1 of 8

BILL OF RIGHTS

A. Definition and Hierarchy

PBM Employees v. PBM :

The employees participated in mass action against the Pasig Police (not against the Management of the
business). The company allowed them pleading that not the entire 400 of the employees would be out as to not
affect the operations of the business. The employees proceeded to the demonstration thereby allegedly
violating the CBA.
So the issue is between the property rights of the employers or the right to freedom of speech of the employees:

SC: Material loss can be repaired or adequately compensated. The debasement of the human being broken in
morale and brutalized in spirit-can never be fully evaluated in monetary terms. As heretofore stated, the
primacy of human rights freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of
grievances over property rights has been sustained. To regard the demonstration against police officers,
not against the employer, as evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining and hence a violation of the collective
bargaining agreement and a cause for the dismissal from employment of the demonstrating employees,
stretches unduly the compass of the collective bargaining agreement, is "a potent means of inhibiting speech"
and therefore inflicts a moral as well as mortal wound on the constitutional guarantees of free expression, of
peaceful assembly and of petition.
Ermita Malate Hotel, Motel Assoc. v. City of Manila
Ordinance under question: Ordinance No. 4760
the ordinance seeks to require the hotels to have a guest log book in its operations. And to refrain from
entertaining any guest who refuses to fill-out the prescribed form in the lobby.
Issue is whether or not it violates the due process clause
SC: The ordinance was enacted to minimize actions hurtful to public morals. the presumption is in favor of
validity of the statute. Police power prevails. The mantle of protection of due process does not extend to the
petitioners. This police power is aimed at protecting public morals.
Who Are Protected
Smith Bell Co. v.Natividad
The Bill of Rights also protects the right of artificial persons such as businesses. In this case, Smith Bell is a
company that wishes to register in the PH but it is British.
Artificial persons are covered by the protection only insofar as their PROPERTY is concerned. The life and
liberty of artificial persons, as creatures of law, are derived from law and therefore subject to the control of the
legislature.
Villegas v. HuiChiong
Manila Ordinance requiring foreigners residing in the PH who wish to work here to secure work pemits and pay
Php 50.
While the Philippines is not obliged to admit aliens in its territories, those who are residing in it are also entitled
to the constitutional guaranty that he cannot be deprived of life without the due process of law. This also
includes the right to a livelihood.
Meaning : Life
Teodoro v. Manalo
UP Baguio student, founder of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA), went missing. His family is seeking the
privilege of Writ of Amparo. Not granted by the Supreme Court because his captors were not properly identified.
the participation in any manner of military and police authorities in the abduction of James has not been
adequately proven. no concrete evidence indicating that James is being held or detained upon orders of or with
acquiescence of government agents

Pestao v. GRP-Human Rights Committee

Philip Pestano a navy man who found out that there was 1B worth of shabu. He was called back to the ship and
was found dead. Allegedly he committed suicide. When a person dies in circumstances that might involve a
violation of the right to life, the State party is bound to conduct an investigation and ensure that there is no
impunity.
Follow-up: The officers were convicted of murder.

Marcellana v. Republic of the Philippines UNHRC

When Does Life Begin, Records of 1986 Constitutional Commission Proceedings

The Rule on the Writ of Amparo
Burgos v. Arroyo

2 of 8
Marcos era. Burgos was the editor of We Forum. His printing paraphernalia were seized and the place was
padlocked.
Bereft of such particulars as would justify a finding of the existence of probable cause, said allegation cannot
serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant and it was grave error for judge to have done so.
Gadian v. Ibrado
Buck v. Bell
US SC sustained the law requiring the sterilization of incurable hereditary imbeciles as the operation only
involved a minimum of pain or none at all.

Imbong v. Ochoa

Life commences upon conception that is upon fertilization. The State has the obligation to the life of the mother
and the life of the unborn child and to prevent the legislature from enacting measures legalizing abortion
Liberty is the freedom to do right and never wrong, guided by reason and the upright and honorable conscience
of the individual.

Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro

Provincial Board was JUSTIFIED in requiring the members of certain non-Christian tribes to reside in a
reservation, for their better education, advancement and protection. This is a legitimate exercise of POLICE
POWER.
Liberty is the freedom to do right and never wrong, guided by reason and the upright and honorable conscience
of the individual.
Property
Terrace v. Thompson
Exclusion
Nunez v. Averia
Nuez contested the election results for the Mayoralty of Tarnate, Cavite on the ground of fraud, irregularities,
and corrupt practices. The original protestee was Edgardo Morales who was ambushed and killed, hence
succeded by then vice-mayor Rodolfo de Leon. Nuezs protest was denied on the ground that it was moot and
academic, citing the Presidents General Order 3&4 to remove from office all incumbent government officials and
employees.
Relation to EXCLUSION?

