Carmela Wenceslao

FINALS REVIEWER
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
ENRILE CASES
Aquino v. Enrile (1974): the proclamation of martial law
automatically suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
This is in relation to the basic objective of the proclamation: to
suppress invasion, insurrection, rebellion, or to safeguard public
safety against imminent danger thereof. The preservation of
society and national survival take precedence.
Enrile v Salazar: Hernandez ruling is still binding that Rebellion
cannot be complexed with any other offense on the occasion
therof, either as a means to its commission or as an unintended
effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion.
Enrile v. Sandiganbayan: charges of plunder against Enrile.
Court ruled Sandiganbayan committed GADALEJ in denying his
right to bail. Court granted such bail on the ground of Enriles
fragile health and advanced age (humanitarian considerations).
UDHR extends the right to liberty and due process to detainees
and included in such remedies is the right to bail. Leonend
dissented because such offense of Plunder is not bailable because
the imposable penalty of Plunder is Reclusion Perpeetua. SB did
not commit GADALEJ; humanitarian consideration as a reason for
the grant of bail defeats the rule of law and the judicial system.
Ilagan v. Enrile: FLAG lawyers. If the detained attorneys question
their detention because of improper arrest, or that no preliminary
investigatin has been conducted, the remedy is not a petition for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus but a Motion before the trial court to
quash the Warrant of Arrest, and /or the Information on grounds
provided by the Rules or to ask for an investigation /
reinvestigation of the case.
Brocka v. Enrile: Brocka et al. were charged of Illegal assembly
and was subsequently charged with incting to sedition. WON the
enjoining of their criminal prosecution of a case is legal. Yes it is.
The general rule is that criminal prosecution may not be restrained
or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final. There are exceptions
like this casecriminal proceedings had become a case of
persecution having undertakin in bad faith, not a criminal
prosecution.

Tanada v. Tuvera: publication of law is indispensable to have

force and binding effect
Stonehill v. Diokno: it is explicit in the BOR that the things to be
seized be particularly described on search warrants. Thus,
contravening its general objective: the elimination of general
warrants.
Imbong v Ochoa: RH Law

Right to lifenot unconstitutional; life begins at

fertilizationit is protected

Right to healthnot unconstitutional; there exists

adequate safeguards to ensure the public that inly
contraceptives that are safe are made available to
the public

Religious freedomwas violated; the inviolability of

human conscience was infringed.

Right of spouses to attend Family Planning Seminars

not violated

Right to marital privacyviolated; it goes against the

family as a basic and social institution.

Due processnot violated; RH law is not vague

EPCnot violated; the needy should be prioritized by

the State by virtue of the RH law.

Involuntary servitudenope; for public interest

Estrada v Escritor: three steps where compelling state interest
be applied
(1) The courts should look into the sincerity of the religious
belief without inquiring into the truth of the belief
(2) The state has to establish that its purpose are legitimate
and compelling
(3) The state used the least intrusive means possible.
Vinuya v. Executive Secretary: Comfort womenMALAYA
LOLAS. They are asking for aid to the Government; they instituted
a claim against the Japanese Government. The Executive Dept
refused to assist them claiming that the Peace Treaty between the
Philippines and Japan is already settled. Taking up petitioners
cause, accdg to the Executive dept, will be inimical to the relations
of the PH with Japan. The court is not vested with the jurisdiction to
settle controversies of foreign policiesthe political branches of
the government are the one who exercise such discretion.
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC: WON the size limitation and
the reasonableness of the tarpaulin is a political question, hence
not within the ambit of SCs judicial review. NO, it is not a political
question. The concept of political question never precludes judicial
preview when the act of a constitutional organ infringes upon
fundamental right. Even if COMELEC have the discretion to choose
the manner of regulation of the tarpaulin, it cannot do so by
abridging the fundamental right to expression.
COMELEC does not have the authority to regulate the expression of
the petitioners since they are not candidates. The tarpaulin is not
an election propaganda because it was not paid for or posted in
consideration by any candidate or political party. The content of
the tarpaulin is political speech which refers to both intended and
received as a contribution to public deliberation about some issue;
fostering informed and civic-minded deliberation. In contrast to
commercial speech which is no more than propose a commercial
transaction. Moreover, the tarpaulin is a private property of the
petitioners and thus protected by the constitution.
Second chances are rare, dont waste it.

