO. THE TAKING IS STILLVALID AND
LAWFUL.
THERE IS PRIOR ESTABLISHMENT OF just compensation:
NOW, what is left to do is EXECUTION OF PAYMENT.
Acquisitive possession (30 years of exclusive possession).
TAKING vs. DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION:
the impact is that the taking, if it is for public use, cannot be
reversed. The only issue is for JUST COMPENSATION. It is
only for judgment of specific performance.
May the taking be reversed because of non-payment? NO.
CITY OF MANDALUYONG VS. AGUILAR

-
Instead of looking for public lands, it just expropriated private

lands for in-city relocation of its informal settlers.
Is the taking of land for in-city relocation a valid and lawful
public use? YES, but
LEGISLATIVE ASPECT: the legislature authorizes the taking.
The State LIMITED the power to take for urban land reform
purposes.
Does it have the plenary power? YES. But can the State limit
its own taking of the property? YES. That is what RA 7279 did.
Court: although the State make take, Congress has limited the
power to take.
SETTING UP OF PRIORITY OF LAND TO BE USED (private
land is LAST) AND there are also limitations and exceptions
(small lands might not be taken) SEC. 9.
Here the lands, they were too small.
LAGCAO VS. LABRA

-
The land was big enough. So that big a land was viable.
CEBU: passed the Ordinance expropriating the property.
Valid? NO.
Court: since Congress did not just also provide for a limitation,
it also provided for HEIRARCHY. Cebu failed to show that they
exhausted the list.
In this case, what was the analysis used by the Court? Was it is
still strictly eminent domain? DUE PROCESS component.
For instance, if you are hired by a property owner because the
government wants to expropriate his property. CHECKLIST:
1. WON it is for public use: the government has the
burden of proving the use is of public in nature.
You need to establish that there is a NEED for
something (e.g. school). It doesnt mean that a
mere building of the school is a good public use
justifying the expropriation. It needs to show the
NECESSITY of such building.
Page 7 - Bantay
2.
Beneficial to the public at large.

Central transport terminal? YES, even if they
bid it out to private owners (REYES).
Just compensation.
Exchange a parcel of land at the side of the
mountain. Can you client refuse the payment?
YES.
If everything was for easy for students to understand, Prof. will rest
Most of the lands in Pampanga are covered of tax declarations (title is
not yet perfected).
-
Does government actually care that the title is transferred to it?

NO.
The land is already used by the government but the title is still
with the owners and they have to pay the tax. This is because
they did not accept the offer of DPWH.
Why can the state take? REGALIAN DOCTRINE: in the first
place, who owns all of the lands? The State. It is in its liberality
that it releases the land and be title to private persons.
o
Regalia: Regalian is the King. In old England,
everything is owned by the King and he gives it to his
supporters.
o
Alienable and disposable to be released to private
individuals.
o
The only exception to Regalian Doctrine is
ANCESTRAL DOMAIN.
o
The Constitution recognizes the rights of the indigenous
people. They were there even before ere was a State.
TAXATION
-
Not the same as police power with provides for the interplays of
police power and taxation.
NATURE: LEGISLATIVE POWER; the executive merely
implements tax laws.
o
In a very limited sense, the Congress can delegate to
the President power to set tariffs and quotas.
CONSTITUTION AS FAR AS TAX LAWS: must emanate from
the House of Representative.
WHAT DOES THE STATE DO WHEN IT TAXES? To raise
revenues to fund services for the general welfare.
WHY IS IT INHERENT? It naturally flows from the very concept
of having a State. It is something that the State cannot do
without. So even if there are no provisions of it in the
Constitution, the Congress CAN still enact tax laws.
o
Some countries (60% income tax): subsidized
transport, free education, free medical help.
o
They can actually live without using the remaining 40%.
As far as the State is concerned, it can use its COERCIVE
POWER to make its citizens pay.
Non-payment of taxes entails jail time: you are defrauding the
State by availing the services without paying anything.
IDEALLY, there should be a determined cost of the services
and you pay a uniform fee for the service. But because of
maldistribution of income, that does not work.
So even if we wanted it to be uniform, it has to be
CONSIDERATE
OF
DISPARITIES
(equitable),
and
PROGRESSIVE.
o
The higher the tax base, the higher the tax burden.
o
The percentage becomes bigger as the tax base
becomes bigger.
TAXES ALSO HAVE ANOTHER ROLE: to redistribute wealth

POLICE POWER.
o
A mechanism by which the State addresses issues by
being PROGRESSIVE and EQUITABLE. Those who
have more, pay more.
TO GET A SHARE.
To the extreme: it can actually destroy and can result to
PROHIBITING and TAKING. Thats why you have to be
careful. If the taxation amounts to be taking, there needs to be
just compensation. If it is only for the purpose of regulating and
prohibiting, no compensation. Thats why there is an issue of
reasonableness, due process and equal protection.
VAT: percentage tax in transactions; INCOME TAX (gross compensation).
SISON VS. ANCHETA

-
There was a violation of equal protection. Was it valid to use

equal protection against taxation? YES. The interface between
taxation and the exercise of police power.
Gross compensation income is pre-determined. For doctors
who pay taxes based on gross income, they are actually paying
after the expenses have already been deducted and there is a
determined amount which they call is their NET INCOME.
What can be regarded as expenses? EVERYTHING.
When you dont get a receipt, then the payment will not
be counted.
Group of professionals who were protesting against the
scheme.
Was there a violation of equal protection? Were they treated
differently? NO.
Taxation needs to be uniform AND EQUITABLE.
There will be no distinctions between the same group.
What needs to be established? That there must be a VALID
DISTINCTION.
Is there a valid distinction covered by gross compensation
income and those covered by gross income? GCI is predetermined and GI varies from quarter to quarter and is
dependent upon many factors.
WHY IS THAT VALID? Why is the distinction valid? Why even
bother make a distinction between the two? FOR PRACTICAL
REASONS. For pre-determined, it is withheld so government
can immediately get it. The distinction is not even if you work
privately and publicly.
Under gross income, they cannot be determined so there is a
valid ground between the distinctions.
o
Distinction: HOW and WHEN it can be paid.
Government or private employee
SAME MECHANISM
where tax is withheld at source.
A distinction between lawyers and doctors valid? NO, there are
no real distinctions between them as they are gross income
earners.
REYES VS. ALMANZOR

-
Why is Reyes in court? He is challenging what tax? REAL

PROPERTY TAX of the apartment building he owned in the
City of Manila.
Why did he challenge the assessment (when you are told what
to pay)? Manila used the comparative sales approach
applied to ALL commercial establishments.
o
Based on the market, what rate should be used for the
assessment.
Isnt that uniform? YES.
SC: applying it uniformly is a violation of the Constitution.
ELABORATE THEORY: did they all belong to the same class?
NO. They were all commercial establishments but there is the
Page 8 - Bantay
Rental Freezing Law.

His property was not allowed by the RENT CONTROL LAW to
earn the same rentals as other apartment buildings.
NEW APARTMENT BUILDINGS were not covered by the
Rental Freeze Law.
Reyes cannot even raise its rent even if it is for the purpose of
paying the tax because their prices were frozen (below
300/apartment building).
Violation of EQUAL PROTECTION based on the premise that
they are all of the same category.
Police power has also infiltrated the power to tax, the
arguments used in questioning police power can be used to the
cases in taxation.
MERITS of the argument: while it may be uniform, that is not
the end of the story other rights.
actually be taxed.
Exemptions are supposed to be strictly construed against the
taxpayer.
NAPOCOR (GOCC), is it part of the national government?
YES. BUT GOCCs are taxable unless expressly exempted by
law.
NAPOCOR said there is a provision on its charter that they are
exempted.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE that allows the LGUs to tax
them and deemed to have modified the exemptions given to
GOCCs in their charter.
NOV. 23, 2013

Administrative announcements: e-mailed to Sir Ramil the full case of
the PDAF.
COMM. INTERNAL REVENUE VS. SOLIDBANK

-
Double taxation: same person taxed twice for the same thing.
No provision in the constitution against it but you can deduce it
from the concept of due process. It violates due process if you
are taxed twice like double jeopardy.
TRICK: when is there double compensation and taxation?
SOLIDBANK: Tax is on interest income and they say interest is
being taxed?
Is there DOUBLE TAXATION? NO.
The interest earned by the depositors is FWT (it is predetermined).
There are two different persons paying the tax DEPOSITOR
and the BANKS.
Its not the bank that is paying the 20%, the bank is just
withholding it. So the bank still has to pay GRT.
Its not the same person, its not the same tax, its not the same
thing (income of the depositor and of the bank)
1.
2.
3.
LUNG CENTER
-
Tax exemptions strictly against the taxpayers because taxes

are the lifeblood of the nation.
Constitutional and legislative exemptions creation a lot of
confusion.
No one is to be exempted unless provided by the law.
REAL PROPERTY TAX on the WHOLE property of the Lung
Center. Does Lung Center have an exemption? YES. Why?
Charitable institution, even if it charges high fees for patients.
As long as it provides services FREE OR CHARGE to
indigents, it is ENOUGH to make it a charitable institution.
Does that mean it will not pay any real property taxes? NO.
The exemption applies only to the parts ACTUALLY
DIRECTLY, and EXCLUSIVELY USED.
The whole hospital is exempted but those used for commercial
purposes and leased to commercial tenants will be charged
(including doctors offices).
Another level for its analysis: that the property will NOT BE
TAKEN AS A WHOLE and subdivide it to parts covered by the
exemption and not covered by the exemption.
NAPOCOR VS. CITY OF CABANATUAN

-
Now being assessed by Cabanatuan a FRANCHISE TAX.

NAPOCOR tells Cabanatuan that it cannot pay because it is
exempted under its charter.
Is it exempted? NO. Can it be taxed? YES.
o
To know if it is exempted, we should know first if it can
Next meeting, we will be discussing about it.

72 pages long; 4 concurring opinions.
This is really a decision abandoning the doctrine in
PHILCONSA vs. ENRIQUEZ; we have to look at the new
doctrine announced by the SC.
Bernabe, Carpio, Brion, Sereno, and Leonen.
All of you are supposed to read everything.
14-0: discussion for an hour.
We have to go back because we cant prepare you for the bar
exam with you still thinking that PHILCONSA is still the
operative one.
You have to tell me your experience for the DAP CASES;
predict the outcome of the case.
Who argued? PETITIONERS (Fortun, Dean Agapin, Lazaro,
Sarate). They were interpolated by the Justices.
Who asked most of the questions? Leonen, Carpio.
OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE ORAL ARGUMENTS:
There were not so many students.

What questions could you have answered?
What were the arguments? SAVINGS (Demetria vs.
Alba) Sec. Abad used the provision in the
Administrative Code and was challenged by Justice
Abad.
4. Who among the 4 lawyers had the best arguments?
5. Unobligated funds vis--vis savings there is a
difference between the two.
6. Politics of the Justices; who says that justices are
apolitical?
o
The SC is like the Catholic Church.
o
Unlike the Church, there are 15 justices and the
politics of each one cancels each others.
o
Individual justices with individual biases,
preferences, experiences in life and all of these
shape the decision-making process.
o
From the oral arguments, we can see how the
intellectual process of each one goes. The way
they ask questions and how they react to
certain questions.
o
There are 4 justices who are sworn enemies of
the CJ now.
Lets see how it goes.
There has been no TRO issued for the DAP.
How the President uses the resources available to him to
address the calamity in Region VIII can also influence the
perceptions of justices, especially how he uses the Malampaya
Page 9 - Bantay
funds and the PAGCOR funds, which are covered by the PDAF
cases.
The two cases are ultimately tied. PDAF was not only invalided
in the GAA and also tapped to the Presidential fund, which
cannot be used for structures and the Malampaya funds
(energy).
The PDAF can also provide guidelines to the President.
Bernabe: you will see how the SC made a decision and tried to
find a logical and coherent justification in their decision.
TACLOBAN: having a highly urbanized city there will result to more

deaths.
-
Having seen the topography and knowing that it has already

happened before, its crazy to rebuild something that is less
than three stories high.
It will happen; maybe not this year. But definitely it will happen
again.
Guian has been destroyed many times before. Definitely,
typhoons will hit it. Its like Casiguran, Aurora.
o
Its like living in Legaspi.
In case of Tacloban, there is no place to run. Thats why those
who tried to go inland were not in any way safe because the
water went as far as at least 7 kilometers, 11 kilometers even,
in land.
The schools became death traps and they all died there.
No one believed that it will happen. BUT IT ACTUALLY
HAPPENED BEORE and no one bothered to prepare for that.
Thats the tragedy.
Its like going there knowing that you will die: death wish.
Theyd rather die in a place they want to.
o
Has to be respected.
How many years will it take to rebuild Tacloban? A decade.
You have to build the infrastructures first (water system,
electricity).
But everything is built near the shore. That place is low-lying.
Man is in a battle against nature and nature wins all of the time.
How many people can Taclabon actually carry? Can it actually
carry 220,000 people?
Its for urban planners to decide what is the extent of the buffer
zone.
Its like Cebu; its only a strip of land. But it was protected by
Mactan Island. The threat now to Cebu is that the sea is rising
because of global warming.
WHAT IS OUR PROBLEM? We have too many people living in
areas which are unsafe because these were all not planned.
Our instinct is to leave near means of transportation.
There should be MASSIVE RELOCATION. Would that mean
giving them land in Mindanao? That would create another
social problem because there are tensions between Moros and
Christians.
o
You have to give them some land eventually.
We hope that from what happened, everyone will take disaster
risk development seriously.
Disaster management is done at the LOCAL level.
ASSUMPTIONS:
1.
2.
3.
Local government prioritizes disaster risk.

They have the resources.
They have the expertise to deal with it. You need
people who really know how to prepare for disasters.
Now there is proposal to CENTRALIZE disaster management

like in the US. But even with that, it will still be difficult because
its more of the lack of resources (raised) and expertise

(developed).
Security and disaster management is completely different
sciences. Logistic people are needed: to ensure access so that
you can deliver goods.
Set up a system of evacuation based on international
standards. This should be done in such a way that they are
24/7 ready.
The areas are also cleared for tent cities for the first 24 hours.
Its going to be costly. So we need people who can think.
The preparation is when the military comes in, actually. There
must also be REGULAR DRILLS to move the people. There is
a scientific way of moving them without killing them. People
would have to be disciplined.
Salcedo has been neglected so the people were really going
crazy there and they are jumping to helicopters to get the
goods.
o
The people were left to fend for themselves.
The more logical thing for law students to do is to collect and
turn them over to Red Cross.
The people should also be briefed. Even the task of burying
their dead, they must also participate for the sake of closure.
Should we have a department for a disaster risk reduction?
The law is really good but it was not being implemented well.
Last time we talked about inherent power of the state.