Crespo v. Provincial Board

Crespo was the elected Municipal Mayor of Cabiao, Nueva Ecija, in the local elections of 1967. On 25 January
1971, an administrative complaint was filed against him by private respondent, Pedro T. Wycoco for
harassment, abuse of authority and oppression. Without notifying Crespo or his counsel, public respondent
Provincial Board conducted a hearing of the aforecited administrative case.
One's employment, profession, trade or calling is a "property right and the wrongful interference therewith is an
actionable wrong. The right is considered to be property within the protection of a constitutional guaranty of due
process of law.
JMM Promotion v. CA
POEA required Artists Record Book which a performing artist must acquire prior to being deployed abroad. SC
held that this is a valid exercise of police power as the welfare of Filipino performing artists, particularly the
women was paramount in the issuance of Department Order No. 3. Also it enjoys the presumption of validity.
Pedro v. Rizal
Gregorio Pedro was given a license to operate a cockpit. An ordinance was passed illegalizing the operation of such
cockpit. Court held that license to operate a cockpit is not property of which the holder may not be deprived without
due process of law, but a mere privilege which may be revoked when the public interests so require.

Libanan v. Sandiganbayan
Libanan was a Mayor suspended by the Sandiganbayan.

3 of 8
SC: The suspension order cannot amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law. Public office is "a
public agency or trust,"and it is not the property envisioned by the Constitutional provision which petitioner invokes.
B. Aspects of Due Process
Police Power
Kwongsing v. City of Manila
A city ordinance was issued requiring laundromat owners to issue receipts in Spanish and English. The court
held that the obvious purpose of Ordinance No. 532 was to avoid disputes between laundrymen and their
patrons and to protect customers of laundries who are not able to decipher Chinese characters from being
defrauded. The ordinance invades no fundamental right, and impairs no personal privilege. Under the guise of
police regulation, an attempt is not made to violate personal property rights. The ordinance is neither
discriminatory nor unreasonable in its operation.
Yu Eng Cong v. Trinidad
Ordinance PROHIBITED the use of language other than English or Spanish in keeping of books.
The law is invalid because it deprives Chinese persons of their liberty and property without due process of law,
and denies them the equal protection of the laws.
NOT a VALID exercise of police power since it is arbitrary, oppressive and affects a certain class of people only.
Layno v. Sandiganbayan
Layno (Mayor) was charged of grave abuse of authority and evident bad faith in the exercise of his duty for
dismissing 3 officials. He was given an indefinite suspension by SB.
SC: A preventive suspension may be justified. Its continuance, however, for an unreasonable length of time
raises a due process question. For even if thereafter he were acquitted, in the meanwhile his right to hold office
had been nullified. Clearly, there would be in such a case an injustice suffered by him. Nor is he the only victim.
There is injustice inflicted likewise on the people of Lianga. They were deprived of the services of the man they
had elected to serve as mayor. In that sense, to paraphrase Justice Cardozo, the protracted continuance of this
preventive suspension had outrun the bounds of reason and resulted in sheer oppression. A denial of due
process is thus quite manifest.
Deloso v. Sandiganbayan (same as Layno)
Procedural : Impartial Court
Javier v. COMELEC
Javier ran in the election for BP (Antique) against Pacificador. however several of his supporters were gunned
down by Pacificadors supporters. The latter was proclaimed winner. Javier went to the COMELEC assailing
that the elections were done with threat, intimidation and killings. One of the Divisions decided on the case
however the Commissioner (Opinion) is a former law partner of Pacificador. Javier assailed the dismissal
arguing that it should have been decided by the COMELEC En Banc.
This Court has repeatedly and consistently demanded "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge" as the
indispensable imperative of due process. To bolster that requirement, we have held that the judge must not
only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will
be just. The litigants are entitled to no less than that. They should be sure that when their rights are violated
they can go to a judge who shall give them justice. They must trust the judge, otherwise they will not go to him
at all. They must believe in his sense of fairness, otherwise they will not seek his judgment. Without such
confidence, there would be no point in invoking his action for the justice they expect.
Due process is intended to insure that confidence by requiring compliance with what Justice Frankfurter calls
the rudiments of fair play. Fair play cans for equal justice. xxx The judge will reach his conclusions only after all
the evidence is in and all the arguments are filed, on the basis of the established facts and the pertinent law.
Galman v. Sandiganbayan
The Court then said that the then President (code-named Olympus) had stage-managed in and from Malacaang Palace
"a scripted and predetermined manner of handling and disposing of the Aquino-Galman murder case;
Impartial court is the very essence of due process of law. This criminal collusion as to the handling and treatment of the
cases by public respondents at the secret Malacaang conference (and revealed only after fifteen months by Justice
Manuel Herrera) completely disqualified respondent Sandiganbayan and voided ab initio its verdict. The courts would
have no reason to exist if they were allowed to be used as mere tools of injustice, deception and duplicity to subvert and
suppress the truth.