Carmela Wenceslao
Oposa v Factoran: Complainants are minors and held to have
legal standing based on the intergenerational responsibility
omsofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
concerned. Sec 15 and 16 are self-executing provisions, these are
basic rights.
Resident Mammals v. Reyes: WON animals should be given
legal standingNO but in PH jurisdiction any Filipino citizen, as a
steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our environmental
laws.
CYBERCRIME CASES
Vivares v STC: Facebook photos precluded students from
participating in their commencement exercises. Facebook uses
should exercise due diligence in their online dealings and activities
ad must not be negligent in protecting their rights. We cannot
afford protection to persons if they themselves did nothing to place
the matter wthin the confines of their private zones. It was held
that STC did not violate the complainants right to privacy therefore
petition of a writ of habeas data should be denied.
ISAAA v. Greenpeace: Bioengineered eggplant produced the
protein Cry1Ac which targets insect pests. Writ of kalikasan was
filed by Greenpeace on the ground of their constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology. However, the trials conducted for
bioengineering eggplant pose a danger to human health and
environment and was temporarily enjoined until a new
administrative order is promulgated in accordance with law.
Disini v. Exec Sec: CYBERCRIME LAW.
o Section 4(c)(3) of Republic Act 10175 that penalizes
posting of unsolicited commercial communications;

Section 12 that authorizes the collection or recording of

traffic data in real-time; and

Section 19 of the same Act that authorizes the Department

of Justice to restrict or block access to suspected Computer
Data.

Section 4(c)(4) that penalizes online libel with respect to

other who simply receive the post and react to it;

Interference, Section 4(a)(5) on Misuse of Devices, Section

4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting, Section 4(b)(1) on Computerrelated Forgery, Section 4(b)(2) on Computer-related Fraud,
Section 4(b)(3) on Computer-related Identity Theft, and
Section
4(c)(1)
on
Cybersex;
but
VOID
and
UNCONSTITUTIONAL with respect to Sections 4(c)(2) on
Child Pornography, 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial
Communications, and 4(c)(4) on online Libel.

Section 5 that penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in

the commission of cybercrimes as VA L I D and
CONSTITUTIONAL only in relation to Section 4(a)(1) on
Illegal Access, Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception,
Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference, Section 4(a)(4) on
System

The rest of the challenged provisions were upheld by the Court due
to petitioners failure to prove how such provisions violated
fundamental constitutional rights.

I.

FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

CONCEPTS
1.

POLICE POWER power vested in the legislature by the

Constitution to make, ordain and establish all manner of
wholesome and reasonable laws, statute and ordinances
either with or without penalties not repugnant to the
Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and
welfare of the commonwealth and of the subjects of the
same.
Scope:
(1) Public necessity
(2) Right of the State and public to self protection
(3) Expanse to changing needs
Examples:
Public necessity covers:

Public health

Public safety

Public morals
Delegation:
Police power rests primarily with the national legislaturw
such power may be delegated.
LGCgeneral welfare clauseencapsulates the delegated
police power to local governments.

2.

TAXATION as a power, it refers to the inherent power of

the State to demand enforced contributions for public
purposes.
Requisites:
(1) Public purpose
(2) Must be uniform and equitable
Second chances are rare, dont waste it.

Carmela Wenceslao
Uniformity means geographical uniformity;
when it operates with the same force and effect in
every place where the subject of it is found.
(Churchill v. Concepcion)
Delegation:

to the President

to the Local Government

3.

EMINENT DOMAIN the right to eminent domain is usually

understood to be the ultimate right of the sovereign power
to appropriate, not only the public but the private property
of all citizens within the territorial sovereignty, to public
purpose.

the government
or its political
subdivisions
Purpose

Use
of
the
property
is
regulated for the
purpose
of
promoting
the
general welfare
not compensable
Operates upon a
community or a
class of entities
or individuals

Persons
affected

Requisites:
(1) Purpose of the taking must be public use;
(2) Just compensation must be given to the private owner
Application:
a. The matter is LEGISLATIVE; howenver, once the
authority is given to exercise the power, the matter
ceases to be wholly legislative;
b. The executive authorities may then decided whether
the power will be invoked and to what extent.
What
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)

constitutes taking?
Expropriator must enter the private property
Entrance must not be for a momentary
period; must be permanent
Entry must be legally authorized
Property must then be devoted to a public use
Utilization of property must deprive owner of all
beneficial enjoyment of the property. (Republic v.
Castelvi)
Just compensation includes not only the determination of
the amount to be paid (market value) to the owner of the
land but also the payment of the land within a reasonable
period of time from its taking.
Delegation: to LGUs, other public entities, and public
utilities

AWESOME POWERS: DISTINCTIONS

o Eminent domain is the taking for public use while police
power is the regulation for public welfarenot absolute

DISTINCTIONS

POLICE POWER

TAXATION

Authority

Exercised only by

Exercised

only

EMINENT
DOMAIN
May

be

by
the
government or
its
political
subdivisions
The property is
taken for the
support
of
government

granted
to
public service
companies or
public utilities
The property is
taken
for
public
or
benefit, hence
it
must
be
compensated

Gerographical
uniformity

Operates
on
an entity or an
individual
as
the owner of a
particular
property
There
is
transfer
of
right
to
property
whether it be
ownership or
possession
The
person
affected
receives
the
market value
of the property
taken
from
him.