1.
2.
3.
-
Police power: legislation for public welfare.

Eminent domain: power for taking for public use for just
compensation.
Taxation: power to demand to contribute.
We know all of these are tempered by the Constitution itself.
If we draw the scale, where we have the power side and the
rights on the other, how do know that powers are not abuse
and rights are protected?
The concept of DUE PROCESS actually ensures the balance.
Sec. 1, Art. III: whats the right? Actually those are LIFE,
LIBERTY OR PROPERTY ONLY, which could not be deprived
if only when there is due process and equal protection. Due
process is not the right by itself.
Even if your right is not unlimited, nevertheless, it is not done in
an arbitrary and capricious, unjust, manner.
HOW THIS WORKS: does your employer have the power to fix
your wages and working conditions? YES. As a worker, do you
have a right? YES, security of tenure. But those two are always
competing. How can we ensure the balance that is required in
the Constitution:
1.
2.
Due process: that the rules are reasonable

(SUBSTANTIVE).
Notice and hearing (PROCEDURAL): the chance to
controvert or to answer.
But the law also says that this cannot be done in a way that will
put you at a disadvantage vis--vis your fellow employees. All
of you must be treated in the same way because you are in the
same situation EQUAL PROTECTION.
The law allows for SUBSTANTIAL DISTINCTION that will
account for different treatment: gender (women get pregnant
and they are given pre-natal, maternal, day care benefits). Can
a man ask to be given the same thing? NO.
o
Can you demand that men be given time to watch
women breastfeed? NO. It will be unreasonable as
there is no basis for that.
Page 10 - Bantay
GUARANTEE: you will be treated the same as the one who are
in similar situations.
-
SUMMARY:
1.
2.
Striking the balance: rights (life, liberty and property) and

power (inherent powers or species of the inherent powers of
the State).
GUARANTEE: due process and equal protection.
DUE PROCESS:
-
Deprivation of rights means LIMITATION.

Everything else comes from jurisprudence.
SUBSTANTIVE
PROCEDURAL
MECHANISM: legislation (passed

by
Congress,
Sangguinian,
administrative
rules
and
regulations).
MECHANISM:
adjudication
(judicial or quasi-judicial).
Legislative component.
Judicial
and
component.
SUBSTATIAL DUE PROCESS IN

THE LAW:
1.
2.
3.
4.
There must be a valid

law upon which it is
based.
The law must have
been
passed
or
approved to accomplish
a valid government
objective.
The objective must be
pursued in a lawful
manner.
The law as well as the
means to accomplish
the objective must be
valid
and
not
oppressive.
WHAT YOU SHOULD LOOK

FOR: REASONABLENESS OF
THE PURPOSE and the MEANS.
RUBI VS. PROV. BOARD OF MINDORO: how the framework that we

have can actually be perverted.
-
quasi-judicial
-
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

IN JUDCIAL PROCEEDING:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Informed of the nature:

NOTICE.
Right to answer.
Informed
of
the
evidences
against
them. To present your
own evidence.
That the decision must
be based from facts or
evidence.
The body that should
impose judgment must
be impartial.
WHAT YOU SHOULD LOOK

FOR: NOTICE and HEARING
VALID if BOTH reasonable and

lawful.
APPLICATION: question of laws.
-
Ordinarily,
we
attack the law.
APPLICATION: questions
application of the law.
the
will
YNOT VS. IAC: sometimes the law itself will fall into play the
procedural process issue when the law itself provides for the
procedure.
Applies to everything.
Example: Congress passed a law that penalizes all people
wearing blue. What is the test of substantial due process?
o
PURPOSE: to distinguish the enemies from Filipinos.
o
MEANS: For Filipinos not to wear blue. IF THE
PENALTY IS DEATH (either be shot dead and
prosecuted) IMMEDIATELY. NO. If there will still be a
determination first of the intention of the law breaker
and will just be imprisoned, YES.
Bawal umihi dito, BITAY: the means is disproportionate to the
purpose so NOT VALID.
That looks good in paper. Simple as it may seem, the
application will have some nuances. We have to take into
consideration some socio-historical and legal political context.
The challenge is against a legislation.

LEGISLATION: SEC. 2145 of the Admin. Code: Manguianes
were placed in a reservation and it provided for penalties with a
corresponding deprivation of liberty for violation of the
subsequent ordinance.
Habeas corpus: to question the legality of the detention.
CHALLENGE 1. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS (persons are
required to relocate and are penalized for leaving without
permission): NOT VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS.
How did the Court justify such? EXERCISE OF POLICE
POWER.
CLASSIFICATION: Christians vs. Non-Christians in the context
of the degree of CIVILIZATION.
WHAT IS THE REAL REASON WHY THEY WERE PUT IN
THE RESERVATION? So that the land can now be used for
agriculture purposes. There was no concept yet of ancestral
domain and of the environment. Government at that time was
encouraging people from lowlands to migrate to
underdeveloped areas.
o
MINDORO: you can divide it into areas which are
occupied by different groups of Manguianes (8). Their
lifestyle is nomadic (hunter and gathering).
o
If all the Manguines will be confined to specific places
for their lands to be used for agricultural purposes.
o
Its not because we long Manguianes.
o
The reality is that they are occupying land and land is a
valuable resource.
o
Land is to be transformed to income.
o
SOLUTION: put them in reservations. But it must be
legally justified.
THEORY OF THE COURT: American Government came up
with a scheme.
Framework seems to benign to justify something intrinsically
unjust.
PURPOSE: to protect the Manguianes from exploitation.
MEANS: put them in a place where they can be protected and
prevent them from going out so they will be protected.
REASONABLE PURPOSE + REASONABLE MEANS = the law
by itself was used to defeat rights.
NOW: since then, we had the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
International Law has adopted a different stand for indigenous
people. They are not vulnerable in such a way that they need
benevolent assimilation (Little Brown Brothers).
o
Logical, MAYBE. Reasonable, NO.
LAW IS CONTEXTUAL: Ermita vs. Whitelight.
We can now see why at the turn of the century that the Little
Brown Brother argument was acceptable but now, it is not.
WHITELIGHT: the purpose was valid but the means was not (shorttime not allowed; how does that relate to preventing crimes?).
Page 11 - Bantay
CORONA VS. UNITED HARBOR PPILOTS ASSOC.

-
Harbour pilots whose licenses have to be RENEWED every

year.
NOW: pilots (air) need to be renewed.
So whats wrong with it? Due process was absent.
PURPOSE: public safety to regulate the harbour pilots that
provide for strict licensing.
o
Lawful.
Why do we need harbour pilots in the first place? It is difficult to
park harbour ships that can cause a lot of destruction.
MEANS: is it reasonable? The first thing the Court has to do is
to establish a right. While conceding there is a right, property
right is still way down below. NEVERTHELESS, it is still a right
thats why you can invoke violation of due process.
o
INVALID, unreasonable, arbitrary.
PRESUMPTION: Cancellation and expiration meant you have
to go through the process of application again.
REMEDY: there must be constant upgrading.
For harbour pilots, there is no presumption in their favour.
The license will end up like it does not mean anything.
NO DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MEANS AND
THE PURPOSE.
The presumption of this RA is that there a new harbour pilots
every year.
The State exercises his power in an oppressive and in an
unreasonable way.
The effect of expiration is cancellation so you would have to
apply again. Here it is cancelled so you would have to undergo
the whole process again.
EQUIVALENT: every 3 years, lawyers would have to take the
bar exam to renew his license exactly the point of the Court.
TANADA VS. TUVERA

-
ANG TIBAY VS. CIR: all you need to do is to observe the cardinal
principles of due process.
-
YNOT VS. IAC

-
LAW: prohibition of the transport of carabaos from one

province or another.
Why is the petitioner challenging the law? Violative of due
process.
PURPOSE OF THE LAW: the carabaos are agricultural
implements and if you kill of them, who will now plough the
fields? We were not mechanized on agriculture during that
time.
o
To ensure agricultural productivity, implements for it will
be prohibited.
o
You need to kills carabaos to eat them.
o
Did we breed them during that time? NO. Only Erap
had established the Phil. Carabao Center (late 90s).
o
BEFORE: we imported our carabaos, and now we eat
them. So what will that do to our agricultural
productivity?
MEANS: disallowing slaughter and transport of carabais from
one province to another.
o
INVALID.
AMENDMENT: same purpose but DIFFERENT MEANS and it
is invalid.
o
The new provision was unconstitutionally infirm.
o
Substantive: the location of the carabaos (WON they
are here or there) will not serve the purpose.
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS: law enforcements took the
carabaos without a prior judicial determination. There must be
a probable cause first before a warrant for seizure will be
made.
Not only is here no judicial intervention, there was even no
justification (probable cause).
So the law itself provides itself for a violation of the procedural
due process.
What does NOTICE mean? If you do not know and you escape
liability, YOU ARE NOT LIABLE.
Art. 3 of the CC: ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance therewith. Everyone is liable even though they are
ignorant of the law.
BASIC REQUIREMENT: people must have had the opportunity
to know. There is no actual determination if they really knew
about it.
MEANS: PUBLICATION of laws in general application.
Whats the test? What should be published? LAW OF
GENERAL APPLICATION. Those that will affect the RIGHTS
of the people and groups in a way that their rights will be
limited or that they create obligations.
o
The exercise of power affects a right.
If it is purely internal (office order directing one of my staff to
render overtime), it does NOT have to be published.
If it is NOT GENERAL in nature, the person or group the law is
directed is informed and given a copy, then there is no need to
publish.
We are talking about the whole world and the Philipines, the
whole of it, will be bound by the new law.
Example: tax assessment was sent to you because of your
loan assets. Does that need to be published? NO. Property
right of an individual only, and not of the public.
The SC, not knowing what to do, basically copied from

American jurisprudence.
What is the one being challenged? The jurisdiction of the CIR.
o
Argument of Ang Tibay: CIR cannot adjudicate because
it is not really a court and allowing it to do so will violate
due process.
o
They are challenging the law creating the CIR.
o
That to make it perform that function will result to a
violation of due process.
Court: QUASI-JUDICIAL body (now: NLRC under the
Department of Labor).
o
Administrative agency.
Why is it essential in upholding the validity of the jurisdiction of
the CIR? What is the effect of that? The due process argument
ALL THE MORE and consolidated the jurisdiction of the CIR.
Requirement for quasi-judicial bodies: Rules of Courts are not
applied as long as there is the observance of the cardinal
principles. They are not required to be bound by very stringent
rules of procedures, as long as there is compliance with
procedural due process (NOTICE, HEARING).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Notice in writing.
The CHANCE to answer. He does not even have to
answer.
Evidence: no requirements on how to present evidence.
o
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: as long as in the
evidence, there is something in there.
o
Not even beyond reasonable doubt and
preponderance of evidence.
o
More than a mere scintilla (glimmer).
o
As long as there is something
o
PROOF OF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT:
moral certainty (whatever way you). There is no
doubt in you as to the adjudicator.
o
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE: evidence
of the plaintiff vs. of the respondent = which is
weightier.
Decision will be supported by facts and on the
evidence.
Decision-maker will be impartial.
Page 12 - Bantay
Such being the case, does the CIR have jurisdiction? YES. It
was not created as a court, hence it does not need to follow the
Rules of Courts. And for hearings in the CIR, are the cardinal
rules followed? YES, liberally used. Is there anything wrong
with the law creating the CIR? NO. As long as it is not a court
of law, that already complies with the requirement.
POLLUTION ADJUDICATION BOARD VS. CA

-
Can they issue cease and desist orders?

Court of law? NO. It is under the Department of Natural
Resources. But would giving it the power to issue such order
violate due process?
PROPERTY RIGHT is affected of the company (Solar).
LEGAL ARGUMENT: DIRECT CHALLENCE OF PD 984.
Is there notice and hearing? YES.
The analysis is WON there is a violation of procedural due
process. NO.
There is notice and they went to the company to take samples.
After the results were made known, they went back to the
company and they gave the company time to do something
about it.
They had to examine twice after telling them of the situation,
did they do something about it?
HEARING: yes, within so many days after the issuance of the
CDO.
It will be moot and academic if they would have to wait for the
court to decide on it.
The question is not so much about the issuance of the CDO,
the question is he PROCEDURE. Does it allow notice and
hearing? IF no, then it will be invalid.
DEC. 07, 2013

CASE OF BELGICA: 1st hour.
-
Important case because it hinges the whole idea of district

representation.
The expectation is for district representatives is that they will
not just represent their district in deliberations of bills and also
to attend to the material needs of their respective district.
o
People were lining up every weekend, asking for
assistance for practically everything.
Created a lot of pressure as far as legislators are concerned.
They must also deliver infrastructure projects.
PROVIDED TO INSTITUTIONALIZE THROUGH PROVISIONS
(general legislation of the GAA).
NAPOLES AFFAIR: when it is now within the discretion of
particular officials and there is minimal or no accountability, the
probability of misuse and abuse is very high.
o
People have taken a second look at the practice of
PORK BARREL.
3 previous cases (PHILCONSA, LAMP): upheld the
constitutionality of PDAF.
NOW: SC has come up with a different analysis with a different
conclusion.
o
Changes of the composition of the justices in the SC.
Now there are moves in the HOR to impeach the justices due
to flip-flopping.
When the SC realized that they commit an error, they try to
correct it.
BERNABE: main decision.

