De La Salle University

College of Law
Constitutional Law II
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Second Semester January 2016
Atty. Victoria V. Loanzon

Course Objectives: At the end of the course, the students will be able:
1. To have an appreciation of the relationship of the state and its people.
2. To understand the concept of due process and its application.
3. To know the history of the Bill of Rights and how the Constitution protects the people against
possible abuses of the government.
4. To understand the inherent powers of government and the interplay of such powers in the
enshrined powers of the people under the Bill of Rights.
5. To appreciate the constitutionally protected rights of the people as the Supreme Court applies
and interprets such rights in assigned cases.

I. HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

A. Concept of Sovereign Will: Preamble Art. II, Sections 1and 3, Art V,
Constitution
B. The Concept of Separation of Powers and the Three Branches of Government:
Art.VI, VII and VIII, Constitution
C. Definition and Purpose of the Bill of Rights: protection of guaranteed rights to
liberty, property and other freedoms. (Section 1, Article III, Constitution)
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 454 Phil, 504(2003)
D. The Three Great Powers of Government: Police Power, Power to Tax, Power
To Expropriate as limitations to enjoyment of rights
Read annotations found in political/ constitutional law books written by C.J.
Justice Enrique Fernando, Fr. Jaoquin Bernas S.J., Justice Isagani Cruz and
Professor Rene B. Gorospe
1. Police Power
History of Police Power, Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Puno in
Lim v. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649: Former Chief Justice Puno in his Dissenting
Opinion in this 1995 case said that the exercise of police power is not without limit.
He said that while it is the prerogative of the State to promote the general welfare
of the people thru the use of police power; on the opposite end is the right of an
entity to have its property protected against unreasonable impairment by the State.
Courts accord the State wide latitude in the exercise of its police power to bring
about the greatest good of the greatest number. But when its purpose is putrefied by
private interest, the use of police power becomes a farce and must be struck down
just as every arbitrary exercise of government power should be stamped out.

When exercise of police power may be questioned

MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Assn. 328 SCRA 836: Where is there is no explicit grant of
power, a government agency cannot exercise police power. The Court said:
Clearly, the MMDA is not a political unit of government. The power delegated to
the MMDA is that given to the Metro Manila Council to promulgate administrative
rules and regulations in the implementation of the MMDAs functions. There is no
grant of authority to enact ordinances and regulations for the general welfare of
the inhabitants of the metropolis.-p

2. Power of Eminent Domain

1
Moday v. C. A. 268 SCRA 586: The Court reiterated the limitations on the power of eminent
domain are that the use must be public, compensation must be made and due process of law
must be observed. The Supreme Court, taking cognizance of such issues as the adequacy of
compensation, necessity of the taking and the public use character or the purpose of the taking,
has ruled that the necessity of exercising eminent domain must be genuine and of a public
character. Government may not capriciously choose what private property should be taken.

Land Bank of the Philippines v. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises, G.R. No. 172551,
January 15, 2014.The determination of just compensation is fundamentally a
judicial function. In the exercise of the Courts essentially judicial function of
determining just compensation, the RTC-SACs are not granted unlimited discretion
and must consider and apply the enumerated factors in R.A. No. 6657 and the DAR
formula (in AO 5-98) that reflect these factors. Courts may, in the exercise of their
discretion, relax the formulas application to fit the factual situations before them.
They must, however, clearly explain the reason for any deviation from the factors and
formula that the law and the rules have provided.
The time of taking refers to that time when the State deprived the landowner of
the use and benefit of his property, as when the State acquires title to the property
or as of the filing of the complaint, per Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.
NOTE that: Expropriation is one of the harshest proceedings which the state has
against a private party because it deprives the party of perpetual use of his property;
requisites, how just compensation is determined; relate to the Bill of Rights.
Action on Commissioners Report: Republic v. Spouses Tan, G.R. No. 191448,
November 16, 2011
Compromise Agreement tin Eminent Domain: City of Manila v. Alegar
Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 187604, June 25, 2012
Public Purpose
Housing for the poor: Ortega v. City of Cebu, 602 SCRA 601 (2009)
Taking for a cultural/historical purpose: Manosca v C.A., G.R. No. 106440,
January 29, 1996
When taking is not justified: Masikip v. Pasig City, 497 SCRA 391(2006)
Just Compensation
Principal criterion to determine just compensation: Tinio et al. v. NAPOCOR,
G.R. 160923, January 24, 2011
Compensation based on R.A. 6657: LBP v. Ferrer et al., G.R. No. 172230,
February 2, 2011
Recognition of Fair Market Value: EPZA v. Estate of Salud Jimenez, et al., G.R.
No. 188995, August 24, 2011
Interest rate on just compensation: Apo Fruits Corp. et al. v LBP, G.R. No. 164,
October 12, 2010