Effect

There
is
no
transfer of title,
at most there is a
restraint on the
injurious use of
the property

The
money
contributed
in
the concept of
taxes becomes
part
of
the
public funds

Benefits
received

The
person
affected receives
no
direct
and
immediate
benefit but only
such
as
may
arise from the
maintenance of a
healthy economic
standard
of
society and is
often referred to
as
damage
without injury
Amount imposed
should not be
more
than
sufficient
to
cover the cost of
the license and
the
necessary
expense of police
surveillance and
inspection,

It is assumed
that the person
affected
receives
the
equivalent
of
the tax in the
form
of
protection and
benefits
he
receives
from
the government
as such

Amount
imposition

of

There
generally
limit
to
amount
may
imposed

is
no
the
that
be

There is no
amount
but
rather
the
owner is paid
the
market
value of the
property
taken.

Second chances are rare, dont waste it.

Carmela Wenceslao

Relationship
with
the
Constitution

examination
or
regulation
as
nearly as can be
estimated.
Relatively
free
from
constitutional
limitations and is
superior to the
impairment
provision.

4
be valid. (Ermita-Malate Motel v. City of Manila)
The court must determine whether the legislation is a fair, reasonable and
Subject
to
certain
constitutional
limitations
including
the
prohibitions
against
the
impairment of
obligation
of
contracts

Inferior
to
the
impairment
prohibition
so that the
government
cannot
appropriate
property which
was under a
contract it had
previously
bound itself to
purchase from
the
other
contracting
party

PROVISIONS

appropriate exercise of the police power of the State. A law that affects
freedom of contract is unconstitutional if it is not reasonably related to a
legitimate purpose of protecting private heatlh. The fourth Amendment
does not prohibit a state from prohibiting a contract if the state has the
right to do so through the legitimate exercise of its police power. (Lochner
v. NY)
The First Amendment right has a penumbra where PRIVACY is protected
from government intrusion. (Griswold v. Connecticut)
Due Process clause protects the right to privacy including a womans rights
to terminate her pregnancy against state action. Texas criminal abortion
statues are unconstitutional. (Roe v. Wade)
2 kinds of DUE PROCESS:

ARTICLE III.BILL OF RIGHTS

1.
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without
due process of law, nor shall any person be denied of equal protection of
the laws.
DUE PROCESS
Guaranty against any arbitrariness on the part of the government whether
committed by the legislative, the executive or the judiciary. (Cruz)
Carino v. Insular Government: Petitioner claims that he owns a parcel of
land and asserted a historic title based on the Spanish law. We have
deemed it proper on that account to notice the possible effect of the
change of sovereignty and the act of Congress establishing the
fundamental principles now to be observed. Upon a consideration of the
whole case we are of opinion that law and justice require that the applicant
should be granted what he seeks, and should not be deprived of what, by
the practice and belief of those among whom he lived, was his property,
through a refined interpretation of an almost forgotten law of Spain.
There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. It furnishes
though a standard to which the governmental action should conform in
order that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in each appropriate case,

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

Judicial proceedings
Requisites:
a.

An impartial court clothed with judicial power to hear and

determine the matter before it.

b.

Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person or

subject matter.

c.

Judgment must be rendered upon a lawful hearing.

d.

The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard.

(Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca)

Administrative due process (Ang Tibay v. CIR)

Requisites:
a. Right to Hearing includes the right to present ones case
and submit evidence in support thereof;
b. 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.
Second chances are rare, dont waste it.

Carmela Wenceslao
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

The decision must be based on the evidence presented at

the hearing or at least contained in the record and disclosed to
the parties affected.
The decision must have something to support itself.
The tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
Evidence supporting the conclusions must be substantial.
The board or body should, in all controversial questions render
its decision in such a manner that the parties to the
proceedings can know the various issues involved and
their reasons.

5
investigation does not warrant dismissal of the information but an undue
delay in the conduct of preliminary investigation cannot be corrected.
(Tatad v. Sandiganbayan)
The right to speedy trial as well as the rights conferred in the Consti (due
process) may be waived: (a) it must therefore be asserted; (b) if there is
delay in the trial of the case, petitioners are not entirely without blame. In
this case, petitioners acquiesced in the delay in the proceedings. (Guiani v.

Ynot v. CA: Outright confiscation (in this case, of carabaos under EO 626-A)

SB)

when not reasonably related to the purpose of the statute is unjustly

oppressive. Due process is violated because the owner of the property is

2.

refused to be heard and is immediately condemned and punished.

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

Requisites:

Minimum requirements of Due process: (a) notice and (b) hearing which

1.

There must be a valid law upon which it is based;

are intended as safeguards against official arbitrariness. (id.)

2.

The law must have been passed or approved to accomplish a

valid governmental objective;

SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGSREQIUSITES:

3.

The objective must be pursued in a lawful manner; and

4.

The law as well as the means to accomplish the objective

1.

The penalty imposedmust be proportionate to the offense.

2.

The student shall have the right to answer the charges against

*in other words, the requisites are lawful subject and lawful

him, with assistance of counsel if desired.

means.

3.

must be valid and not oppressive.

The student must be informed in wrtintg of the natue and cause of

PROCEDURAL
PROCESS

any accusation against them;

4.

The student has the right to be informed of the evidence against

him.