CONTEXT (substantive):
1. Congressional Pork Barrel (found in the GAA).
2. Presidential Pork Barrel.
a. Malampaya
b. PAGCOR (Presidential Social Funds).
How the court defined the context.
1. Pork-barrel system (for local purposes):
a. Lump-sum funds.
b. Discretionary.
2. Congressional pork barrel: various post-enactment
control of the legislators.
3. Presidential pork barrel: no specific guidelines.
There is already an appropriation.
There is NO STANDRAD for the use of the
funds.
If funds are going to be appropriated for a public
purpose, and these are not part of the GAA but
a continuing appropriation, so that there is no
violation of separation of powers and there is no
undue delegation of power, there must be a
STANDARD.
Otherwise, the Congress has relinquished its
power to legislate.
WHAT
IS
THE
WHOLE
IDEA
OF
APPROPRIATION?
The people are deciding how to use their money
through their representatives.
How the money is going to be spent becomes a
COLLECTIVE DECISION of the people.
Can that collective decision of the people be
delegated? GENERALLY, NO. But there are
instances of a valid delegation when the people
had set for standards on the exercise of that
particular power.
ROLE OF EXECUTIVE: implement the GAA
only.
Why cant Congress just appropriate a lumpsum? Why cant we give the whole three trillion
pesos for that particular item? ISSUE OF
ACCOUNTABILITY. Public office is a public
trust.
The analysis was completely different in PHILCONSA because
they did not even try to define the Pork Barrel System and just
looked straight away in that particular provision in the 2004
GAA.
Here, before the SC went to the analysis, defined the terms
that were the basis of the analysis.
Lump-sum; discretionary.
ISSUES (Congress and President):
1. Seperation of power (WON there has been usurpation
of power).
o
The Court did not even go to
o
USURPATION: if it used power belonging to
another branch; if they allow the other branch to
exercise their power.
NO. 2
Legislators actually identify the projects to be financed

under the PDAF.
NO. 3
Identification of projects by legislatures is mandatory on

the executive.
NO. 4
Requires favourable endorsement (CATEGORICAL

Page 13 - Bantay
APPROVAL) of the Congressional Committees in case

of any revision or modification VETO.
3.
Funds of the PDAF. Other Congressmen are

borrowing from one another so it can get more for
DepEd and getting less from DPWH.
-
NO. 5
They have to be the traffic center: needs to go

to the Committees (walang lamangan).
All requests for release of funds shall be favourably

endorsed by Congressional Committees.
4.
DBM Cir. 547: required written endorsement of the

Speaker
or
Senate
President
+
favourable
endorsement.
THERE IS A VIOLATION OF SEPERATION OF

POWERS: Congress was usurping the power of
the Executive. Congress was exercising a
power of the Executive.
o
POWER OF OVERSIGHT: the only power it can
exercise through legislative inquiry or to call the
ordinary committee hearing to explain how they
are progressing with their projects.
o
Did one branch go beyond its boundary? YES.
Congress exercises power than under the
constitution are powers of the executive.
o
Who makes the proposal? THE PRESIDENT,
but for PDAF, it is the legislator. WHY? Their
concurrence of the project is mandatory.
o
Can Congress realign after the approval of the
GAA?
POWER
TO
ALIGN
IN
INTRADEPARTMENTS.
WON there has been an undue delegation. YES.
o
LEGISLATION: delegation is prohibited? NO.
o
When is it impermissible or undue delegation of
power? The legislation is an undue delegation
of power. If there is no law, then that is
usurpation.
o
When the law is NOT COMPLETE.
o
What is the content of the law? Why is it an
undue delegation? It set for the delegation
without providing for the standards.
o
COMPLETE: there must be delegation and
standards.
o
Why are the standards important? If there are
standards, then it is still within the legislatives
power. If it does not provide with standards,
then the other branch will be exercising that
power (transfer of power through delegation).
o
The power still stays in the legislature. It just
gave the other branch to fix the other details of
implementation.
o
INTRA-DEPARTMENT DELEGATION: all within
the legislative branch. May the decision-making
be delegated within the particular department?
Another category of delegation.
Cannot be allowed. Cannot even be
cured by providing for standards.
o
WHAT
WAS
UNDULY
DELIGATION:
delegation within the branch; INTRABRACH
DELEGATION; to identify the expenditure.
There is just a lump-sum without knowing how it
will be spent for.
o
2.
5.
6.
It happens AFTER the budget has been

approved.
Checks and balance: item veto of the President.
o
Item: appropriation of a specific expenditure.
o
Why is there a violation here? Because there is
no item to veto actually.
o
It took away the power of the President to do in
item veto for those covered by the PDAF. It
prevented a line-item veto for the items in the
PDAF.
Accountability.
o
There is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
o
Sec. 14 of Art. VI: financial interest.
o
Court said that there is a financial interest in the
passing of the PDAF, GAA. Assumed that all
legislators are like that.
o
The Court, without taking judicial notice: every
project, legislators make money.
Political dynasties: NON-ISSUE.
o
NO BASIS.
Local autonomy.
o
Local development councils: to set the
development priorities of that particular area.
Where we should build a road?
o
What happens in the PDAF. It renders them
nugatory. The money that should be allocated
for the regions which is to fund development,
were not reach the area. Rather, the money will
be spent in accordance with the whimsical
choices of the legislators.
PRESIDENTIAL PORK BARREL:

-
The Court is sided on what theory? UNDUE DELEGATION.

This is an appropriation based on a REVOLVING FUND. It is
replenished. There is a revenue-generating mechanism so the
fund is continuously replenished.
If that is the case, how will you provide for an appropriation? IT
SHOULD BE IN THE LAW IN ITSELF, not the GAA.
Continuing legislation.
What is the role of the President?
MALAMPAYA: royalties, taxes are the sources of the fund.
o
Provided for in the Constitutional provision on
exploitation of natural resources.
PAGCOR: earnings from the casinos are the sources.
What are going to examine? THE LAW in the context of its
COMPLETENESS. WON the law is complete.
Does it provide for an appropriation? YES. But since it is a
revolving fund, then as to the specific expenditures, that would
now have to be delegated. That is dangerous. Thats why the
requirement is for that something to be complete, it must not
just provide for delegation, but also for STANDARDS
(LIMITATIONS).
MALAMPAYA: energy resource development and exploitation
of the government, and as such other purposes that may
hereafter be directed by the President.
o
It provides for a standard, yes. Isnt that delimited
enough? YES.
o
The next clause effect: opens the door for everything
that the President can possibly think of.
o
As far as the first part is concerned, it is COMPLETE.
That is valid.
o
When it now goes to the exist clause, that in effect
provides the President of untrammelled discretion on
how to spend the money.
Page 14 - Bantay
Ejustem generis: there is NO ENUMERATION. There is

only one enumeration. If there are three, then you can
determine the limits set by Congress. The second
clause, you cannot determine the limit.
o
Why is NOT THE WHOLE LAW unconstitutional?
Principle of seperability. Only the offending provision
will be excised.
PAGCOR: calamity is too broad. Has no standard at all.
o
It is practically anything.
o
How did the Court treat the PAGCOR fund?
Contingency fund. They are allowed. It is something
that you have to prepare for but hope will not happen. If
it something that definitely can happen, that is a subject
of legislation.
Standby fund.
Calamity fund for LGUs (certain percentage
which is always set aside).
o
Treating that second purpose for calamities as a valid
appropriation is in the same nature of providing a
contingency fund.
o
Priority infrastructure development projects it has to
be programmed need for an appropriation of the
Congress.
Even if it is a PAGCOR fund, can the Congress
still set guidelines? YES. If it really is a
development fund, there should be a program.
o
UNDUE delegation of the power of the Congress to the
President.
o
SEPARATE OPINION:
-
CARPIO: he agreed with everything but he wanted to add

something more.
o
The idea of the lump-sum.
o
GENERAL STATEMENT: LUMP-SUMS of any sort will
be abused.
Sereno said you cannot at this point say. Its a
criminal issue.
o
Concentrated on government line agencies.
o
SERENO: this is not the proper case to talk about that.
The issue now is the PORK BARREL.
o
COAs job to determine if it has been unlawfully used.
o
Court: PDAF is discretionary and lump-sum.
o
What he was writing was going to be part of his
separate opinion in the DAP cases.
o
BRION concurred.
LEONEN: laying the basis for the DAP. Is there any particular
provision of law being questioned? NONE.
As a rule, while the rules on due process in criminal cases is

very strict, in administrative cases, they do not adhere to
technical rules of procedures.
There is still requirement of notice and hearing.
ANG TIBAY VS. CIR

-
4 cardinal rules:
1. Hearing.
2. Must be given chance to provide evidence.
3. Decision must be decided based on substantial
evidence.
4. Tribunal must be impartial.
The decision still lies at the head of the agencies. The head is
Speedy disposition of cases: how long it takes to decide on

cases (ONG).
Do the requirements of due process apply on schools (private
schools).
NON VS. DAMES
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
not bound by the findings and recommendations of the hearing

officer.
It does not necessary mean that the person who conducted the
hearing is the same one who will decide on the case: ONLY A
RECOMMENDATION.
Is the right to appeal a requirement for due process? (NUNEZ
VS. SANDIGANBAYAN: SC directly and will only rule on
questions of law). They are saying that there must be another
court that will answer questions of facts. BUT THERE IS NO
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS. It is not one of the rights
guaranteed. The law itself provides for its procedures. The SC
is not completely deprive of discretion in order to review, revise
or modify of the Sandiganbayan (CFI).
Administrative and procedural due process: is it applicable to

private schools?
There was a demonstration going against the increase of
tuition fees.
PRIVATE SCHOOL: some students are expelled from school.
ISSUE: Do they (students) have rights? YES. Students do not
shed their rights when they enter the school gates. This applies
even when they are in private schools.
What is their right? Right to finish your degree program once
enrolled. GENERAL: right to education.
Argument of the schools: the nature of enrolment is
CONTRACTUAL. Academic freedom.
If it is purely contractual, then the student has to look for their
own school next semester.
It is not just a mere contract.
Can the school deprive you of the right for the succeeding
semesters or school year? YES. Only if there is due process.
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS: you can only be denied reenrolment for just cause. You must also be first given the
chance to be heard.
The school expelled them. Can they be expelled for rallying?
NO. That will violate freedom of speech and peaceable
assembly.
SCHOOL: students were academically deficient. Is it a just
cause? YES. BUT were the students given due process before
they were expelled? NO.
The Court was invoking just cause.
Was there even any pretext of an academic deficiency?
THERE WAS NONE. They were not even given notice and a
chance to be heard.
Court: you allege they were academically deficient, but where
is the record?
Students enjoyed a particular right and the right must not be
infringed without due process. They cannot be arbitrarily
deprived of their right to enrol to another semester.
Everything must be provided in a manual to know if any action
constitutes a violation of it. They must also be given a chance
to present their case. There must be a showing that they failed
to meet the academic requirements.
MALABANAN: protesting the merger of the colleges. Students
rallied in the quadrangle. They disrupted classes. All of them
were dismissed. CJ Fernando said they have rights. Before
they can be expelled, they would have to be afforded due
process. SC added another requirement: there must be
proportionality between the offense and the penalty imposed.
The proper penalty would have been SUSPENSION.
ALCUAZ VS. PSBA: you just cant deprive students their right
to finish their courses.
Page 15 - Bantay
There is SUBSTANTIVE due process, which is basically looking at the

law and relation, reasonableness of thereof.
PROCEDURAL: notice and hearing: applies outside, not just

administrative or judicial cases.
What if your parents forbade you to go out after your classes? Is there
a violation of due process? NONE.
Do the rules apply? NO. What rules will apply? Family Code,
RA 9262, RPC (illegal detention).
They have parental authority over you.
It is only if they lock you up then that will be serious illegal
detention.
When your husband forbids you to go to law school. Violation?
YES. RA 9262.
LIBERTY means a whole parity of rights. We are talking about
a specific right. Due process is in relation to you being deprived
to life, liberty and property.
The first thing you need to look at is the right and what it
entails.
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without
due process of law.
EQUAL PROTECTION: all persons or things similarly must be similarly

treated both as to rights conferred and responsibility imposed.
-
PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF WHOM we are NOT

talking about equality.
REQUIREMENT: reasonable classification.
Those of are at the same class shall be treated on the same
way.
o
All children should be treated the same way.
o
All disabled children should be treated the same way.
Does that mean we can make distinctions? YES, as long as
they are valid.
Affirmative action: NOT a violation of equal protection (i.e.
indigenous people).
REQUISITES:
1. REASONABLE: based on substantial distinction that
makes for real differences.
o
You can only find out if there is substantial
distinction if you know what the PURPOSE is.
o
ANG LADLAD: historical discrimination and they
are preferred to be he representatives.
2. GERMANE to the purposes of the law.
o
Then you are going to test would really serve he
purpose.
o
Those who will want to provide medical care for
the people (UP Med: 50-50). Males are more
dispassionate; kids are more comfortable to
female paediatricians.
3. Not limited to existing conditions only.
4. Equally applicable to all members of the same lass.
All of these will not operate in a vacuum. They only apply when
you know what the purpose of the legislation.
DEC. 14, 2013

EQUAL PROTECTION
-
Elements of equal protection.
The constitution in Art. 3, Sec. 1: second part: equal protection

clause.
Equal protection goes hand in hand with due process.
Often times, you will see both as the bases for challenging a
particular legislation.
Sometimes, due process is entangled with equal protection.
Substantive (reasonableness) and procedural due process.
o
Reasonableness of treating one group from another.
o
Distinctions.
There is a commonality between equal protection and due
process and it has to do with DISTINCTIONS.
The test of distinctions is WON in making that distinction, such
is reasonable (germane and considerable considering the
circumstances).
RUBI: due process component; brought into play equal
protection component also.
Thats the reason why when the law says due process, it also
talks equal protection in the same provision.
CONTEXT: of rights, limitations / denial of a certain rights of a
certain group.
We talk of limitations of certain rights. thats the reason why we
talk of due process and equal protection in that same context.
When we become constitutional lawyers, when you file
petitions questioning a constitutionality of an ordinance or a
law, when you say equal protection, never forget to raise the
issue of substantive due process.
o
You can talk about due process without calling into play
equal protection.
What does equal protection mean?
Four requisites: SECOND (germane): seems to limit the inquiry
within the confines of the particular law.
o
If there is an RA, we have to take a look at those
distinctions and hence the issue of EP and DP only in
that particular RA.
CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOC vs. BSP

-
Another perspective on how to contextualize the EP argument.