4 of 8
Marcos v. Sandiganbayan
Rivera v. Civil Service
Commissioner Gaminde should have inhibited from hearing the CSC case
Banco Espaol Filipino v. Palanca
Requirements of procedural due process in judicial proceedings: (JOLI)
1. There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter
before it.
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant and over the property which is the
subject matter of the proceeding.
3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard.
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
Ang Tibay v. CIR
Requisites ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS:
1. The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present ones case and submit evidence in support thereof.
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
3. The decision must have something to support itself.
4. The evidence must be substantial.
5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record
and disclosed to the parties affected.
6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and
facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.
7. The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties
to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decision rendered.
PHILCOMSAT v. Alcuaz
Philcomsat seeks to annul Order 1 issued by respondent which directs the provisional reduction of the rates
which may be charged by petitioner for certain specified lines of its services by fifteen percent (15%) with the
reservation to make further reductions later.
Philcomsat argues that it is violative of the constitutional prohibition against undue delegation of legislative
power and a denial of procedural and substantive due process of law.
SC The rate reduction is solely based on the initial evaluation made on the financial statements of Philcomsat,
contrary to respondent NTC's allegation that it has several other sources of information without divulging such
sources. NTC did not explain how it arrived at the prescribed rates. The function of rate fixing-power by NTC is
adjudicatory and quasi-judicial, not quasi- legislative; thus, notice and hearing are necessary and the
absence thereof results in a violation of due process.
Ateneo v. CA
Ateneo kid bullies a cafeteria waitress, was expelled from school, decries decision saying that he was not afforded due
process.
SC: Juan Ramon was given the full opportunity to be heard to be fully informed of the charge against him and to be
confronted of the witnesses face to face. And since he chose to remain silent and did not bother to inform his parents or
guardian about the disciplinary action taken against him by the defendant university, neither he nor his parents should
find reason to complain.
Alcuaz v. PSBA
PSBA students attended rallies and were later not allowed to enrol the school. They allege that they were deprived of
due process.
SC: The contract between the students and the school is only for 1 semester. It is thus evident that after the close of the
first semester, the PSBA-QC no longer has any existing contract either with the students or with the intervening teachers.
Such being the case, the charge of denial of due process is untenable. It is a time-honored principle that contracts are
respected as the law between the contracting parties.
Non v. Judge Dames
Mabini Colleges students staging mass actions were not allowed to enrol in the next semester, the school
alleging that they have not been performing academically. Looking at the records, not all of them were poor in
class.
SC: The right of an institution of higher learning to set academic standards, however, cannot be utilized to
discriminate against students who exercise their constitutional rights to speech and assembly, for otherwise
there will be a violation of their right to equal protection.
Note: Different from PSBA. The authority for schools to refuse enrollment to a student on the ground that his
contract, which has a term of one semester, has already expired, cannot be justified.
Goldberg v. Kelly

5 of 8
Petitioners are NYC residents receiving financial aid under the federally assisted programs that were terminated
or about to be terminated without prior notice or hearing. Due process requires an adequate hearing before, not
after, the termination of welfare benefits.
Bell v. Burson 402 US 535 (1971)
Bell, a clergyman who travels as part of his ministerial duties, was involved in an accident when a child hit his
car; he was sued for damages and his license was revoked, but he was only allowed to present evidence on his
behalf during appeal, which violated due process. Except in emergency situations, the State affords notice and
opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case before terminating an interest.
UP v. Hon. Ligot-Telann , STFAP; Ramon Nadal.
Ramon Nadal availed of STFAP but upon background check, his mother works abroad and he has a car. So
UP filed a case against him in the BOR. He was found guilty during the BOR meeting. Nadal claims that he was
deprived of DP.
SC: University rules do not require the attendance in BOR meetings of individuals whose cases are included as
items on the agenda of the Board. Unlike in criminal cases which require proof beyond reasonable doubt as
basis for a judgment, in administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings, only substantial evidence required, that
which means more than a mere scintilla or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise. Therefore
deciding that the BOR did not violate Nadals right of due process.