DUE

SUBSTANTIVE
PROCESS

DUE

The method or manner

by which the law is
enforced

It requires that the lw itself,

not merely the procedure
by which the law would be
enforced,
id
fair,
reasonable, and just.

must

Addressed to those who

adjudicate

Directed to the law makers

the time limitation prescribed by the law for the resolution of the case by

requirements to

the prosecutor, is part of the procedural due process constitutionally

be

Right to be heard and

notified

Implies
notions
justice

guaranteed by the fundamental law. Complete absence of preliminary

with

5.

The student has the right to adduce evidence in his own behalf.

6.

The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating

nature

committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear

and decide the case. (Diosdado Guzman v. NU)
who
Substantial adherence to the requirements of the law governing the

comply

conduct of preliminary investigation, including substantial compliance with

complied

of

fundamental
fairness and

Second chances are rare, dont waste it.

Carmela Wenceslao

6
Plessy v. Ferguson: The state has the right to keep the races apart in
separate but equal facilities under a valid exercise of its governmental

EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS

authority to restrict the rights of private persons. Such restriction is valid if

required to preserve order and public peace in the name of age-old

Due Process of law means simply:

tradition and custom. Such decisions have always been declared to be

(1) There shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general

powers of the legislative dept;
(2) This law shall be reasonable in its operation;
(3) It shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure
prescribed;
(4) It shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of
a class. (Rubi v. Provincial Board)
IPRA LAW.all encompassing definition of ancestral domains and
ancestral lands would prejudice private lands and would therefore go
against the rights of these private owners. No majority vote was
obtained. Impasse. (Cruz v. NCIP)

Must

be

reasonable

which

despite the connotations attached to the custom by blacks.

Brown v. Board of Education: Segregated public schools are not equal and
cannot be made equal; therefore,

the doctrine of separate but equal in

public schools is a violation of EPC. Rejected Plessys separate but equal

doctrine.
Obergefell v. Hodges: The Supreme Court reasoned that the history of
marriage is marked by both continuity and change. Changes such as the
abandonment of the law of coverture and the decline of arranged marriage
have affected aspects of marriage that were once seen as essential. These
new insights and changes in understanding have strengthened marriage,
not weakened it.

REQUISITES OF A VALID CLASSIFICATION:

1.

right. The act of segregation is not a mark of slavery, or of inferiority,

must

be

based

on

substantial

distinctions;
2.

Must be germane to the purpose of the law;

3.

It must be limited to existing conditions only;

4.

It must apply equally to each members of the same class

The

Due

Process

Clause

of

the

Fourteenth

Amendment

protects

fundamental liberties including personal choices central to individual

dignity and autonomy. These liberties include personal choices defining an
individuals identity and beliefs. The Supreme Court held that the right to
marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person. Samesex couples may not be deprived of that right and that liberty under the

Appying these requisites, RA 9262 rests on a valid classification and hence

does not violate the EPC for favoring women over men as victims of
violence to which the state extends its protection. Equality of operation of
statutes does not mean indiscriminate operation on persons merely as
such, but on persons according to the circumstances surrounding them. It
guarantees equality, not identity of rights. (Garcia v. Drilon)

Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

DredScott v. Sanford: A slave is not considered a citizen and is not entitled

Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or

to all the rights, privileges and immunities granted to them under the US
constitution.

The State laws challenged by the plaintiffs in these cases are held invalid
insofar as they deny same-sex couples the rights to marriage that are
enjoyed by opposite-sex couples. (Id)

Second chances are rare, dont waste it.

Carmela Wenceslao
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized.
Burgos v. Chief of Staff: the validity of seizure of real properties were being
assailed, petitioners claim that it cannot be validly conducted with a SW
because real properties are not susceptible of confiscation under a SW.
However, this does not hold water. A machinery which is movable by
nature becomes immobilized when placed by the owner of the tenement,
property or plant, but not so when placed by a tenant, usufructuary, or any
other person having only temporary right, unless such person acted as the
agent of the owner.(Civil Code) Therefore, machienries while in fact being
bolted to the ground remains movable property susceptible to seizure
under a SW.

7
Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Near v. Minnesota: The rule against prior restraints is not absolute; there
are exceptional cases where it is valid (such as when the security of the
community is at stake, as in times of war). Public scandal CANNOT be
considered as an exceptional case, thus the statute holding such
justification must fall.
US v. Bustos: An application of qualified privilege is a complaint made in

SW must be particularly described. The sweeping tenor of the description

makes the document a GENERAL WARRANT. (Id.)

good faith and without malice in regard to the character or conduct of a

Salonga v. Pano: There were bombing incidents in Manila. People were

arrested including the petitioner who were suspected of being linked to
such bombings. Peititoner was in the hospital that time due to his bronchial
asthma. The arrest order did not specify the charges against them. When
he was arrested, he was not informed of the charges against him. Neither
is the counsel allowed to talk to him until this court approved so. It was
only a month later that he was informed of his rights. Thus, he moved to
dismiss the complaint but was denied. The court ruled that respect for the
citizens right to be free from arbitrary arrest and punishment but also from
unwarranted and vexatious prosecution. No connection was found between
the petitioner and the subversive activities.