The SC went beyond the RA being questioned and looked at
the RA In the context of all other RAs of the same categories /
effect.
RELATIVE CONSTITUTIONALITY: compare the RA to the
other RAs creating other GFIs.
WHAT IS BEING CHALLEGED: Sec. 15(c): what is it all about?
A distinction between officers and RAF as to their salaries.
What is this distinction provided for? All officers are exempted
from the Salary Standardization Law, while the RAFs are not.
Hence, the officers can be offered rates that are competitive to
the private sectors.
Isnt that discriminatory? NO.
Is there a valid distinction between officers and RAF
employees? YES.
Same distinction with the private sector, actually.
Its the RESPONSIBILITY. Officers make decisions.
When they make the wrong decisions, they can be
kicked out.
There is no just cause.
Management will just say: loss of confidence.
BAD DECISION: one that will result to loss of profit or
income.
Thats why this people are only useful if they bring in
money.
The RAFs DO NOT have to bring the money. They just
do clerical tasks. They are not concerned with the profit
reliability of the banks.
The OFFICERS OF THE BANK are evaluated to
performance = pesos and dollars.
Page 16 - Bantay
Does that apply to Central Bank? YES. It is supposed

to general income.
They need to regulate the banking industry and that the
RP is financially stable by managing the foreign
reserves of the Philippines.
We need to have surplus of the foreign reserves.
TWO-STEP NALYSIS:
1. Distinction within the RA.
2. Look at the RA In relation to other RAs governing GFIs.
Is that germane? YES. Will that apply now and in the future?
YES. Do they treat the people on the same class the same?
YES.
THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION but SC
cannot turn a blind eye to the universe of GFIs.
Other GFIs who are supposed to make money: PDIC, GSIS,
LBP, DBP, SSS.
The national government is actually subsidizing the GFIs but
that is a matter of policy.
It is the Congress exempting everyone in those GFIs =
MATTER OF POLICY. That is something for the Congress to
determine.
SSL IS AN RA. If Congress can create it, they can create
exemptions: ALL EMPLOYEES OF GFIs. And the Court cannot
inquire to such.
Thats the reason why Congress, last year, created a body to
oversee GOCCs because it seemed that the primary business
of GOCCs is for its officials to get many perks irrespective of
PROFITABILITY.
Congress CANNOT TAKE IT BACK = vested right. Once you
exempt, its already vested.
Whats the only option of the Court? SC: if you look at the RA,
theres no violation but then, considering what Congress has
done to all other GFIs, it is enough that we confine our inquiry
to that RA creating the Banko Central.
We have to look at all the RAs creating other GFIs.
Court: looked at the Cebntral Bank vis--vis other GFIs. Is
there a valid distinction? NONE.
In a class of one (CB) and of the many (GFIs).
Using the same framework, but enlarging the universe.
While there is no violation, once we put the CB in the
context of the whole universe of GFIs, we will see that
the distinction was made WITHOUT reasonable basis,
resulting in discrimination.
VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION.
Will you now create a separate class? NO, they are similarly
situated.
RA 7907 + 8282 + 8289 + 8291 + 8523 + 8763 + 9302 =
consequential unconstitutionality of challenged proviso.
SUMMARY: looking on all those RAs, is there a valid
substantial classification? THERE IS NONE?
But all of these RAs were issued AFTER the RA creating CB
was enacted. So what is he Court supposed to do in that RA? If
Court will validate it, it will be applicable it to all GFIs.
JUDICIAL LEGISLATION: exempted everyone from the SSL
IMPLIED CHANGE IN THEIR INTENTION.
DECLARED POLICY: all employees of GFIs should be exempt.
Without a law, Congress should be deemed to have the
intention of exempting them.
By so declaring that policy, the Court did not amend the CB
Law. The Court just interpreted the policy announced in the
subsequent laws = NO VIOLATION OF SEPARATION OF
POWERS. Not the same as People vs. Ritter (Court blamed
the Congress for not passing a law).
The fact that Congress did not challenge the decision, implies
that it indeed intended to do so deliver fairness and justice
at the earliest possible time.
ICHONG VS. HERNANDEZ

-
Removal of franking privileges of the SC.
Chinese retailers questioning the Retail Trade

Nationalization Law.
After the lapse of grace period, all retail outlets are to be owned
by Filipino to break the stranglehold of the Chinese to the
monopoly of the retail business.
1. Bookkeeping Law: cannot keep bookkeeping if not in
English, Spanish and Filipino.
2. Anti-Alias Law: required everyone to register their name
and their alias (family name + surname).
All of these three laws were enacted to break the stranglehold
of the Chinese in Philippine trade and commerce.
Would this violate equal protection? Petitioner said the law
singles out foreigners, specifically Chinese.
Filipinos can, foreigners cannot.
VALID SUBSTANTIAL DISTINCTION because of the loyalty
and allegiance of the Filipinos.
If you are a foreigner and you make money, your country, not
the Philippines, will benefit.
Purpose of the law: FOR THE MONEY TO STAY IN THE RP
AND TO GET REINVESTED THERE.
Do you want your retail trade to the hands of those who are not
loyal to you? NO. Same reason as exploitation of national
resources and real estate.
Court: THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION
because there is a valid distinction between foreigners and
Filipinos.
DUMLAO VS. COMELEC

-
PHIL. JUDGES ASSOC. VS. PARDO
Why are they complaining? Other branches retained their

franking privileges.
Why did postmaster revoke the franking privileges? The Phil.
Postal Corporation was losing profit. So much is eaten up by
the Judicial Branch.
If the Judiciary will pay, they will finally make money.
Ordinary people are not sending correspondents by mail. Only
those using are government agencies and they do not pay.
Franking privileges of legislators: to tell their constituents an
ulat ng bayan.
The Courts mail everything! Why? Because of procedural due
process. Notice is required for everything.
Business-wise, there is a basis for withdrawing the franking
privileges of the Court.
Problematic: NO VALID DISTINCTION. Legally and
constitutionally, can you make a distinction? NO VALID ONE.
Why are franking privileges given? OBJECTIVE OF A
FRANKING PRIVILEGE? To expedite communication between
government and people, and where is that more needed? In
the judicial branch.
Is there a distinction between those over 65 and those who are

younger, as far as the Omnibus Election Code is concerned?
Government retirees can no longer run for public office.
Dumlao wants to run and the COMELEC said he was too old.
Will a distinction as to public office as regards to age be a valid
distinction? YES.
The Election Law provides for age classification, is that valid?
YES.
Why disqualifying over 65 valid? OBJECTIVE: to encourage
younger people to run. But does that mean that those over 65
are incompetent? NO. It has to do with younger people.
WHY? Younger people are excluded for the political
process.
Thats why there is a lot of dissention
(counterproductive).
Page 17 - Bantay
Why is there an age classification for being a President?

DISCERNMENT (experiential). There is a certain level of
wisdom that needs to be attained through age. The President
to be the head of state, he must have a certain kind of
discernment.
ANG LADLAD VS. COMELEC

-
COMELEC made a determination that Ang Ladlad cannot be

considered a political party because of IMMORALITY.
The reason why Ang Ladlad is running is to advocate for
change (same as for womens, jeepney drivers).
The COMELEC made a determination based on moral
grounds: its having sex with a person of the same sex =
immoral (COMELEC)
Court: there is no law that prohibits such.
In other countries, there is a law. In the RP, there is no law. In
the absence of a law, can the COMELEC make a
determination that such conduct is immoral? NO.
Court: it is no longer prohibited, it is actually being
accepted.
The Court can actually invalidate a marriage if there
has not been sex between couples.
If you invoke religious books VIOLATION OF
CONSTITUTION: of the separation of the State and the
Church.
DIFFERENT KIND OF CONCEPT OF EQUAL PROTECTION:
from an international law which is deemed to be part of the law
of the land through the incorporation clause.
Equal protection = non-discrimination.
Why would disqualifying Ang Ladlad be a violation of equal
protection in an international law perspective?
ANG LADLAD: they are marginalized and underrepresented.
NO DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX.
Sec. 25, ICCPR: every citizen shall have the right and the
opportunity, without any of the distinctions.
Theyre marginalized and underrepresented because the
society is shunning them so ALL THE MORE REASON FOR
THEM TO BE GRANTED accreditation.
BUT they did not win :P
What is the context of the claim of the religious people here? It

was a closed shop agreement.
To remain employed, you have to be a member of the union.
Why does the law allow closed shopped agreements? Very
common in the US. The objective is to protect employees from
unfair labor practices. An employer also wants that because it
provides stability. Its mutually beneficial.
The religion of the employees has been invoked as an
exception of a closed shop agreement. The old labor law
recognized that exemption: religious exemption from
compulsory membership for a closed shop agreement.
Wouldnt such exemption be violative of equal protection
because apparently now, members of a religion are being
favoured?
Is that a violation of equal protection? NO. Why not? All
employees should be treated in the same way so why would a
religion exemption be violative of equal protection? Why is it a
valid distinction?
What is your universe here? OBJECTIVE: INDUSTRIAL
PEACE; to maintain labor and harmony in the labor front.
What distinctions are allowed in labor relations? Management,
technical classification based on function.
Management vs. RAF: valid distinction; Technical vs. RAF:
valid distinction.
Would a distinction based on religion be valid?
CONTEXT: If you are a Catholic, and you refuse to join a
union, you will be fired. But if you are a member of INC, you are
allowed not to join a union. Is that valid? YES (the whole idea
of freedom of religion).
Whos going to make the distinction between one religion and
another?
Employment PROPERTY. Religion LIBERTY; a preferred
right.
Does it matter what your religion is as far as labor relations?
NO. But that has to be respected by the State, unless it is
shown to be contrary to public policy.
YES, it may result in benefits that are merely incidental with the
respect accorded to a specific religion.
Courts CANNOT inquire into why religions require their
members not to be part of a union.
TATAD VS. SEC. DEPT OF ENERGY

ARCIA VS. DRILON
-
Someone was issued a TPO and is claiming that it was

violative of equal protection.
Garcia: men are being discriminated; women are being
favoured in RA 9262. They are the ones only being protected
by the law, and not men being abused by their partners, as
well.
Will that by itself make RA 9262 unconstitutional?
ANALYSIS (CLASSICAL):
1. Distinction: YES, substantial; women are prone to
victimization.
They are more vulnerable including their
children.
By looking at the statistics.
2. Germane: YES
3. Not limited to existing conditions: YES.
4. Apply equally to all members: YES, women who are in
relationships.
The RA is constitutional for it is borne out of the substantial
distinction brought out by the vulnerability of women.
VICTORIANO VS. ELIZARDE ROPE WORKERS UNION (religion)

Can we apply equal protection in business? YES.

Oil Deregulation Law: 1) tariff differentiation; 2) requirement for
inventory.
1. Imported finished / refined product: 7%
2. Imported crude oil: 3%
PURPOSE OF THE LAW: to encourage setting up of refineries
here.
If you are going to import, you must have an inventory of a
certain number of days.
Challenged by new and small players by invoking equal
protection. Why? It implementation, petitioners think that it will
favour big companies. IT FAVORS VERTICAL INTEGRATION.
Competition Law: it means all aspects will now be in the control
of the big companies.
Where does the raw material coming from? ABROAD, from the
oil firms of the Big Three. Everything from exploration to
production to shipping to retailing, are part of that integration.
As the big ones, they can now engage in predatory pricing and
can price their products that no one can actually compete with
them.
Kaya vertical: they control EVERYTHING, not just the retail
outlets (horizontal) it keeps the oligopoly.
They wont be able to complete.
Test: the law in effect made a distinction between new ones
and old and established one.
PURPOSE: to lower prices to bring in new players: NOT
GERMANE. Its the complete opposite.
Page 18 - Bantay
What the law did is actually to discriminate against actual

players.
ANOTHER WAY OF ANALYZING: actual application because
on its face, it might not look unconstitutional. The effect might
be the reverse of the intent.
Deregulating the oil industry must be done by utmost caution,
case in point, the case at bar.
If you compare the numbers, the number of searches pursuant

to warrant is very small and very rare. Oftentimes, searches are
being done without a warrant under any of the excuses.
o
ONLY STONEHILL and BURGOS.
What happens when the person agrees with the search, is he
deemed to have consented to the search? NO.
o
The consent must be done with KNOWLEDGE and with
FULL VOLITION.
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

STONEHILL VS. DIOKNO
-
Specific rights: right to life, liberty and property

cannot be
deprived or limited without due process and equal protection.
o
PRIVACY.
Technical = unreasonable searches and seizures (Rule 126).
GENERAL RULE: the state can search and seize without a
WARRANT.
WARRANT: judge order:
1. Probable cause of an alleged crime.
2. Things: subject of the crime; the instruments used in
the crime; the fruits of the crime.
o
Crime against property: subject: thing taken.
Instrument: what was used to get it; fruits: the
profits that you got from the taking.
3. The place place where those things can be found.
Addressed to police officers (for 10 days).
Police officers must report back to the court what they had
seized and will be deemed to be in the custody of the court.
o
Once an inventory was provided: under judicial custody
(public property).
o
Vulnerable ti misappropriation.
o
Considered as evidence.
How is the search to be conducted?
1. Notice.
2. Witness (owner, barangay).
3. Day time (except under exceptional circumstances).
WHEN WARRANT IS NOT NEEDED (People vs. Aruta):
1. Search pursuant to a valid arrest.
2. Plain-view doctrine.
3. Search of a moving vehicle.
4. Check point.
5. Consented search SM megamalls.
6. Custom search.
7. Stop and frisk.
8. Exigent and emergency circumstances.
What does the Constitution says for the right to unreasonable
searches and seizures for it to be protected and respected?
Sec. 2.
o
Constitution provided for a mechanism.
o
CONTROL MECHANISM: EXCLUSION OF ILLEGALY
OBTAINED EVIDENCE.
Inadmissible as evidences.
Even if the prosecution presents it, the judge
should not admit it as evidence.
Can that be waived by the accused? YES, if he
did not question the legality of the search.
The fruit of the poisoned tree.
Poisoned tree: search.
Fruit: evidence.
If the search is unlawful, then the evidence
cannot be considered.
Motion to quash based on the illegality of the
search.
o
Technical matters.
1.
2.
3.
-
The crime: RPC, Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws,
Internal Revenue Code.
The things: in the case at bar, everything, except furniture.
The place.
Whats wrong with the determination of crime? Cannot possibly
establish a probable cause.
PROBABLE CAUSE: such reasons, supported by facts and
circumstances, as will warrant a cautious man in the belief that
his actions and the means in presenting it, are legally just and
proper.
KEY: statement of what the crime was.
Search warrants: how can you connect the things to the
crime when you do not know what the crime is?
The only way you can determine the relationship with
the things with the crime is if you know what the crime
is.
There was NO SPECIFICATION so you cannot possibly
connect the things with the crime.
How does anything and everything relate to the crime? WE DO
NOT KNOW.
Whats the real story here? It was alleged that Stonehill has a
little black book with the names of the officials and how much
he pays them, including the highest officials of the state.
Fishing expedition: the rule before was anything used can be
used against the accused (Moncado rule).
The US has recently changed the rules because the Moncado
rule was based on the US jurisprudence. Common law cause
of actions against damages against those who would violate
the law is not actually effective. Police officers were just either
inventing things in the warrant or not even getting warrants at
all. There was a common law actions damages (relief found in
Art. 32 of the CC). Despite this, police officers are not
respecting that right and this were being admitted by the
Courts.
The lawyers of the petitions are the precursors of the modern
day law firms in the Philippines so you can see why this case is
very pivotal in constitutional (signalled a change in
jurisprudence; the opportunity of revising it) and political history
(Stonehill fled and his assets were taken over by ).
Because of this, the ruling in Stonehill became a paragraph in
the Constitution (1973, 1987) for privacy of communication and
search and seizures.
IMPORTANT CASE: the ruling is now part of the Constitution.
BURGOS VS. CHIEF OF STAFF

-
Whats wrong with the warrant?