3. Power of Taxation: rule on taxation: must be uniform and equitable; Congress

to enact a progressive system of taxation
Com. of Internal Revenue v. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 309 SCRA 87. In
negotiating tax treaties, the underlying rationale for reducing the tax rate is that the
Philippines will give up a part of the tax in the expectation that the tax given up for
this particular investment is not taxed by the other country.
In order to eliminate double taxation, a tax treaty resorts to several methods. First,
it sets out the respective rights to tax of the state of source or situs and of the state
of residence with regard to certain classes of income or capital.
The second method for the elimination of double taxation applies whenever the state
of source is given a full or limited right to tax together with the state of residence. In
this case, the treaties make it incumbent upon the state of residence to allow relief in
order to avoid double taxation.

2
 E. Who are protected by the rights: all citizens, natural-born and naturalized
citizens; aliens within the jurisdiction of the Philippines; both natural and juridical
persons
Review Article IV, Citizenship, Constitution
Board of Medicine v. Ota, 558 SCRA 234(2008), See Art. XII. Sec. 14, para 2
Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region v. Hon. Felixberto
Olalia, et al., G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007
Government of United States of America v. Hon. Guillermo P. Puruganan,
Presiding Judge, RTC of Manila, Branch 42, and Mark B. Jimenez, a.k.a. Mario
Batacan Crespo, G.R. No. 148571, September 24, 2002, 389 SCRA 623
F. Doctrines governing interpretation of laws affecting guaranteed rights:
Void for Vagueness doctrine
Overbreadth doctrine
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394 (2001)

II. Citizenship
A. People
1. Different meanings of words people:
People as inhabitants, Art.XIII, Sec. 1; Art. III, Sec. 2
Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 9 SCRA 27 (1963): The state has the right to
exclude aliens in its territory. The President of the Philippines is given the discretion to
deport aliens who are considered undesirable.
People as citizens, Preamble, Art.II, Sections 1 and 4; Art. III, Sec. 7
People as source of sovereignty, Art. VII, Sec. 4

B. Citizenship under Art. IV and Right of Suffrage under Article V

Natural-born citizens Art. IV, Sec. 2
Public Officers who must be natural born citizens: (Please commit to memory.)
-President Art. VII, Sec. 2
- Vice President
- Members of Congress Art. VI, Sections 3 and 6
- Justices of the Supreme Court and lower collegiate courts, Art. VIII, Sec. 7 (1)
- Ombudsman and his deputies, Art. XI, Sec. 8
- Members of the Constitutional Commission, Art. IX, B, Sec. 1 (1); C, Sec. (1);
and D, Sec. 1(1)
-Members of the Central Monetary Authority, Art. XII, Sec. 20
-Members of Commission on Human Rights Art. XIII, Sec. 17 (2)
Former natural born citizens as transferees of private lands, Art. XII, Sec.8
Naturalized citizens under Com. Act No. 473
Who are qualified to be naturalized? Sec. 2
When is the 10-year residence requirement reduced to 5 years? Sec. 3
Who are disqualified to be naturalized? Sec. 4
Declaration of Intention, Sec. 5
Procedure, Sections 7-8
When decision is executed, Sec. 1
Effect on wife and minor children, Sec. 15
Denaturalization, Sec. 18
Citizenship by legislative act
Loss and Reacquisition of Citizenship. Art. IV, Sec. 3, Sec. 2
Dual Citizenship: R.A. No. 9139 The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000
R.A. No. 9225 Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003
Right of Suffrage, Article V
R. A. No. 9189 Overseas Voting Law

3
 Nicolas- Lewis v. COMELEC , 497 SCRA 649: Overseas Filipinos qualified to vote under
the R.A. No. 9189 need not have one year actual physical residence in the Philippines to
exercise their right of suffrage.

III. RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY: SAFEGUARDS OF DUE PROCESS,

EQUAL PROTECTION AND NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSES

A. Right to Life
Republic v. Kagandahan, 565 SCRA 72 (2008)
Gamboa v. P/SSupt. Chan, et al., G.R. No. 193636, July 24, 2012
Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014

B. Due Process Clause (Section1, Article III)

Types of due process: Procedural Due Process and Substantive Due Process
Procedural due process distinguished from substantive due process
>Substantive due process deals with rights vested under legal enactments.
>Procedural due process refers to guarantees of fairness in determining any
impairment of a right.