duty in the matter. In this case, the ends and motives were justifiable and

Estrada v. Sandiganbayan: The constitutionality of plunder. Void for

vagueness doctrine. The probable cause for the offense of plunder exists
which justify the issuance of warrant of arrest of ERAP.
Umil v. Ramos: Rebellion is a continuing crime. The arrest of persons
involved in rebellion is more of an act of capturing them in the course of an
armed conflict, to quell rebellion, than for the purpose of immediately
prosecuting them in court for statutory offense the arrest therefore, need
not follow the usual procedure in the prosecution of offenses which
requires determination by a judge of the existence of probable cause
before the issuance of a judicial warrant of arrest.
Sec. 3.
(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be
inviolable except upon lawful order of the court or when public
safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
(EXCLUSIONARY RULE)

public official when addressed to an officer/board having some interest or

they were entitled to quafiedly privileged communication. ACQUITTED.
David v. Arroyo: PP 1017 of PGMA was NOT violative of the constitutional
right to freedom of expression and free speech. Facial challenge was used
using iverbreadth doctrine seek to regulate only spoken words and if
entertained at all, have been curtailed when invoked against ordinary
criminal laws sough to be applied to protected conduct such as free speech
PP 1017 pertains to spectrum of conduct, not free speech.
Penera v COMELEC: Sec 15 of RA 8436Premature campaigningwhich
states that person who files his certificate of candidacy will only be
considered a candidate at the start of the campaign period and unlawful
acts or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect of such
campaign period. In other words, a candidate is liable for an election
offense only for acts done during the campaign period, not before.
ASSEMBLY
Bagatsing v. Reyes: The invocation of the right to freedom of peacable
assembly carries with it the implication that the right to free speech has
likewise been disregarded. It is settled that as to public places, especially
so as to parks and streets, there is freedom of access.
Second chances are rare, dont waste it.

Carmela Wenceslao
A summary of the application for permit for rally: The applicants for a
permit to hold an assembly should inform the licensing authority of the
date, the public place where and the time when it will take place. If it were
a private place, only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its
legal possession is required. Such application should be filed well ahead in
time to enable the public official concerned to appraise whether there may
be valid objections to the grant of the permit or to its grant but at another
public place. It is an indispensable condition to such refusal or modification
that The Clear and Present Danger Test be the standard for the
decision reached. Notice is given to applicants for the denial.
Adiong v. COMELEC: Comelecs resolution for the prohibition of posting of
decals ad stickers in mobile places like cars and other moving vehicles.
The balancing of interests individual freedom on one hand and
substantial public interests on the other is made even more difficult in
election campaign cases because the Constitution also gives specific
authority to the Commission on Elections to supervise the conduct of free,
honest, and orderly elections. In this case, the limits of regulation and not
the limits of free speech were examined. Regulation of election campaign
activity may not pass the test of validity if it is too general in its terms or
not limited in time and scope in its application. The posting of decals
and stickers in mobile places like cars and other moving vehicles does not
endanger any substantial government interest. Under the clear and
present danger rule, the danger not only be patently clear, but the evil
sought to be avoided must be substantive to justify a clamp over one's
mouth.
SWS v. COMELEC: A provision in the Fair Elections Act regarding the
conduct of surveys was being assailed; which prohibits the publishing of
surveys days before the election. However, it was held that the provision of
the Fair Election Act lays a prior restraint on freedom of speech due to such
prohibition. This did not pass the OBrien Test (WON Government
Regulation is VALID/JUSTIFIED) because the regulation suppresses a whole
class of expression which is greater than what is needed to protect
governmental interest because the interest can be protected by narrower
restrictions such as subsequent punishment.
GOVERNMENT REGULATION IS SUFFICIENTLY JUSTIFIED:
a. If it is within the constitutional power of the Government;
b. If it furthers an important or substantial governmental
interest;
c. If the governmental interest is unrelated to the
suppression of free expression; and
d. If the incidental restriction of speech, expression and press
is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that
interest
*OBrien test is also used in Adiong.
GMA v. COMELEC: BP 881 requires radio and television broadcasting
companies to provide free airtime to the COMELEc for candidates

8
campaign. This was assailed on the ground that such requirement
constitutes taking and without just compensation. Court ruled: All
broadcasting, whether radio or by television stations, is licensed by the
government. Airwave frequencies have to be allocated as there are more
individuals who want to broadcast that there are frequencies to assign.
Radio and television broadcasting companies, which are given franchises,
do not own the airwaves and frequencies through which they transmit
broadcast signals and images. Thus, such exercise of the privilege may
reasonably be burdened with the performance by the grantee of some form
of public service. In granting the privilege to operate broadcast stations
and supervising radio and television stations, the state spends
considerable public funds in licensing and supervising them.
Ang Ladlad v COMELEC: the Qualification of Ang Ladlas party list was put
into question. On the issue of Freedom of Expression and Association.
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a
democratic society and this freedom applies not only to those that are
favorably received but also to those that offend, shock or drub.
Sec. 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference shall
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of
civil or political rights.
Estrada v Escritor: three steps where compelling state interest be applied
(4) The courts should look into the sincerity of the religious
belief without inquiring into the truth of the belief
(5) The state has to establish that its purpose are legitimate
and compelling
(6) The state used the least intrusive means possible.
Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the
court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of
national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law.
Marcos v Maglapuz: Right to freedom of movement and residence within
the borders of each state is decalred by the UDHR. It would therefore be
inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to ones
country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and
the right to travel.
Manotoc v CA: Does a person facing criminal indictment and provisionally
released on bail have an unrestricted right to travel? NO. Court has the
power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the PH. It is a
necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond as
provided in the ROC. It is with a condition that one who was granted of bail
should make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his
Second chances are rare, dont waste it.