1. Crime: YES, subversion (PD).
The act of subverting; as overthrowing or
destroying a legally constituted government
2. Things: everything is not related to the crime.
Newspapers, motorcycles, typewriters.
It has nothing to do with the membership.
If they have stated the propaganda material for
CCP.
What is the relationship between the crime and
Page 19 - Bantay
the things? NONE.

Actually, the only purpose is to shut down the newspaper as it
was critical against the government.
DURING MARTIAL LAW. The judge would have signed
everything.
PROBABLE CAUSE: establishing the relationship of the crimes
and the things and the places.
DEC. 21, 2013

PRIVACY
-
IN GENERAL: the right to be left alone.

SPECIFICALLY: ones home.
o
Was enshrined in the Constitution of the US in the 4th
Amendment.
COMMUNICATION: how to enforce it STONEHILL VS.
DIOKNO)
o
Exclusionary rule.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: extended to privacy of ones person.
o
Protecting ones person from being searched.
o
Terry vs. Ohio: mentioned in the commentaries.
o
Aspect of liberty: thats why the framework can be
found in due process.
For all of these, the court has developed certain tests. We have
concepts like probable cause (to protect privacy along those
lines judicially developed concept).
o
Presupposes an independent judge that can determine
if there was a sufficient basis using the prima facie
evidences to justify an INTRUSION.
All of these are actually tied together: CONTEXT
protecting
the integrity of person whether it be in his person, in his
personality, in his home, in his communications.
o
Home will include all of his papers and effects.
o
Provision against unreasonable searches and seizures.
EXCLUSIONARY RULE: mechanism provided for in the 1987
Constitution and was expanded to communication.
From the cases, it will be applied to privacy of the immediate
person / individual (physical person).
CONTEXT: protection given by the state in the concept of a
protection against UNWARRANTED and UNREASONABLE
INTRUSIONS BY THE STATE.
We might say, as society becomes more complex, its very
difficult to say that you can be left alone. That you have to be
left alone.
We are concerned more on STATE INTRUSION. Its not based
on congestion of the community; it is NOT interpersonal
(exception: public figure doctrine).
OUR FOCUS: protection of the individual from unreasonable
state intrusion of his privacy.
There are certain situations where the Court (based on jurisprudence)

has allowed searches without warrants.
-
PROBLEMATIC: because standards are elastic.

US: 1960s pursuant to a liberal perspective, there has been
tighter implementation that everything that is questionable will
result to inadmissibility of evidence.
Fortunately, in the Philippines, the EXCLUSIONARY RULE is
already part of the Constitution. A whole cottage industry has
developed among lawyers in using it to the fullest. End
objective: trying to cause the acquittal of the accused based on
the inadmissibility of the primary evidence which is usually real
evidence seized from the accused. The theory being that if
such real evidence is excluded, there is no other evidence

against the accused, hence, there is reasonable doubt
accused should be acquitted.
SC has provided for 7 (8?) general exceptions for requirement
of a warrant for a search and seizure:
1. Consented search.
2. Plain view doctrine.
3. In checkpoints.
4. Warrantless search pursuant to a warrantless arrest.
5. Searching of moving vehicles.
6. Custom searches.
7. Stop and frisk.
8. Emergency and extingency.
Provided the standards based on the decisions of the SC and
we will see the combination of many of these in each of the
different pages.
If the exception cannot be established, the evidence is
inadmissible and in the absence of that evidence, there is
reasonable doubt CRIMINAL CASE.
PEOPLE VS. MARTI

-
They want to send a package outside the country.

Reyes opened the package because it is an SOP to do so
he bears the forwarding company if there is a violation of
Customs and Tariff Laws (courier).
When they opened, they found dried marijuana leaves and they
brought to NBI for testing.
Marti was charged under the Dangerous Drugs Laws.
HIS ARUGMENT: the search was illegal. It seems to be a
logical argument. Was the search without a warrant within one
of the established exceptions? It is not consented, it is not a
Custom search.
FLAW ARGUMENT: the protection is a protection against
actions of agents of the State. If it is the State who wants to
search, there should be a warrant because it is a check to
prevent and abuse (the judges findings).
CONTROL MECHANISM.
We are providing protections against the State alone. In this
case, was there a search conducted by the agents of the
State? NONE.
What about the NBI? The NBI just conducted the test to
determine the material that was submitted for testing. It is the
owner who made the search.
If there is any action against the forwarding company, it is not
by invoking the Constitution. You only invoke it against: CIVIL
ACTION for damages (Art. 32) no relation here. This is a
criminal case.
There was no participation of the State: the evidence cannot be
excluded.
DOCTRINE: the protection provided for will only apply when
the search is conducted by agents of the State as it is a
protection against the abuse of the case.
PEOPLE VS. ARUTA

-
Very specific descriptions in the case: an old woman called

Aling Rosa will be arriving from Baguio to Olongapo aboard a
Victory Liner bus with a bag carrying marijuana.
Upon her arrival, she was crossing the street from the terminal.
Upon looking in her bag, she was charged and arrested.
Is the marijuana admissible? Because the only basis of
conviction was its conviction. NO, IT IS NOT.
THEORY OF THE STATE: it was a valid (there was no enough
time to get a warrant).
CIRCUMSTANCES: the information was gotten in the morning
and Aling Rosa arrived at night. The Courts were open so they
Page 20 - Bantay
could have easily obtained a warrant.

Granted there was no warrant, are the exceptions present?
NOT consented because no testimonial was given for express
and with full knowledge. NOT a valid search because she had
already alighted the bus (because the bus was moving). NOT
plain-view because it is not the bag that has to be plain-view, it
is the contraband. Was it in plain-view? NO. NOT stop and frisk
because there was no reasonable suspicion they already
have prior information.
Consistent with BURGOS: as long as there is an appreciable
period of time and the courts were open, and the officers could
have gotten a warrant, it will not be an exigency or an
emergency that will exempt.
DISTIGUISHED FROM PEOPLE VS. MALMSTEDT: they could
not have applied a warrant because they do not know it was
Malmstedt. They just had information that a certain foreigner
will be coming from Sagada with contraband. There are many
foreigners from Sagada, the police didnt know so they
established a checkpoint; also search of a moving vehicle.
He was carrying a pouch that is quite unusual.
Circumstances are not present in ARUTA.
ANIAG VS. COMELEC

-
CABALLES VS. CA: Kakawati leaves.

-
OBJECT: stolen transmission wires because it is expensive

and saleable. They are like thick cables. You can sell them
based on weight and they cost a lot.
Crime: theft of transmission wires.
The leaves covered the back of the jeepney and the wires were
inside the sacks. The police didnt know there were wires inside
because they are HIDDEN.
VALID SEARCH OF THE JEEP? NO.
NOT CONSENTED because the person in the jeepney did not
object. Why is the failure the jeepney driver not to object not
tantamount to consent? There must be a clear intention to do
so. In this case, the situation is something that can intimidate
the person; must be VOLUNTARY. You cannot just imply that
he did not object.
If the environment is intimidating, can you really object?
NOT MOVING VEHICLE because there was no reason.
NOT PLAIN VIEW because the wires are not sticking out.
NOT CHECKPOINT because there was no checkpoint.
NO STOP AND FRISK because it applies to persons, not to
vehicles.
Will the wires be admissible as evidence? NO.
1.
2.
3.
4.
A prior intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest.

The evidence was inadvertently discovered.
The evidence must be immediately apparent.
Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further
search.
WHICH COMES FIRST? ARUTA: search and seizure came first.

-
If there is a valid warrantless arrest, would that not constitute

another exception? Search of a valid arrest and not a case of
plain-view.
US authority (MORE LOGICAL):

1.
2.
3.
4.
VALMONTE VS. DE VILLA

Argument of VALMONTE: checkpoints per se are
unconstitutional.
Court: the checkpoints are not per se unconstitutional (making
it number 8). MEANING: you have to take the nature of the
checkpoint to determine whether it is unconstitutional.
Was Valmonte stopped? NO. THERE WAS NO PARTICULAR
MODE OF SEARCH THAT CAN BE QUESTIONED.
He is just a concern citizen: there is no basis to say that such
checkpoint is invalid.
In the absence of facts that show that Valmonte had been
stopped by Valmonte, then the Court cannot say that it is per
se unconstitutional.
REVERSE: there can be checkpoints which are not violative of
the Constitution.
WHEN ARE THEY REASONABLE (requirements):
1. It cannot be a moving checkpoint (must be fixed).
2. The authority conducting it must be made known (i.e.
Was the checkpoint unconstitutional? NO. It was a COMELEC

gun-ban checkpoint.
SEARCH was unconstitutional.
It was a moving vehicle so in conducting a search of a vehicle,
it must be done using the plain-view rules.
LOCATION OF THE GUNS: inside their cases and inside the
trunk.
POLICEMEN ARGUMENT: they asked him to open the trunk.
Is it then a consented search? They asked the driver. BUT
there was absence of intention to waive NO PROOF.
PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE (elements)
CHECKPOINTS: not one of the 7 but can there be a valid search?
COMELEC gun ban checkpoint).

Plain view. You are only allowed to look but not to open
ANYTHING. If there is something suspicious when you
look, it the thing that is suspicious. Unusual smell,
bloodstains.
US: plain smell doctrine by the canines.
You cannot be asked to get out. Only when you have a
suspicious thing in plain view that you can be asked to get out.
DANGER: they can plant something on it.
MARTI: same rules will not apply to persons not of the State.
3.
Law enforcements are authorized to seize.

The official must be in a place that he has a right to be
in.
The discovery of the evidence must be inadvertent.
It must readily be apparent that what the official has
discovered is evidence (subject: fruits, subject,
instruments).
It allows a search without a prior warrantless arrest.
STOP AND FRISK: the case of the man carrying a backpack and
walking past midnight.
-
What is a valid stop and frisk? The key here is the STOP.
For instance, I am a police officer 3 sitting in a carinderia. Then
someone walks along carrying a bag. I
asked him to open
his bag. Is that stop and frisk? NO.
It is the law enforcement doing the STOPPING and the
FRISKING.
There is no requirement that there is a crime.
Requirement:
Page 21 - Bantay
1.
What must he policeman be in the performance of? He

must actually be patrolling. We are talking of the police
officer.
o
Consented approach, moving vehicle, plain
view: we are talking of the person, not the police
officer.
2. What does he see? You see suspicious conduct.
o
When is the conduct of a person suspicious? It
has to do with a CRIME.
o
Is someone walking at 2AM carrying a
knapsack engaged in suspicious conduct? NOT
YET.
o
But what if you are conducting a patrol, there is
someone carrying a backpack, and when he
sees you, without you doing anything, he ran,
looking scared. Suspicious conduct? YES.
o
You see someone with a butt of what looks like
a real gun sticking out of his side. Stop and
frisk? NO. Plain view.
You stop him because of a suspicious conduct. There is no
need of plain view.
RA 4200: PRIVCY OF COMMUNICATION

-
Because of their nature, wire-taps and recordings are intrusive.

The rule is stricter than that of ordinary searches, but
exceptions are allowed.
In the US, there were exceptions where a warrant is not
needed for the purposes of monitoring communications. The
US has a Patriot Act that will allow the government, through the
department of homeland and security, to monitor
communications. The controversy now is that the US went
beyond its borders and has tapped communications of
important personalities (heads of other countries), even of its
own allies.
o
Part of their regular intelligence gathering.
Another issue: LEAKING GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS
(WikiLeaks).
CONTEXT: requirements in the Human Security Act / same as
wiretapping.
GAANAN VS. IAC

-
RAMIREZ VS. CA and GARCIA

-
RA 4200
-
Anti-Wire Tapping Law: may the parties themselves authorize?

YES. Deemed as a waiver.
Processes (judicial): the control mechanism is also a judicial
process. Why does it have to be a judicial process? Because it
is so easy to tap or to record and without that judicial control
mechanism, this will be prone to abuse. In what sense?
Extortion, blackmail.
If you waive, then that cannot be used.
NIXON: he himself produced the evidence of his wrong doing
because he himself taped all of his conversations in the Oval
Office. So he had to be asked to step down.
He lost his privilege.
What he did was to have everything in his office
recorded so when this is recorded, he is deemed to
have lost his privilege and thus, they can be
subpoenaed.
They were made public: the evidence of wrongdoing
was very clear. He either needs to resign or be
impeached. He resigned.
Why the law is strict about privacy of communication.
It was the execution of an affidavit of what the person

overheard. He was going to put on record (oral testimony or
written affidavit) of the things he or she heard.
They were trying to unlawfully negotiate the case.
HOW WAS THE COMMUNICATION OVERHEARD? Through
an extension line.
If that communication was unlawfully recorded, then that
cannot be used as basis in any proceeding. Here, the attack is
on the HOW. When the HOW would fall under the prohibition,
that will prevent the use of the information that as overheard.
Does the means fall within the prohibition? NO.
Only one of the parties knew that someone was listening.
It can be used as evidence. Is it because telephone extension
line is not mentioned?
The law is strictly construed against the state or the one
producing the evidence.
The parties, by using a telephone at that time, should have
known that there were extensions or party lines.
When you use a phone, you should know that anytime,
your conversation can be overheard.
By the nature of the apparatus used, you are deemed
to have party waived the privacy.
1960s: party-line or extension lines.
YES, the Court is not a lien, but that is only as far as the parties
concerned. They should have been fully aware of such.
Court was looking at it not just as an exclusion of the
prohibition, but also in using the instrument itself (you should
have been on guard that your communication is not really
private).
What if you are a party of the communication.