DBP v. NLRC 183 SCRA 328

Laborers filed individual complaints for backwages and separation pay from RHI whose assets were foreclosed
by DBP; the latter was ordered by the Labor Arbiter, affirmed by the NLRC, to pay RHIs debts. Despite lack of
formal hearing, DBP was given opportunity to be heard and in fact filed MFRs and appeals.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan 369 SCRA 394
No circumvention of presumption of innocence, even in plunder cases. Guilt must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt, even if only for a number of acts sufficient to form a combination or series of activities involving an
amount of P 50M.
Read: separate opinion by Ynares-Santiago
Reyes v. COMELEC G.R. No. 207264
In administrative proceedings moreover, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied;
administrative process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense. Indeed, deprivation of
due process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard on his motion for
reconsideration.
Jurisdiction
Ynot v. IAC (moot)

Petitioner transported 6 caracbaos from Masbate to Iloilo in 1984 and these were confiscated by the station
commander in Barotac, Iloilo for violating E.O. 626-A, an act which prohibits transportation of a carabao or
carabeef from one province to another.
The lower courts are not prevented from examining the constitutionality of a law. Justice Laurel's said, Courts
should not follow the path of least resistance by simply presuming the constitutionality of a law when it is
questioned. On the contrary, they should probe the issue more deeply, to relieve the abscess, and so heal the
wound or excise the affliction.
Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans
DYRE was summarily closed on grounds of national security. The radio station was allegedly used to incite people to
sedition. Petitioner, DYRE contends that they were denied due process. There was no hearing to establish factual
evidence for the closure. Furthermore, the closure of the radio station violates freedom of expression.
Broadcast stations deserve the special protection given to all forms of media by the due process and freedom of
expression clauses of the Constitution.
Tatad v. Sandiganbayan
Gonzales v. SCS
C. Old Substantive Due Process: Protection for Property Interests
Calder v. Bull 3 US (3 Dall.) 386 (1978)
Lochner v. New York 198 US 48 (1905)

6 of 8
Lochner is charged for permitting (note: not requiring) an employee (baker) to work more than 60 hours a day; question
on what two rights shall prevail, police power or freedom to contract. Police power requires the limit for health
considerations, which do not apply to the present case, thus it cannot prevail over freedom to contract.
People v. Pomar 46 Phil 440
Pomar found guilty of refusing to grant maternity leave with pay to pregnant employees. The law was found to be
unconstitutional, in violation of freedom to contract. (So freedom to contract over rights of women) (moot case)
Pakistan International Airlines v. Ople
NDC and AGRIX v. Phil Veterans
People v. Nazario
Balacuit v. CFI
Agustin v. Edu
D. New Substantive Due Process: Protection for Liberty interests in Privacy
Olmstead v. US (Brandeis Dissent)*
Skinner v. Oklahoma*
Griswold v. Connecticut*
Eisenstatd v. Baird*
Poe v. Ullman*
Roe v. Wade*
Bowers and Hardwick
Lawrence v. Texas*
US v. Windsor*
Board of Education v. Earls
Ople v. Torres
Invalid: National Computerize Identification Reference System to facilitate transaction with the government.
SC said: by issuing A.O. No. 308 pressures the people to surrender their privacy by giving information about
themselves on the pretext that it will facilitate delivery of basic services. Given the record-keeping power of the
computer, only the indifferent fail to perceive the danger that A.O. No. 308 gives the government the power to
compile a devastating dossier against unsuspecting citizens.

Bayan Muna v. Ermita,

Duncan Assoc v. Glaxo Welcome*
David v. Arroyo
E. Protected Interests in Property
Mere Regulation under the Due Process Clause versus Taking of Property via the Power of Eminent Domain
Eminent domain: Taking
Physical dispossession of the owner and deprived of all beneficial use and enjoyment of property
May also include:
1. Trespass without actual eviction
2. Material impairment of the value
3. Prevention of ordinary use for which property was intended
Churchill v. Rafferty
US v. Toribio
People v. Fajardo
A municipal ordinance prohibiting construction of any building that would destroy the view of the plaza from the
highway was considered a taking under the power of eminent domain that could not be allowed without
payment of just compensation to the owner affected.
Ynot v. CA
US v. Causby
Government planes which flyover a property at such low altitude, thereby touching the tops of trees thereon,
intruded on the superjacent rights of the owner and entitles the owner to payment of just compensation.
Republic v. PLDT
Bureau of Telecommunications demand interconnection between Government Telephone System and that of
PLDT.
Held: Services were considered embraced in the concept of property subject to taking.
Parties cannot be coerced to enter into a contract where no agreement is had between them as to the principal
terms and conditions of the contract. Freedom to stipulate such terms and conditions is of the essence of our
contractual system, and by express provision of the statute, a contract may be annulled if tainted by violence,
intimidation, or undue influence Republic, however, may, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent

7 of 8
domain, require the telephone company to permit interconnection of the government telephone system and that
of the PLDT, as the needs of the government service may require, subject to the payment of just compensation
to be determined by the court. Ultimately, the beneficiary of the interconnecting service would be the users of
both telephone systems, so that the condemnation would be for public use.
PLDT required to interconnect with private communications company.
Republic v. Castelvi
Government rented and started occupying a parcel of land and when the owner refused to extend the lease,
government commenced expropriation proceedings.
Issue: When is the time of taking for purposes of just compensation?
Held: Start of proceedings
2 essential elements:
Entry and occupation by condemnor must be for permanent or indefinite period
Devoting of property for public use, owner is ousted from the property and deprived of beneficial use
Bel-Air Association v. IAC
EPZA v. Dulay
NPC v. CA
RA 8974, Villar Law on the Zoning Value of Land
Takings under Eminent Domain versus Takings under the Social Justice Clause
De Knecht v. Bautista
Republic v. De Knecht
De Knecht vs CA
Owner applied in eminent domain cases refers to all those who have lawful interest in the property to be
condemned (mortgagee, lessee, vendee in possession under an executor contract).

Manotok v. NHA
Ermita Malate Hotel Association v. City of Manila
Constitution ART III, Sec 1
Constitution ART III, Sec 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech,
Assoc. of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform
Sumulong v. Guerrero
City Government v. Judge Ericta
Ordinance was passed requiring private cemeteries to devote 6% of their total areas for burial of paupers.
Held: Not valid. Property taken under police power is sought to be destroyed and not to be devoted for public
use. Ordinance constitute taking of property without compensation.
Luz Farms v. Secretary
Cariday v. CA (Guttierez J, Dissenting)
RA 7279, Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, March 24, 1992
II. Equal Protection Clause
Constitution ART II, Sec 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the
fundamental equality before the law of women and men.
Constitution ART II, Sec 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within
the framework of national unity and development.
Constitution ART IV.
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1) ThosewhoarecitizensofthePhilippinesatthetimeoftheadoptionofthisConstitution;
(2) ThosewhosefathersormothersarecitizensofthePhilippines;
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching
the age of majority; and
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act
to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3),
Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission, they
are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
Constitution ART XII, Sec 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all
forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by

8 of 8
the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration,
development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State
may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co- production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by
such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than
twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation,
water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure
and limit of the grant.
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone,
and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative
fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish- workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial
assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils
according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and
general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific
and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days
from its execution.
Constitution ART XII, Sec 14.2. The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens,
save in cases prescribed by law.
Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. v. Treasurer of Ormoc City
Dumlao v. COMELEC
People v. Cayat
Law prohibited non-Christian tribes from drinking foreign liquor, on the ground that their low degree of culture
and their unfamiliarity with the drink rendered them more susceptible to its effects than their more civilized
countrymen.
SC sustained the classification as it was intended to apply as long as the difference between the two groups
continued to exist.
Ichong v. Hernandez
Korematsu v. US
The Civil Liberties Act of 1988
(Presidential Medal of Freedom to Fred Korematsu by Bill Clinton)
Plessy v. Ferguson
The clause was interpreted as justifying the separate but equal rights, which meant that the separate enjoyment
of rights by white and black persons could be required as long as the rights themselves are equal.
University of California v. Bakke
Gratz v. Bollinger
Grutter v. Bollinger
Bradwell v. Illinois
Goesart v. Cleary
Geduldig v. Aiello
Mississippi Univ. School for Women v. Hogan
Michael M. v. Superior Court
Personnel Administrator v. Feeney
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Ordinance required license to establish laundries was annulled by the US SC after finding that all Chinese applicants had
been systematically rejected whereas all other applications but one had been approved.
Fragante v. City and County of Honolulu
International School Alliance v. Quisumbing
Equal work for Equal Pay. Persons who work with substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort and
responsibility, under similar conditions, should be paid similar salaries.
Board of Directors v. Rotary Club*
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale*
Sombilon v. Romulo,
Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health
Tecson v. COMELEC
Garcia v. Hon. Drilon