Carmela Wenceslao
presence. If the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without
sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of courts because
jurisdiction of the courts does not extend beyond the Philippines or no
binding force. It might result to nugatory orders. Thus, constitutional right
to travel is not absolute.
Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern
shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and
papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for policy development shall be
afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Chavez v. PCGG: The compromise agreement exempting Marcos heirs from
taxation. The PCGG has absolutely no power to grant tax exemptions, even
under the cover of its authority to compromise ill-gotten wealth cases. In
this case, the agreements have not become effective yet, it is still ongoing
negotiation.
Restrictions and limitations of the right to information:
(1) National security matters
(2) Trade secrets and banking transactions
(3) Criminal matters
(4) Other confidential information
a. Diplomatic correspondence
b. Closed door meetings
c. Executive sessions of either houses of congress
d. Internal deliberations of SC (Id)
Scope: Matters of Public Concern and Transactions involving Public Interest
(Id)
Sec. 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and
private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not
contrary to law shall not be abridged.
Bayan v. Ermita: Calibrated Preemptive Response or the no permit, no
policy provided for under BP 880that no permit rallyist should only
conduct their rallies in freedom parks. The petitioners were picketing and
was forcefully prevented by the police because of BP 880. Thus, it is being
assailed for constitutionality on the ground of violation of Sec 4 and 8 of
the BOR. Court ruled that CPR is null and void for infringing the freedom to
peaceably assemble. However, the constitutionality of BP 880 was
sustained because it merely regulates public assemblies which is not a
prior restraint since lawful cause is not a content-based regulation,
therefore, should be valid. Furthermore, municipalities are ordered to
provide for freedom parks such as in public parks and plazas for holding of
public assemblies which permits are no longer required.

9
Sec 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.
Hacienda Luisita v. PARC: The determination of just compensation is a
judicial function; hence, valuation by DAR is not conclusive and subject to
judicial review. The price or value if the property at the time of the taking
shall be the basis. The date of taking is reckoned from the date of approval
of the stock distribution.
Sec. 10. No law impairing the obligations of contracts shall be passed.
Rep v. Rosemoor: A mining license that contravenes a mandatory provision
of the law under which it is gratned is void. Being a mere privilege, a
license does not vest absolute rigts in the holder. Thus, without offending
the due process and the non-impairment clauses of the Constitution, it can
be revoked by the State in the public interest. In this case, the
Proclamation no. 84 is not a violation of the non-impairment clause.
Sec. 11. Free access to courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

Sec. 12.
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense
shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and
to have the competent and independent counsel preferably of his
own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he
must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except
in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence threat, intimidation, or any other means
which vitiate free will shall be used against him. Secret detention
places, solitary, incommunicado, or other forms of detention are
prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section
17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of
this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of vistims
of torture or similar practices and their families.
RIGHTS OF A PERSON
UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION
1. Right to be informed
of his right to
remain silent and to
counsel;
2. Right to be
reminded that if he

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

1.
2.
3.

Right to face the

witnesses
Presumption
of
innocence
Right to have a
speedy, impartial

Second chances are rare, dont waste it.

Carmela Wenceslao

3.
4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

waives his right to

remain silent,
anything he says
can and will be used
against him;
Right to remain
silent
Right to have
competent and
independent
counsel of his own
choice.
Right to be provided
with counsel, if the
person cannot
afford the services
of one;
No torture, force,
violence, threat and
intimidation or any
other means which
vitiate free will shall
be used against
him;
Secret detention
places, solitary,
incommunicado, or
other similar forms
of detention are
prohibited;
Confessions or
admissions obtained
in violation these
rights are
inadmissible in
evidence.

4.
5.

6.

7.

and public trial

Right to be heard
by himself and
counsel
Right
to
be
informed of the
nature and cause
of the accusation
against him.
Right
to
have
compulsory
process to secure
the attendance of
witnesses and the
production
of
evidence on his
behalf.
Right
to
due
process of law

People v. Chavez: Invocation of Miranda rights applies during custodial

investigation which begins the moment the police investigation is no
longer an inquiry into an unsolved crime byt has begun to focus on a
particular suspect taken into custody by the police who starts interrogation
to the suspect to elicit incriminating statements. Republic Act No. 7438
expanded the definition of custodial investigation to "include the practice
of issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with
an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the
liability of the inviting officer for any violation of law." This means that
even those who voluntarily surrendered before a police officer must be
apprised of their Miranda rights.