The employee wanted to use the communication for the
purpose of filing a case.
Issue of admissibility comes in. Can you use it as evidence?
NO.
Why not? What is the logic for such prohibition? RIGHT TO
PRIVACY TO COMMUNICATION.
Why can it not be used? How can you use the Constitution?
We are not even taking about the State in this case. Why cant
we allow this case a recording by one to be used as evidence
in a case against the other party? What if one party started
saying some things and you record it?
Its not a stranger recording the conversation; it was one of the
parties (NIXON).
Are communications private? YES. If he records it, HE
WAIVES HIS RIGHT. The other person who did not DID NOT
WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO PRIVACY. The protection accorded is
not lost. The right is not absolute.
Since there are two parties, the waiver of one does not mean
the loss of the right of the other. He still has that right and he
can invoke it.
WON he is a public figure or not, there was a waiver of right.
As long as the other person did not waive his rights, the
recording cannot be used against him.
Hayden: his recordings can be used against him. There is a
law, in fact, that protects victims as their consent is not
obtained.
NOT THE SAME AS Chitos case. They have not
waived their right. They were not the one who
PUBLISHED it.
If you are going to record something, what should you do?
THERE MUST BE AN EFFECTIVE WAIVER. Media person:
for the purpose of this interview, can you please identify
yourself deemed to be waiving your right.
NOTE: there is no such thing as privacy when you are
Page 22 - Bantay
committing a crime.
Someone was killing his wife and someone overhears
it.
OPLE VS. TORRES

-
PROBLEM: what if what was recorded was for instance a case of

sexual exploitation of children. Can that be used? YES. It was
transmitted over the Internet and it has lost its mantle of protection.
-
Paedophiles cannot complain as the Internet is public.
CCTV: no claim of privacy if you are in a public place.

-
There is no need to get the consent of the parties as they are in

a public place.
PRIVACY OF ONES PERSON

-
Have you ever been asked to submit your urine? YES, for
employment, immigration.
There are some cases where you have to submit something
THAT IS WITH YOUR CONSENT.
What if it is without your consent but you are required to do so?
SJS VS. DDB

-
Drug test for STUDENTS and EMPLOYEES.

Wouldnt that violate your right to privacy? YES it will but when
will it not violate students rights to privacy? Its about the
narrow intrusion. Focused and narrow.
When would drug test for students not in violation of the
Constitution? What would be a constitutionally permissible drug
testing scheme for students? Random and prevention and
referral, not for the purpose of prosecution.
ONLY STUDENT-ATHLETES: that has to do with the activity
which is sports. To ensure the integrity of the activity.
Special case.
It can only be permissible if it is random and for the purpose of
prevention and referral. Has that proved to be effective? NO,
based on the statistics. A very small number has been
detected.
Can we now require mandatory drug test? NO, that is an
intrusion to their privacy. Why can we allow limited intrusions to
their privacy? Its because minors have more limited rights in
the sense that there is still the exercise of parental authority
over them, and schools stand in loco parentis.
BETTER SYSTEM: good support systems.
EMPLOYEES: can you require all employees in the private
sector and public sector to undergo drug testing? YES.
Public employees: YES
AYER VS. CAPULONG: concept of public figure as a form of waiver of

your right to be left alone.
-
Accountability.
-
Private employees
Efficiency,
reputation,
reliability,
trust
and
confidence, service.
If Jollibee or McDonalds that his crews will not have visible

tattoos, will that be a violation of their rights? Will that be
applicable in schools? Will a school policy that says students
cannot have visible tattoos (if your wear shorts and t-shirt for
PE) be a violation of the rights?
THE RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE.
AO provided for the National Identification System. There will

be a national ID system wherein all persons who will be issued
IDs would have to provide certain personal information.
Why was it being challenged? Probable violation of right to
privacy. Why is it deemed unwarranted and unreasonable
when there are already existing systems where you are
required to submit personal information?
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM ABOUT IT? Is it the gathering of the
information itself that is of doubtful itself? NO.
SC:
1. Required by Congress, pursuant to law (GSIS,
Philhealth, SSS).
2. The law must clearly provide limits on the use of
information and accountability.
SC DID NOT say that the information cannot be required. In
fact, it already is. What is objectionable is if there was an
usurpation of functions and if accountability is not clear.
DATA PRIVACY LAW: provides for a system of ensuring a
valid use of information and accountability for its use.
Some information are considered sensitive information.
There is a danger that such information may be passed
around.
The Court starts out by saying that there is a right to privacy

(Dean Cortes).
Even without the provision, actually, there has been a right to
privacy recognized as with the American constitution.
EXCEPTION: when someone is considered a public figure, one
has deemed to have lost his right to be left alone.
MOVIE about the EDSA Revolution.
ENRILE does not want to be depicted at all in the movie. He
enjoined the Australian film-makers to stop filming?
Is the injunction against the filming valid?
ENRILE invokes his right to privacy. As a rule, people would
not want their life to be posted in public so he also did not want
to.
There will be no movie: RAMOS, ENRILE, SIN the three
main characters.
Can an injunction be issued to stop the movie? NO. NOT
POSSIBLE because that will be unhistoric (not historically
accurate).
There has to be an Enrile character.
1. Public officers.
2. Artists.
3. Athletes.
4. By virtue an event, has now of become of public
interest: the one who won the lotto, victim and accused
in a crime.
If there is an event, then that person cannot claim an absolute
right to privacy. In connection to that event, he is already a
public figure and has deemed to have loss his privacy.
SC: yes, one may have the right to privacy but because of
choice or accident, one has attained the status of a public
figure, the right of privacy is necessarily waived and he cannot
stop anyone from depicting such event.
PUBLIC FIGURE DOCTRINE: can you become a public figure
if you want to be left alone? YES. Even if you do want to be left
alone, if there are circumstances that will thrust you in the
limelight, then you cannot claim for absolute right of privacy or
to be left alone.
Cortes: JUSTICE CORTES child prodigy that was now a
homeless person. The fact that he is now homeless, that does
not divest him of his public figure status.
There are some people who may want to be in the public light
Page 23 - Bantay
We talk of speech not in the context of entertainment.

Its not going to a comedy bar. We talk of speech here
in the context of a system provided for in the
Constitution.
o
The protection of the right is provided for in the Organic
Law that sets a system founded on delegation of power
to the state.
o
Why is your right to peaceably assemble protected?
FOR ACCOUNTABILITY.
o
Trust comes with accountability.
o
Under our system, there is delegation, delegation of
power. You want the delegates to be made
accountable. What is the key in this process? SPEECH.
SPEECH means you being able to speak for redress of
grievances. You want to make the state accountable.
If there will be a limitation of speech, that would prevent the
delegate from being accountable to the people who delegated
the power in the first place.
o
Delegate (State) has a heavy burden for how the power
is being exercised.
o
You can criticize the DBM, the Court. And thats the
essence of the system.
SPEECH IS CENTRAL IN A SYSTEM THAT IS BASED ON
DELEGATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WHAT WAS
DELEGATED.
o
Thats the essence of democracy.
o
Democratic and republican: OUR system.
Without information, you cannot criticize and make the
delegate accountable. There must not be prior restraint unless
there is actual malice.
Even in all of these, the Court says there has to be a
STANDARD. In the analysis of these four components WON
there is a constitutionally permissible limitations, standards
would have to be applied.
STANDARDS/TESTS for what? Content-based or neutral?
but could not, hehe
JAN. 11, 2014

MIDTERMS: AUG. 25, 2014 (SATURDAY).
-
Coverage: up until the RIGHT TO INFORMATION.

Today: Speech, Press and Assembly.
Next meeting: Religion, Travel, Information.
Both essay type and multiple choice (be very careful with the
multiple choice).
o
READ THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CASES.
o
Everything in the multiple choice is literally from the
Constitution and the cases where doctrines are
announced.
o
TAKE NOTE: proper formulation of doctrines.
Vacations are for enhancement: catching up or do advance
reading.
SPEECH: most difficult part.

-
One of the preferred rights.

In our constitution: speech on the context of prohibition on
legislation.
Expression, press, and peaceable assembly.
2 provisions (speech and religion) only.
Even as we talk about speech, the cases have told us that the
constitutional analysis of speech involves 4 things:
FOUR COMPONENTS:
1. Information.
2. Prior restraint.
3. Circulation.
4. Punishment.
What the constitution means is that your access to information
must be guaranteed, there must be no restraint. You have the
right to circulate or to publish, or to disseminate the speech
without being subject to punishment.
Is speech absolute? NO. Even if it is preferred, what are its
constitutionally permissible limitations on speech? When can
there be limitations in information? When may there be prior
restraint? When may circulation be regulated? When will there
be punishment for speech that has been made?
Although the constitution provides for a prohibition on one
branch (legislative), speech would have to be regulated
(speech not articulated is just belief), then necessarily, other
branches of the government would have to be involved.
Legislation comes before, during, after (judicial) the speech.
WHAT IS THE RIGHT? SPEECH.
IS SPEECH ABSOLUTE? NO. Some power would have to be
exercised (power to regulate or to prohibit).
But since speech is protected, in fact it is preferred, to what
extent may the power be exercised focus of the cases.
Court: Asked to what extent there can be law, executive action
that can constitutionally, within constitutional bounds, limit
speech.
WHY IS SPEECH IMPORTANT? Why is protection also be
given to press (media), or actual assembly where speech is
articulated.
o
Sovereignty comes from the people and from them, it
flows to the State. State is operationalized through its 3
branches.
o
What is the essence of democracy?
PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS: CHAVEZ VS. GOVERNMENT

1.
2.
3.
Rational basis
Intermediate
Strict scrutiny
CONTENT-NEUTRAL
CONTENT-BASED
INTERMEDIATE: establishment
of the interest and the extent of
the limitation
BALANCING.
Strict scrutiny: the burden lies

with the GOVERNMENT to
establish a permissible standard.
RP: CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER.
Does the Court really understand Clear and Present Danger?

In some cases (Escuelas: Court applied the Dangerous
Tendency Test).
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER:
o
Applied in various ways.
o
There must be a showing of exactly how it is to be
applied in a case to know what is a PERMISSIBLE
LIMITATION is.
Court: you go beyond this, then that is
unconstitutional. If you do not go beyond that, it
is lawful.
Page 24 - Bantay
o
o
o
Does not really mean much unless you can analyze the
case and establish what the boundary is.
When have you gone beyond the constitutionally
allowable line?
History (Justice Holmes): you will see that while there
has been a refinement of that rule, in the Philippines,
because of laziness, the Phil. SC says everything is
actually clear and present danger (Eastern Telecoms).
NEW YORK TIMES VS. SULLIVAN

-
CHAVEZ VS. GONZALES

-
Who is imposing the limitation? NTC, Sec. of DOJ.

How did the Court look at this? Limitation contained in a written
issuance? Only that of KBP; private. Is it even covered by the
Constitutional limitation?
But KBP is self-regulatory. It is the industry regulating
itself.
There was no circular. They released a PRESS RELEASE of a
fair warning.
They can be held liable under the Wire Tapping Law.
How can now that be attributed to the State as a form of
limitation from the State? COERCIVE NATURE NTC IS A
REGULATORY BODY and when it expresses an opinion, even
if it is not stated as a circular, even if it is just in a form of press
release and there is a coercive nature.
It produces a chilling effect.
We are talking about a prior restraint. Such a
declaration of a regulative body has a coercive nature
shall constitute a prior restraint.
Best proof: the fact that the KBP issued the circular
among its members. They were in fact prevented from
airing it.
Isnt that a valid limitation? Isnt it that NTCs declaration has
some basis that you may in fact be held liable against the AntiWiretapping Law? NO. NOT PERMISSBLE.
THE AIRING OF THE TAPE: that is the speech itself, not the
tape. What is the protected speech: MEDIA PUBLISHING THE
TAPE.
Wouldnt that limitation be permissible?
If there is a violation, you become liable under the law, but that
is after you actually expressed the content. Its not before such
action. There is a violation only after a judicial proceeding. But
stopping it before it can be aired will not be allowed UNLESS
THERE IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER on an interest
that the State can protect.
NOT A PERSONAL INTEREST of the parties in that
communication.
If this was summoned by Congress, may Garcillano say
may he refuse to testify? YES. RIGHT TO SLEFINCRIMINATION; personal.
Personal right: Executive privilege.
The interest must be of the STATE, not private interest
because they have a remedy under the law.
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER: the very survival of the
State. If that speech is allowed, it can possibly bring down the
state. And that is the very philosophy of the law inciting to
SEDITION.
Sedition? Clapping or shouting (viva something); what
is inciting to sedition?
Because in shouting, there is an imminent danger of
taking action to take arms.
The Court went on to analyze the framework that was
explained by PUNO.
Even if it is not articulated as a written policy (guidelines), that
is already an expression of the States act of restraining. That
statement has produced a chilling effect that would effectively
restrain media from airing it. That cannot be allowed absent of
the showing of the real, imminent and clear danger of that
State itself, as distinguished from causing any injury or damage
to private individuals where they have a remedy under the law.
Police commissioner.
WHAT? Paid advertisement.
GROUND: what was stated is false.
The article was alluding that he was the one
responsible.
ISSUE: 4. PUNISHMENT. Will the newspaper be held
accountable for damages if some of the statements are proved
to be false?
LIABLE? NO.
There must be proof of ACTUAL MALICE.
SC: if you are a public official, since power has been delegated
to you, you have to be accountable. Statements criticizing you
are protected speech. Can it be expected that everything that is
said about you is correct? NO. But that does not matter
whether those are correct or not.
Was the statement in ad true or not? IT DOES NOT MAKE A
DIFFERENCE.
PUBLIC OFFICIALS: people can speak out their public officials
and they will not be punished unless to show that they acted
with ACTUAL MALICE.
The person knows they are false but he still continued
publication.
NY cannot be held liable under this publication. ONLY THOSE
WHO PAID FOR THE ADVERTISEMENT.
That speech is protected. There is punishment only when it
was shown to have been done with actual malice.
SWS VS. COMELEC

-
COMELEC banned publication of surveys: PRIOR

RESTRAINT.
What is being challenged? Constitutionality of Sec. 5.4 of the
election code.
NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM
OF SPEECH, etc. Was such a law passed that is an
impermissible limitation?
GOVERNMENT: to prevent the bandwagon effect. That has
happened in elections. Those who are behind really failed way,
way down the list and those at the top were hoisted way, way
up.
COMELEC: anti-democratic; level the playing field.
Based on merits and not on win-ability.
Is that a permissible limitation? NO.
OBrien Test (INTERMEDIATE TEST).
The states interest vs. damage to the right.
Does the states interest justify the injury or damage?
Court: what did the COMELEC failed to establish? What was
the flaw in its theory? PROOF OF THE CAUSAL RELATION
BETWEEN SURVEY RESULTS AND ELECTION RESULTS. It
can just be coincidence.
It can be the other way around that these are the
surveys result because this is what the people had
thought of already.
Should we even inquire into why they voted for a
particular candidate? NO.
As long as you cannot establish the detrimental effect of this
survey vis--vis actual voting: THERE IS NO BASIS.
RE: other countries: not applicable to the Philippines.
Even if we do prohibit SWS from publishing surveys, does that
prohibit other surveys? NO, by the candidates themselves,
which will really be BIASED in order to generate a bandwagon
effect.
Page 25 - Bantay
o
CHAPLINSKY VS. NEW HAMPSHIRE
-
What: calling other religions as racketeers and fascists.