1. Notice of rules by publication as a prerequisite/ Notice to Party

Tanada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27(Decision); 146 SCRA 446 (Resolution)
Hon. Corona v. United Harbor Pilots, G.R. No. 111953 December 12, 1997

2. Procedural Due Process

a. Due process in administrative proceedings
Requisites: Mayor Abraham Tolentino v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. Nos. 187958,
187961 and 187962, April 7, 2010, Read the cardinal rules of due process in
administrative proceedings.
SPO 1 Acuzar v. Jorolan and Hon. Apresa, PLEB, G.R. No. 177878, April 7, 2010
Dr, Fernando A. Melendres, Executive Director of Lung Center of the Philippines
v. Presidential Anti- Graft Commission, et al. . G.R. No. 163859, August 15, 2012
Effect of waiver/estoppel: The Heirs of Jolly Bugarin v. Republic, G.R. No.
174431, August 6, 2012
Right to Counsel:
Carbonel v. CSC, G.R. No. 187689, September 7, 2010
b. Due process in judicial proceedings: Velasco v. Sandiganbayan and the People
of the Philippines, G. R. No. 169253, February 20, 2013
c. Due process in academic and disciplinary proceedings: Spouses Go and Minor
Chester Go v. Colegio de San de Letran, et al., G.R. No. 169391, October 10,
2012
Instances when no notice and hearing are required
Arroyo v. Rosal Homeowners Association, Inc., G.R. No. 175155, Oct. 22, 2012
Vivas, on his behalf and on behalf of the shareholders of EUROCREDIT
Community Bank v. The Monetary Board of the BSP and PDIC, G.R. No. 191424,
August 7, 2013
Effect when due process is not observed: Winston F. Garcia v. Molina and
Velasco, G.R. No. 157383, August 10, 2010
Right to Counsel: Lumiqued v. Exevea, 282 SCRA 125 (1997)
Instances when no notice and hearing are required
Anillo v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, 534 SCRA 228(2007)
Pagayanan R. Hadji-Sirad v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 182267,
Aug.28, 2009

3. Substantive Due Process

a. Due Process and Property Rights
Due Process and Property Rights: Heirs of Dr. Jose Deleste v. Land Bank of the
Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 169913, June 8, 2011
4
 b. Due Process and Police Power: Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators
Association Inc. v. City of Manila, 20 SCRA 849(1967)
Whitelight Corp. v. City of Manila, 576 SCRA 416(2009)
c. Due Process and Eminent Domain (Section 9, Article III and Article 18,
Article XII)
Requirements for exercise of right of expropriation: taking for public purpose and
just compensation
Procedural Requirement: Answer required in eminent domain proceedings
City of Manila v. Melba Tan Te, G.R. No. 169263, September 21, 2011
d. Due Process and Non-Economic Liberties: Right to Privacy
Concept of the Right (Section 3, Article III, Constitution)
Spouses Hing v. Chaoahuy, Sr. and Alllan Choachuy, G.R. No. 179736, June 26,
2013
When may right be invoked
Anti-Wire-Tapping Act (R.A. 4200)
Privileged Communication
Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA, Hon. Zamora
Navarro v. CA and the People of the Philippines August 1999
Alejano v. Cabuhay, 468 SCRA 188(2005)
Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA (1998)

C. Equal Protection Clause

1. Definition, Article III, Section1, Constitution
2. Conditions for a valid classification
3. Basis for classification: age, gender, religion, economic class, ethnicity, race, sexual
orientation, economic class, residence, disability, date of filing/ effectivity of the law
Mirasol v. DPWH, 490 SCRA 318(2006)
Yrasuegui v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 569 SCRA 467 (2008)
Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. DSWD, 526 SCRA 130 (2007)
Victoriano v. Elizalde Ropeworkers Union, 59 SCRA 54
Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., 582 SCRA 254 (2009)
Santos v. People 563 SCRA 341(2008)
NAPOCOR v. Pinatubo Commercial, G.R. No. 176006, March 26, 2010
4. Standards of Review
Prevailing standard used: Deferential or Rational Basis Scrutiny which
establishes a rational connection to serve legitimate state interest.
Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 446 SCRA
299
Middle Tier or Intermediate Scrutiny: challenged classification serves important
state interest.
Strict Judicial Scrutiny: burden is on the state to prove that classification
achieves a compelling state interest.
Law non-discriminatory on its face but discriminatory in its application:
Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 et al., G.R.Nos.192935 and
193036, December 7, 2010
Law in relation to other laws: Nicolas v. Romulo, 578 SCRA 438 (2009)
5. Economic Equality
Filipino First Policy: classification based on alienage - Ichong v. Hernandez, 101
Phil. 1165 (1957)
6. Political Equality
Dilution of voting rights based on residence: Aquino and Robredo v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010
Exclusion based on sexual orientation: Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
190582, April 8, 2010
7. Social Equality