10
People v Abola: Right to counsel cannot be raised in appeal without
offending the basic rules if justice and fair play.
Miranda v Arizona: A defendant must be warned prior to any questioning
MIRANDA RIGHTS
1. that he has the right to remain silent;
2. that anything he says can be used against him in a court of
law;
3. that he has the right to the presence of an attorney; and
4. that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed
for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.
Benghuis v Thompkins: Thompkins waived his right to remain silent when
he knowingly and voluntarily made a statement to police.
A waiver must be:
the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than
intimidation, coercion, or deception;
made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being
abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.
Had Thompkins said that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not
want to talk, he would have invoked his right to end the questioning. He
did neither.
Salinas v Texas: The Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination
does not extend to defendants who simply decide to remain mute during
questioning. Any witness who desires protection against self-incrimination
must explicitly claim that protection. This requirement ensures that the
government is put on notice when a defendant intends to claim this
privilege and allows the government to either argue that the testimony is
not self-incriminating or offer immunity. Therefore, as long as police do not
deprive defendants of the opportunity to claim a Fifth Amendment
privilege, there is no Constitutional violation.
Two exceptions to this principle:
1) that a criminal defendant does not need to take the stand at trial in
order to explicitly claim this privilege Salinas silence falls outside
of this exception because he had no comparable unqualified right
not to speak during his police interview.
2) that failure to claim this privilege must be excused when that
failure was due to government coercion he cannot claim this
exception because he agreed to accompany the officers to the
station and was free to leave at any time. (Id.)
Sec 13. All persons except those charged with offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be
Second chances are rare, dont waste it.

Carmela Wenceslao
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
People v. Hon. Salas: Right to bail was waived when respondent withdrew
his petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus.
Sec 14.
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be
heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial
and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment,
trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.
CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
Right of the accused:
1. Right to face the witnesses
2. Presumption of innocence
3. Right to have a speedy, impartial and public trial
4. Right to be heard by himself and counsel
5. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.
6. Right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence on his behalf.
7. Right to due process of law
The determination of whether the defendant has been denied his right to
speedy disposition of a case, the ff. factors may be considered and
balanced:
1. The length of delay
2. The reasons for the delay
3. Assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and
4. Prejudice caused by the delay (Coscoluella v. Sandiganbayan)
As held in Williams v. United States, for the government to sustain its right
to try the accused despite a delay, it must show two things: (a) that the
accused suffered no serious prejudice beyond that which ensued from the
ordinary and inevitable delay; and (b) that there was no more delay than is
reasonably attributable to the ordinary processes of justice. (Id.)
The guarantee of speedy disposition under Section 16 of Article III of the
Constitution applies to all cases pending before all judicial, quasijudicial or
administrative bodies. The guarantee would be defeated or rendered
inutile if the hair-splitting distinction by the State is accepted. Whether or

11
not the fact-finding investigation was separate from the preliminary
investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman should not
matter for purposes of determining if the respondents right to the speedy
disposition of their cases had been violated. (People v. Sandiganbayan)
the right to the speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is
deemed violated when the proceedings are attended by vexatious,
capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of
the trial are asked for and secured; or when without cause or justifiable
motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having
his case tried. (Id.)
Sec 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended
except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.
Montenegro v. Castaneda: Proclamation No. 210 was being assailed for
suspending the privilege of the writ of HC for being an ex-post facto law or
bill of attainder. Court ruled that such prohibition applies only to statutes.
Furthermore, grounds of suspension of the privilege was argued to be
inexistent at the time of the Proclamation of suspension was not favored by
the court. The authority to decide whenever the exigencies of cases of
rebellion, etc. arise requiring the suspension of the writ of HC belongs
to the Presidenthis decision is final and conclusive upon all
courts.
Lansang v. Garcia: Montenegro ruling was abandoned in this case. It
established the power of the SC to inquire into the factual basis of the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. In the end,
Proclamation of suspending the privilege was later on upheld due to the
impending rebellion. Test of validity of suspending the privilege of
the writ WON the President acted arbitrarily?
Sec 16. All persons shall have the right to speedy disposition of their cases
before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies.
Sec 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Bataan Shipyard v. PCGG: Petitioner were being asked by the respondent to
hand them certain documents for sequestration by virtue of EO 1 and 2.
Petitioner invokes Right against self-incrimination. Right against selfincrimination has no application to juridical persons. While an individual
may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by
an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with
special privileges and franchises may refuse to show its hand when
charged with an abuse of such privileges.
Bagadiong v. Gonzales: It is (only) in a criminal case where the
accused may not be compelled to testify. But while the constitutional
guaranty against self-incrimination protects a person in ALL types of cases,
Second chances are rare, dont waste it.