Whats wrong with Chaplinsky? Can he be convicted for that?
YES. Why? What is so much of the words?
Its because of the COMMOTION, DISTURBANCE that it might
possibly cause (art. 142).
Why cant fighting words be protected?
SC here carved out a category of UNPROTECTED SPEECH:
lewd and obscene, profanity, libellous, slander, offensive
language, fight-provoking words.
They lost their protection BECAUSE they are WORTHLESS
and they have no redeeming value.
Not so much because it has a tendency to create disturbance
BUT BECAUSE some forms of speech have no redeeming
value.
Fuck the Draft: socially derisive despite potential
disturbance.
It has a redeeming value.
He is just demanding accountability: why are we being
dragged to war (height of the Vietnam war)?
Its just not because of potential of danger (dangerous
tendency test).
o
o
o
o
MILLER VS. CALIFORNIA

-
MVRS VS. ISLAM DAWAH COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES

-
Not actionable (published article in Bulgar). But isnt that

patently offensive, and thus, actionable?
Court: re: SPEECH remember here we are talking about the
State. It is being asked to punish MVRS for the speech.
NO. The coercive power of the State cannot be used despite
the speeches being offensive.
Why not? Yes, it might be an expression of opinion. But its
offensive.
Why would it result to abridgement of freedom of speech if the
State does punish them?
WHAT: statement of a ridiculous opinion.
WHY NOT? Its TOO ENCOMPASSING. Its basically directed
at NO ONE. Should the state really intervene or punish? NO.
The idea will either DIE or if it does offend, then those offended
can rebut. Its not the duty of the State to censor and say that
people cannot ridiculous thoughts or idea, as long as it does
not harm anyone in particular.
Court: where the respondents the ones specifically targeted?
NO.
Otherwise, it will be an unwarranted censorship of the State.
RULE IN SPEECH IN GENERAL NOT DIRECTED TO
ANYONE IN PARTICULAR: Holmes: test your speech on the
free market of idea. See if it can pass the rigor of public
scrutiny.
Art. 353, RPC: Requirements of DEFAMATION: there must be
an identifiable person. It was only then the State can be called
to intervene because there is a right of the particular person
has been violation.
OBSCENITY: there had been many attempts what is OBSCENE.

-
It has no redeeming value for all people.

PADAN: pure speech; that is not protected speech.
o
Why would people want to watch two people having
sex? It is intended only to satisfy prurient interest.
o
They would pay in order to watch.
Where exactly do you draw the borderline? Where is the
borderline? What exactly is obscene and hence, unprotected?
US jurisprudence: many TESTS.
RP: seller of postcards case.
He had postcards of bare-breasted women of the

Cordilleras.
Prosecuted based on the law of obscenity.
NOT OBSCENE but INDECENT. Once you derive profit
and exploit them being bare-breasted, then thats an
actionable wrong.
TEST OF OBSCENITY AND INDECENCY.
Girl who was dancing wearing a see-through bikini.
OBSCENE.
COMPONENTS:
1. Whether
"the
average
person,
applying
contemporary community standards" would find that
the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient
interest.
PRURIENT: minamaniac.
Its something intended to address a basic
and primal instinct (carnal but in a perverse
way).
2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by
the applicable state law; and
There must be a particular determination by
law that the particular conduct is offensive.
Not arbitrary.
Child pornography law.
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
It has to be defined also.
Example: you go to an art gallery, and you
can see a lot of paintings of nude
people/men. Would that be considered
offensive? NO, because it might have some
redeeming artistic value. But put that in the
walls of AUF-SOL. That makes a difference.
The redeeming value is something that is
CONTEXTUALIZED and would have to be
considered in relation to the objective of the
speech: is it supposed to be for an artistic
institution?
PITA VS. CA
-
Pinoy Playboy: a rip-off that scans photos from Hustler, Pent

House and print it in black and white. In order to put some
content to it, they will put an article in one of the pages.
Are these obscene?
They were all confiscated.
TEST used: MILLER TEST.
Court: are these materials obscene per se? Or is there a need
for a judicial determination? THERE IS A NEED.
It has to be tested trough a judicial proceeding.
Its the judge who determines if it indeed does not have
a redeeming value.
IMPARTIAL, UNBIASED assessment of the material to
determine the value.
Given to the court.
Before they can even be destroyed, there has to be a
determination of the Court (especially the 3rd one).
VALUE CHANGES FROM TIME TO TIME. What may be
considered as having no value before, maybe because of
changing social norms be now considered of value.
Real question: is that really artistic?
It is very difficult task for the Court to be the social arbiter to
make a firm determination.
The burden is now put on the shoulders of the judge.
Page 26 - Bantay
Such a test will work for there (IN THE US) have a JURY.
But if you put that task on the shoulders of a singular judge.
Good thing RP adopted the MILLER TEST (but its not made
for a single judge, but for a representative of a community
JURY).
Blind adoption of the Miller Test.
Pornography is protected speech, as long as it will pass the Miller

Test.
justice and the foundation of justice is the trust of the people to

judges.
A speech that would undermine peoples trust and to the whole
judicial branch will result to the crumbling of the Supreme Court
crumbles, and everything else will also fall down.
The court tried to protect Jurados right, however, they must
weigh Jurados right vis--vis States interest.
Unless the whole system is really corrput, then writers must be
held accountable. The incidents mentioned by Jurado are
actually public knowledge.
The ruling from Sullivan case is now thrown out, THE BURDEN
NOW REST TO THE WRITER.
NY VS. FERBER
-
Is child pornography the same as obscene? NO.

In the case of obscenity, it is because of the absence of value.
In the case of child pornography, it is different. WHY?
Why is child protection UNPROTECTED? Its not a question of
WON it is obscene.
UNDER THE LAW, child pornography is ALWAYS unprotected,
unlike pornography, which is PROTECTED SPEECH.
BASIS: LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION OF INJURY that
child pornography can only be produced or can only be
resulted from an injury of the child (mental, psychological,
physical).
When a child does that, there is an injury:
PSYCOSOCIAL.
Even if it is exhibited in the most prestigious art gallery,
that is still not protected.
Some adult pornography may pass the test of Miller but such
test is INAPPLICABLE to child pornography.
NO REDEEMING VALUE AT ALL.
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY
-
REYES VS. BAGATSING

-
RENO VS. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

-
Why is the CDA struck down? OVERBROAD. There is no

specific in what the acts of child pornography are.
It must be so narrow that it will not go beyond the
intention of the law.
RA 9775: MIDTERMS. Is there a constitutional issue in the way
child pornography is done?
Is commercial speech (advertisements) unprotected?

1.
2.
Who do you want to speak to? You want to make a statement

at large.
For speech to be effected, it needs to be disseminated to the
widest possible audience that can act on it.
o
Will the government listen to just a few people?
Probably not. But if there are 100,000 of you, probably
they can get s****** (ask Jewel).
o
You want to scare them to action.
o
Is that SPEECH? YES, because you want to deliver a
certain message.
SPEECH SEEKING REDRESS FOR GRIEVANCES OF THE
GOVERNTMENT: most popular one.
Protected.
Unprotected.
Mayor Bagatsing: refused to give a permit to Reyes (against

US nuclear power in military bases in the Philipines with
Tanada and Diokno).
Luneta TO THE US EMBASSY.
Why was the permit not granted: might create a
DISTURBANCE; that the Communist Party may create a
disturbance ordinance protecting the chanceries of an
embassy.
May Mayor Bagatsing deny a permit? NO; PRIOR
RESTRAINT.
When would prior restraint be allowed? Only if there is verified
information that the Communist Party will infiltrate and cause
panic. In the absence of that, Mayor Bagatsing can set the
time, place and the manner (CONTENT-NEUTRAL).
TIME: afternoon.
PLACE: Luneta only.
MANNER: you cannot rally on the roads.
Other areas of unprotected speech.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
IN RE: JURADO
-
Balance: power to site contempt and freedom of speech.

WHAT: trip to HK and the birthday party.
What was the tenor of his columns? TO EXPOSE
CORRUPTION in the judicial branch. There is nothing wrong
with that. THAT IS PROTECTED. You are trying to make the
judicial branch acocutnable.
WHAT IS WRONG ABOUT IT: it did not impute a MOTIVE.
Did the Court really meet the challenge of NY TIMES vs.
SULLIVAN head on? And have Jurado prove the truth?
DANGEROUS.
The court approach this in the context of administration of
BAYAN VS. ERMITA

-
CPR cannot exist under the law

PRIOR RESTRAINT.
Maximum tolerance for the restraint: time, place, manner. Allow
them, but negotiate so they will comply.
BP 880: CONTENT-NEUTRAL; requires that there is a
guarantee of a place where you can have a rally: FREEDOM
PARK.
ALL PUBLIC PLACES are considered FREEDOM PARKS if
the LGU cannot find, within 30 days of a place of assembly.
MALABANAN VS. RAMENTO

-
YES, there still is a right to assemble.

Page 27 - Bantay
Private school: Gregorio Araneta: against a merging because

the university is losing money.
If these are vested with public interest (school), then the right to
assemble is available and can only be limited to punishment
after due process.
Students cannot be prevented from assembling.
REGULATION ONLY.
Court: that if they want to rally in a private place, THEY CAN
DO SO. If they want to hire SM MOA Arena, they can do so.
But there is that very, very big area between the public and
private, and that was addressed in this case.
JAN. 18, 2014

Child pornography: content of the news of this past week.
-
Whats the problem with it? Enforcement. The Child

Pornography is not sufficient: only prohibitions. But on how to
act Anti-Cyber Crime Law (TRO).
Most of child pornography is actually done in the Internet.
There are provisions in RA 9775: telecomunication companies
to filter: at the level of internet service providers.
NBI is actually asking the ISPs to do that, such being provided
under the law. The telecoms are not cooperative in filtering.
Filtering provides for problems: the application might be
overbroad.
o
OVERBROAD: tendency to impinge or intrude into
constitutionally protected rights.
o
RENO case: CDA being overbroad and went beyond
what will be deemed to be constitutionally permissible /
something that can be prohibited under the constitution.
MIDTERMS.
ADMINITRATIVE MATTERS: midterms include essay type and

multiple choice questions (based on the provisions and the doctrines
announced in the cases).
-
Speech has a very important role to play in our democratic

system.
Speech is really essential.
As we saw from the cases, speech is protected because of the
value of speech has in the political process: political,
administrative, social.
Speech presupposes that there is some substantive basis.
Thats why in the 4 components of speech, one of the most
important components are information and access to
information.
PARADIGM: speech is important to exact accountability from
the delegates of the power (State).
o
In our Constitution, to make something like this work,
the right to information is guaranteed.
PROVISIONS:
o
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE; ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC
CONCERN.
o
The one who has the duty to disclose is the delegate.
o
People have the right to access that information.
1. DUTY OF THE STATE TO DISCLOSE.
First announced in the case of:
LEGASPI VS. CSC

-
Petitioner wanted to know the Civil Service eligibility appointed

by the LG.
Why wont the Civil Service Commission not want to do that?
Petitioner is not the real party in interest; no damage from the
appointment of the two. He has no business about it, he not
being prejudiced about it.
Legaspi was just a concerned citizen.
Was he one of those who applied but not considered? If
yes, then he is an injured party.
ISSUE: DOES HE HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION? Can the
Court issue a remedy? Is there a constitutional basis for his
demand to information?
Is there really a right? What is its nature? Who can
demand information?
Happened before the 1987 Constitution. The previous
Constitution was not very clear WON that right actually exists.
Why is the information public? Appointments, are those public?
Does Legaspi have a remedy? YES.
Can CSC claim privacy? As in when Kris Aquino can?
He is trying to secure a writ of Mandamus. He has a remedy
because he has a right to that information. WHY? Is there even
a need to establish what his business is? NO. what is he trying
to find out? The legal requirements had been complied with:
QUALIFICATIONS; FITNESS; EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT;
TRAINING nothing objectionable about that.
Its not because they are sanitarians; its just that there are
requirements. He can ask the same thing for a justice.
Interviews are actually being made public.
Court: its just the bottom-line that Legaspi is concerned with.
We talk about of matters of public concern, we have to tie it up
with something clearly demandable.
PUBLIC CONCERN can mean many things. It must be tied up
to a legitimate purpose. A blanket statement misses the point
all together. There are certain circumstances when something
can be of public concern.
WHY DOES HE HAVE A REMEDY? Its everyones business;
taxpayers paying the salaries of those who are appointed.
With or without the provision in the Constitution, does Legaspi
have a cause of action? YES. Now, its expressly stated in the
1987; based on old cases. There is something implied from the
constitution.
1. Public office is a public trust: to know if there was a
lawful appointment
state has a duty to disclose it.
2. Freedom of speech: how can you possibly speak if you
do not have the information?
VALMONTE VS. BELMONTE

-
RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ACCESS THE

INFORMATION.
Our Constitution does not only imply it, it guarantees to a right
to information.
Can you demand a duty from private individuals? NO. No
accountability on their part.
o
Two countervailing right: right to be information and
right to privacy.
SEVERAL ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED: what is information?
When is it considered to have the right to access and the
government has the duty to disclose? The duty to consult.
RIGHT TO INFORMATION
Multiple choice questions will not include scenarios.