5
 Forced resettlement based on ethnicity: Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39
Phil., 660 Privilege based on ethnicity: Cruz v. NCIP, G.R. No. 135385, December
6, 2000

D. CONTRACT CLAUSE / NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE

1. Concept of Mutual Obligation (Section 10, Article III, Constitution)
2. Concept of Vested Right
3. Waiver of Right
Vigilar v. Aquino, G.R. No. 180388, January 18, 2011
Pacific Wide Realty and Development Corp. v. Puerto Azul Land, Inc., G.R. No.
180893, November 25, 2009
Goldenway Merchandising Corporation v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 195540,
March 13, 2013

IV. INTELLECTUAL LIBERTY: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (SPEECH AND PRESS),

FREE ASSEMBLY AND PETITION, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM

A. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (SPEECH AND THE PRESS)

1. Definition (Section 4, Article III, Constitution)
2. Bases for Protection: Promotion of Truth, Enhance Principles of Democracy,
Expression of Self- Fulfillment of Citizens
3. Why State Restricts and Imposes Limitations on Freedom of Expression: Maintenance
of Peace, Promotion of Community Morals, and Protection of Individual Dignity
The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015
4. Scope of Freedom of Speech: Verbal Speech (print and broadcast media) and Non-
verbal (symbols)
5. Unprotected Speech/Expression and Protected Speech/Expression, distinguished:
a. Unprotected Speech/Expression: General Guidelines, Obscenity, and Incitement to
National Security, False or Misleading Advertisement, Libelous Speech, Hate Speech
and Contumacious Speech.
Chavez v. Gonzalez, 545 SCRA 441 (2008) - General Guidelines/State Policy
(Four aspects of free speech)
Pharmaceutical and Health Care Assn. of the Philippines v. Duque, 553 SCRA
265, 283(2007) Misleading Advertisement
In re: Macasaet, 561 SCRA 395 Contumacious Speech
b. Protected Speech/Expression: all those excluded from unprotected expression may
include utterances critical of public conduct, ordinary commercial speech, and satirical
speech/parody.
Flor v. People, 454 SCRA 440(2005) Misuse of Public Funds
Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA 460 Misconduct of a Public Official
PHCAP v. Duque III, supra, - Ordinary Commercial Speech
c. How Government Restricts Freedom of Expression
Content Based Restrictions distinguished from Content Neutral Restrictions as
gleaned
Justice Carpios concurring opinion in Chavez v. Gonzalez, supra:
(i). any content-based prior restraint on PROTECTED expression is
unconstitutional.
(ii). only unprotected expression is subject to prior restraint.
(iii). prior restraint presumes that the expression is unconstitutional.
(iv).government has the burden of proof every time it exercises
censorship.
Sanidad v. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 529
MTRCB v. ABS-CBN Corp., 448 SCRA 504 (2001)

d. Standards of Review
OBrien Test on Content-Neutral Restrictions
6
 Social Weather Station v. COMELEC, 357 SCRA 504 (2001)
Miller Test on Indecent Speech
Soriano v. Laguardia, 587 SCRA 79

Roth Test on Obscenity

Gonzales v. Kalaw- Katigbak, 137 SCRA 717
Clear and Present Danger Test
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160 (2006)
Doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth and vagueness
Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc., v. Anti-Terrorism Council, et
al., G.R. No. 178552, October 5, 2010

e. Libel as a Criminal Offense (Article 354, Revised Penal Code)

Yambot v. Hon. Artemio Tuquero et. al., G.R. No. 169895, March 23, 2011
Fermin v. People, 550 SCRA 132 (2008)
Tulfo v. People, 565 SCRA 283 (2008)
GMA Network, Inc. v. Bustos, 504 SCRA 638 (2006) Libelous Statement
Binay v. Secretary of Justice, 501 SCRA 312 (2006) - Defamatory Statement