Carmela Wenceslao
said privilege, in proceedings other than a criminal case against him who
invokes it, is considered an option to refuse to answer incriminating
question, and not a prohibition of inquiry.
People v Olvis: Extrajudicial confessions are inadmissible in court. Prior to
any questioning, the person must be warned of his Miranda rights which
must be clear and unequivocal. Forced re-enactments, like uncounseled
and coerced confessions come within the ban against self- incrimination.
Evidence based on such re-enactment is a violation of the Constitution and
hence, incompetent evidence. Here, accused is not merely required to
exhibit some physical characteristics; by and large, he is likewise made to
admit criminal responsibility against his will. It is a police procedure just as
condemnable as an uncounseled confession. The lack of counsel makes
statement in contemplation of law, 'involuntary' even if it were otherwise
voluntary.
Alih v. Castro: The prohibition against self-incrimination applies to
testimonial compulsion only. Thus, photographing, fingerprinting and
paraffin-testing of the petitioners are not in violation of the right. In Holt v
US, the prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness
against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion
to extort communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as
evidence when it may be material."
De Castro v. People: Right against self-incrimination and to counsel
guaranteed under the Constitution applied only during the custodial
interrogation. In this case, De Castro underwent an administrative
investigation as an employee of BPI. Thus, not being subject under a
custodial investigation or having forced to say anything, there was no
violation of the right against self-incirimination. It was in fact, petitioners
conscience that compelled her to speak.
Sec 18.
(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs
and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a
punishment for a crime whereof the party have been duly
convicted.

Sec 19.
(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons, involving heinous crimes,
the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already
imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading
punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of

12
substandard or inadequate penal facilities
ocnditions shall be dealt with by law.

under subhuman

People v. Echegaray:
The constitutional exercise of this limited power of the Congress to reimpose the death penalty entails:
(1) that Congress define or describe what is meant by heinous
crimes;
(2) that Congress specify and penalize by death, only crimes that
qualify as heinous in accordance with the definition or
description set in the death penalty bill and/or designate
crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death in which
latter case, death can only be imposed upon the attendance of
circumstances duly proven in court that characterize the crime
to be heinous in accordance with the definition or description
set in the death penalty bill; and
(3) that Congress, in enacting this death penalty bill be singularly
motivated by "compelling reasons involving heinous crimes."
Sec 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll
tax.
Sec 21. No person shall be put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the
same offense if an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the
same act.
Sec 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
People v. Ferrer: WON the Anti-Subversion Law is a bill of attainder? NO. A
bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial.
Its essence is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of
guilt. The constitutional ban against bills of attainder serves to implement
the principle of separation of powers by confining legislatures to rulemaking and thereby forestalling legislative usurpation of the judicial
function. The law in question merely provides for prohibition on the
membership of such outlawed organizations. The guilt is still to be
subjected to judicial inquiry. The Govt has to prove at trial that the accused
had specific intent to further its subversive objectives.
DEFINITIONS
Second chances are rare, dont waste it.

Carmela Wenceslao
a.

b.

c.

d.
e.

f.
g.
h.

Void for vaguenessa law is vague when it lacks

comprehensible standards such that of men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and
differ as to its application.
Clear and present danger ruleinquires on whether
words are used in such circumstance and of such nature as
to create a clear and present danger that will bring about
the evil that the State has the right to prevent.
Benevolent neutralityallows accommodation of religion
under certain circumstances. Its purpose or effect is to
remove a burden on or facilitate the exercise of, a persons
or institutions religion.
It recognizes that the government must pursue its secular
goals and interests but at the same time strive to uphold
religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within the
flexible constitutional limits.
Absence of malicethere is no malice when the author of
the imputation is not prompted by ill-will or spite and not to
injure the reputation of the person being defamed.
Dangerous tendency ruleit states that a person could
be punished for words uttered or for ideas expressed which
create a dangerous tendency, or which will cause or bring
about a substantive evil which the State has a right to
prevent.
Facial challengeallowed to be made to a vague statute
and to one which is overbroad because of possible chilling
effect upon protected speech.
Overbreadth doctrinea government purpose may not
be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly
and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
Balancing of interest testused as a standard when
courts need to balance conflicting social values and
individual interests, and requires a conscious and detailed
consideration of the interplay of interests in a given
situation. (Chavez v. Gonzales)

13
i.

Public useequivalent to public welfare; expropriation for

socialized housing for instance is public use.
j. Just compensationthe just and complete equivalent of
the loss which the owner of the thing expropriated has to
suffer by reason of the expropriation. (payment that
matches market value)
k. Direct incitement test
l. Determination of probable causerefers to such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed
by the person sough to be arrested or that the objects
sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be
searched.
m. Double jeopardyno person shall be put twice in jeopardy
of punishment for the same offense.

n.
o.

when an accused is acquitted, or convicted, or the case

against him is dismissed or otherwise terminated without
his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction,
upon a complaint or information or when a formal charge,
the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of
the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the
offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or
frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily
included in the offense charged in the former complaint or
information. (Rule 117, Sec 7)
Ex post facto lawmakes an action done before the
passing of the law and which was innocent when done,
criminal and punishes such action.
Bill of attainderan act by the legislature that inflicts
punishment without trial.

Second chances are rare, dont waste it.