Straight-forward: its either you know it or you dont.
As we saw last meeting, the right to information is critical to exercise

for speech.
-
2.
He wants to find out the names of the Batasan from GSIS.
Page 28 - Bantay
Why does GSIS do not want to give that information?

1. Private.
2. Financial institution, not a regular line agency.
May Valmonte get that information?
1. Why cant privacy be raised?
2. Doesnt GSIS exercise proprietary rights?
Court: it is the individual that can raise the issue of privacy, not
the GSIS. They are also public officials: they have a very
limited right to privacy (only what is purely private which can be
excluded from public scrutiny).
Priopriety vs. ministerial and governmental functions was
long been discarded.
As long as it is government, thats already public. Its
too late in the day for GSIS to assert their proprietary
rights.
Can Valmonte be given the right to access? YES.
His right ABSOLUTE? NO. Can you demand GSIS to prepare a
list for you? NO. What you can demand is access. It is for him
to come up with a list. To require GSIS such is basically asking
it to make a judgment that these are behest loans. All you can
demand is access that GSIS give you access: to give you
records of the borrowers and it is up for you to make your case.
With regards to access: there are limitations:
1. Regular working hours.
2. No expenses for photocopying shouldered by the
government.
3. No requirement to assign a person: paid by the
government.
It is something that can be regulated or limited.
LEGITIMATE PURPOSE: Yes, he wants to find out if there has
been a violation/compliance of the law.
CHAVEZ VS. PCGG

-
What kind of information Chavez wants? Information on the

substance of the negotiation between PGCC and the
Marcoses.
Why does the PCGG not want to? The transactions are still ongoing. Please wait when there is an agreement. Before that, it
cannot give them the information. Negotiations must be
CONFIDENTIAL.
The only way they can come up with a good agreement
is for such to be confidential?
Can PGCC be compelled to disclose their negotiations? YES.
Why does it qualify of something of public interest? The ery
thing was actually discussed in the Constitutional
Commissions: Commisioners had agreed that what should be
disclosed in order to prevent the repetition what happened in
the Martial Law is everything, including those that have not
even been finalized or concluded.
Clear intention according to the Court of disclosure to even
those matters under negotiation. It will run afoul of the intention
if we are going to limit.
NEVERTHELESS, there are five general exceptions from the
information that may be required to be disclosed by the
government:
1. National Security
2. Criminal Matters
3. Trade Secrets
4. Commercial / Banking.
5. Other confidential information: executive privileges.
NORTH COTABATO VS. GOVERNMENT

-
How did the Court extend the right to information to include the
duty of the state to conduct consultations? To actively go out to
the people and get their inputs.
Full public disclosure: PASSIVE ACTION.

How did the Government recognize the duty? The Government
itself provided for the HOW. EO No. 3 provided for the
mechanism for the peace aspects.
To provide for the consultative process.
When the Constitution says the government shall disclose, it
doesnt mean the government has to always be passive. It has
the option, and in this case it chose to (proactively), ensure
access to information. It must comply with its own processes.
More so, since the matter/substance under discussion is
something that will directly affect the lives in Mindanao. Thats
the logic behind the EO (because of the wide-ranging effect of
the MOA-AD).
If there is no compliance, then there is a violation by the
government.
CURRENT NEGOTIATIONS: government made sure that there
are other consultations on the ground being conducted by the
government. Feedback is being inputted in the negotiations
done in Kala Lumpur.
ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS: as may be provided by

law.
o
Refers to the LIMITATIONS.
o
Members of the ConCom that even without a law, there
is already a right to information.
o
The Commissioners pointed out that with or without the
law, there is already a right to information that can be
invoked.
o
References to law are LIMITATIONS:
1. ACCESS: regulations for content-neutral.
2. DISCLOSURE: information that should not be
disclosed: RA. 6713.
o
IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY. Any reference from the
law is not for it to be executory. The laws refer to the
limitations, the right being not absolute.
RELIGION
-
A system of belief, worship conduct, often involving a code of

ethics and philosophy.
It is not something that can be defined.
Even if you do not believe religion, thats also religion.
Religion does not limit itself to your beliefs of man and his
relationship with his Creator.
Thats why there has been no attempt really to try to limit what
religion is. Doing so is a violation of freedom to religion.
INDIVIDUAL
1.
2.
Belief confined to
thought; ABSOLUTE.
Action REGULATED; it
will affect other people.
o
Not treated under
the same way in
the Constitution.
o
Have to be looked
upon based on the
harm cased to the
society and t the
others.
o
LIMITATION
IS
CONTENTNEUTRAL:
ESCRITOR.
o
If they believe it,
STATE (PROHIBITIONS)
1.
Non-establishment
clause: the state cannot
create religions and to
provide direct support to
religion.
o
Incidental benefit:
tax
exemptions
(cemetery,
hospitals).
o
DIRECT BENEFIT:
VIOLATIVE
(establishment).
o
INCIDENTAL
EBENFIT:
NO
VIOLATION. The
grant is to the
student, not to the
Page 29 - Bantay
fine. But when that

is
made
into
action?
schools.
EBRALINAG VS. DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
STRICT
SEPERATION
VS.
BENEVOLENT
NEUTRALITY
(Aglipay, Laurel).
2.
Free exercise
BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY: an approach that looks further than the

secular purposes of government action and examines the effect of
these actions on religious exercise; the Court will strive to
accommodate religious beliefs and practices when it can within flexible
constitutional limits.
-
NEUTRAL IN THE SENSE:

Its not so much of the belief. It has more to do with the
separation of the church and state.
AGLIPAY VS. RUIZ

-
Challenging the action of postmaster for issuing posts tamps in

commemoration of the International Eucharistic Congress (with
the chalice in the background).
For him, that is the use of public funds to promote the Catholic
Church.
Eucharistic: Catholic.
Court; it is to advertise the VENUE
MANILA, PHILIPPINES.
The resulting propaganda received by the Roman Catholic
Church was not the aim and purpose of the government.
Legally, why is there nothing objectionable?
Court: benefit is only incidental. You have to take a look at the
primary purpose (to promote tourism) to determine WON its
valid. The test is not to look at the fringes but to the center.
They used the event to draw in visitors. THATS ALL.
The Phil. Postal Corp. was just using a religious event
in order to generate tourist arrivals and income for the
post office to the benefit of the state. Where the primary
purpose is for the benefit to the State, any incidental
benefit to a religion will not invalidate it.
Other example: subsidies in some archdiocese and
schools.
How about MADRASA EDUCATION (Arabic language
and Islamic language education): compensations of the
Islamic teachers Esteban: NON VIOLATIVE because
its a form of a culture. YANGA: VIOLATIVE because
the primary purpose is not secular.
GERONA VS. SEC. OF EDUC. (overturned; analysis is completely

wrong)
-
You cannot use religion as an excuse for not saluting the flag.
You have to join the ceremony, sing the Pambansang Awit and
put your hands on your chest.
The expulsion is being questioned.
DANGER: state interest; loss of a value there might be an
erosion of patriotism if children in schools will not salute the flag
or if some children are exempted from saluting the flag.
In the hierarchy of values, the Court said patriotism is higher
than religion. Allowing the exception might allow the erosion of
such value.
State interest will always trump the exercise of an individual
right: DANGEROUS TENDENCY TEST.
Framework of analysis: its the government that has the burden

as the right is preferred.
Who has the burden to show that the action should be
limited? REVERSE OF GERONA.
Basically, you cannot use the possibility. There must be
some basis of the danger perceived in Gerona.
There is no established relationship between the action
of the petitioners and patriotism.
We are not talking here about the State but of the individuals.
Court: what has been feared has not come to pass.
Something similar is happening in S. Korea: refused to render
the 21-month compulsory service (contentious objector).
Jailed them. Is that a violation here in the Philippines if
ever we have a mandatory military service law (Art. 2)
and the members of the JWs declined to report
because its against their religion?
Its not would be what would be of higher value: in the
constitution, the right is already preffered and protected so the
analysis should be the complete opposite: the right will not be
curtailed unless the state can prove otherwise:
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.
Such is also a violation of the students right to education: the

state is now violating those rights.
HELD: you do not need to salute it. You just have to be there.
Could the Court actually have ruled otherwise? YES. How?
What is the more correct protection in the Constitution, there
being no showing any injury? For the students to just stay in
the classroom.
There is still an infringement of their right by asking
them to still stay.
Without any causing of disruption.
ESTRADA VS. ESCRITOR

-
SCENARIO: she (court interpreter) is living in with another

person and they lived together as husband and wife.
A case of immorality was filed against her.
ISSUE: WON convicting her of immorality will violate her
freedom of religion? According to her, her union is deemed to
be valid under their religion, despite their previous, still valid,
marriages. And they had been living together before she even
became an employee of the Court.
Her belief is now translated to ACTION.
CARPIO: issue of morals based on religious tenets.
VITUG: social norms.
CONTENDING CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINES: freedom of
religion; public office is a public trust.
THIS IS COMPLICATED BECAUSE OF ANOTHER
PROVISION IN THE FAMILY CODE: marriage is an inviolable,
social institution.
What about for teachers who live with men who are not
their husbands? Would that not violate EQUAL
PROTECTION?
If you can treat JWs differently, can you also afford that
prohibition to old people (sick)?
FIRST FRAMEWORK
Public office is public trust: high
SECOND FRAMEWORK
CASE
AT
BAR/PUNO
Page 30 - Bantay
standards. For you to be held

NOT liable for violating it, you
have to show that it would
violate the constitution for you
be made liable.
Burden is upon the
INDIVIDUAL.
BURDEN IS ACTUALLY
ON THE STATE. But
which comes first? Did
she assert her religious
actions first, or is it as a
defense? EBRANILAG
(state reacted to the
action).
(Methodist): that is already a

requirement. Standards are
already provided that you shall
abide with: adultery. Her
defense is religious freedom
(she was just acting out her
belief).
And State action will not
be permissible unless it
shows a compelling
reason to do so.
DANGER: if you want to
exercise religion, then
why dont you just go to
private employment. You
are not being compelled
to
work
for
a
government.
Example: if you are a Muslim and you go to a restaurant. Can

you demand the restaurant to serve you Halal food? Can you
demand the government to serve Halal food? Its your own
personal preference, so you cannot demand.
When you are held administratively liable, and you raise
freedom of religion as a defense, is that valid? Actually
not. Solution: REMAND.
All it did was to give us a review of the different views.
There is nothing really like religion; even learned men cannot
be forced to agree how they look at religion. There is actually
nothing right or wrong here.
REMANDED:
1. To examine the sincerity of the respondent.
2. Evidence of the states compelling interest.
3. Less intrusive.
100th anniversary of the INC. NOT VIOLATIVE for it will
generate income.
ISLAMIC
-
What is it objecting to? EO 46 authorizing OMA to issue

certifications of Halal (the production of certain goods following
Islamic rights and rituals) for public health and safety.
Its not so much as fat content.
Court: if you are talking about health and safety: FDA must be
appointed, NOT OMA.
Whats wrong with OMA to say that a particular food is Halal?
If government will issue the certifications, it is now performing
religious functions which the government cannot do.
Petitioners are questioning it because such certification can
only be issued by religious officers.
Certification has nothing to do with health and safety.
SUMMARY OF EVERYTHING:
State has the burden of showing the compelling state interest. its not
the case of go ahead and regulate. AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY:
regulation will not be allowed unless the state can clearly show the
compelling state interest.
GENERAL RULE: the State shall not directly support a religion. BUT
any incidental benefit to religion will not be declared unconstitutional as
long as the primary purpose is a valid state purpose.
- END -
Page 31 - Bantay

Midterms - Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Midterms - Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOV.

Oral arguments on PDAF. This is going to be THE oral arguments of

If you thought the RH oral arguments are the oral arguments of

PUTTING IN PERSPECTIVE WHAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THIS

Last semester, we talked about power coming from the

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2nd SEMESTER MIDTERM NOTES

Example: Husband and wife; children and parents: they have

We shall be talking about the INHERENT POWERS of the state in a

They dont have to be stated in the Constitution.

It is difficult to integrate of everything: BASIC FRAMEWORKS.

Constitutional Law is taught as it is presented in your case

Re: PDAF: WON there has been a misappropriation (constitutional

What is your analysis of that system where the legislator

EDU VS. ERICTA:

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION: to promote health, morals,

MMDA: to put their (something) at the backs of the helmets of

Objective: peace and order.

ERMITA-MALATE VS. MANILA FAILED.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2nd SEMESTER MIDTERM NOTES

The Reflector Law is the issues.

Property rights of the motel-owners are being violated? YES.

their relationships to their guests.

POLICE POWER IN EMPLOYMENT

A century ago, the principle of employment is governed by the

WHITE LIGHT VS. MANILA PASSED.

What did the motel owners learned from ERMITA-MALATE and

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2nd SEMESTER MIDTERM NOTES

PASE VS. TORRES (recitation)

Overseas employment and government regulation.

REASON OF ORDER: problem of abuse of Filipinos maids

JMM PROMOTION AND MANAGEMENT. INC VS CA

ISSUE: governments power to control deployment of Female

as a separate state, it is allowed.

REGULATIONS OF FIRE ARMS

Provision in the Civil Code: there is a system of preference of

CHAVEZ VS. ROMULO

Side note: Chavez has died.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2nd SEMESTER MIDTERM NOTES

NDC vs. PVB:

PD of Marcos suspended payments for all liens against Agrix

contravention to the preference of credits constitutional

DOH extended the period. Mooted. They were given enough

MMDA VS. GARIN

MMDA confiscated the licence of the motorist for illegal

BELTRAN VS. SEC. OF HEALTH

The law provides for the phasing out of commercial blood

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2nd SEMESTER MIDTERM NOTES

NOV. 16, 2013

There was a suggestion to declare martial law: de facto martial

FINALS EXAMINATION: Re: Zamboanga question (presidents

You have to tell me under what circumstances the President

Why do I tell stories? Because many are late.

The public purpose comes under the rubric of general welfare

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2nd SEMESTER MIDTERM NOTES

We have to make choices: what benefits the greatest number

Provided for in the Constitution:

The legislative branch prohibits or

Bawal umihi dito: prohibitory

Because there is taking, there is

PUBLIC PURPOSE that pursues

TAKING must be based on

There is an ELEMENT of police

The difference DOES make in the Constitution.

***ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SEC. OF AGRARIAN