B. RIGHT TO INFORMATION
1. Right to Information, Article III, Section 7, Constitution
2. Access to Public Records / Transparency in the Government, Article II, Section 28,
Constitution
3. Limitations
CENPEG v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189546, September 21, 2010
Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1 (2006)
Neri v. Senate Committees 549 SCRA 77 (2008)
Antolin v. Abelardo R. Domondon, et al., G.R. No. 165036. July 5, 2010

C. RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND TO SEEK REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES FROM

GOVERNMENT
Bayan v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 226 (2006)
IBP v. Mayor Atienza, G.R. No.175241, Feb. 24, 2010
GSIS and Garcia v. Villaviza et al., G. R. No. 180291, July 27, 2010

D. RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION
1. Right to Strike and the Right to Unionize, Article III, Section 8, Constitution
BPI v. BPI Employees Union- Davao Chapter- Federation of Unions in BPI
UNIBank, G.R. No. 164301, august 10, 2010
2. Right of Private Sector Employees and Government Employees, Article III, Section 8,
Constitution
SSS v. C.A. 175 SCRA 686 (1989)
Manila Public School Teachers Assn. v. Laguio, Jr., 200 SCRA 343(Feliciano,
dissenting)

E. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
1. Separation of Church and State, Article II, Section 6, Constitution
2. Non Establishment of Religion Clause/ Free Exercise Clause/No Religious Test,
Art.III, Sec.5, Constitution
3. Separation of Powers, Article VI, Sec.5 (2), and Article IX C, Section 2(5),
Constitution
4. Two Aspects of Freedom of Religion: Freedom to Believe and Freedom to Act on
Ones Beliefs
Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA 1 (2003) 492 SCRA 1 (2006)
Taruc v. De La Cruz, 453 SCRA 123 (2005)
INC v. CA 259 SCRA 529
Victoriano v. Elizalde Ropeworkers Union, supra
7
F. Academic Freedom
The right to academic freedom may only be invoked only against the state. All private
educational institutions may prescribe its own requirements to maintain the standard of
quality of academic quality.
PTA of St. Mathew Christian Academy et al., v. Metrobank, G.R. No. 176518, March 2,
2010)

V. PHYSICAL LIBERTY: LIBERTY OF ABODE AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

FREEDOM TO BE SECURE IN ONES PERSON, HOME AND POSSESSION

A. FREEDOM OF ABODE, FREEDOM TO CHANGE ABODE AND RIGHT TO

TRAVEL
1. Constitutional Guarantee under Section 6, Article III, Constitution
OCA v. Judge Ignacio B. Macarine, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770, July 18, 2012
2. Limitations
Gudani v. Senga, 498 SCRA 671 (2006)
Fr. Roberto P. Reyes v. Sec. Gonzales, G. R. No. 182161, December 31, 2009

B. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

1. Right against unreasonable searches and seizures, Article III, Sections 1, 2 and 3,
Constitution
Exclusion of Evidence: Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 388 (1967)
People v. Belocura, G.R. No. 173474, August 29, 2012
Chain of Custody doctrine: People v. Ronaldo de Guzman, G.R. No. 186498,
March 26, 2010
Confiscation of seized items despite acquittal under P.D. 969: Nogales v.
People, G.R. 191080, November 21, 2011
Probable Cause: HPS Software and Communication Corp. and Yap v. PLDT, et
al., G.R. No. 170217, 170694, December 10, 2012
Loss of protection of right: Sales v. People, G.R.No. 191023, February 6, 2013
2. Requisites for a valid search warrant and warrant of arrest
Yao, Sr. v. People 108 SCRA (2007)
People v. Nunes, G.R. No. 177148, June 30, 2009
Re: Request of Police Director General Avelino I. Razon for Authority to
Delegate the Endorsement of Application for Search Warrant, 592 SCRA 1 (2009)
3. Instances of valid warrantless arrest (Review relevant provisions of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure)
Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, 598 SCRA 41 (2009)
4. Valid warrantless searches
> Search incident to a valid arrest: People v. Ngik Bun, Kwok Wai Cheng et al., G.R.
No. 180452, January 10, 2011; Buy Bust Operation People v. Buenaventura G.R.
No. 184807, November 23, 2011
> The Plain View Doctrine: Fajardo v. People, G.R. no. 190889, January 10, 2011
United Laboratories, Inc. v. Isip, 461 SCRA 574 (2005)
> Checkpoints: Valmonte v. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989)
> Stop and Frisk: People v. Dequina et al., G.R. no. 177570, January 19, 2011
> Airport Search: People v. Johnson, 348 SCRA (2000)
> Moving Vehicle Search: People v. Macarios, G.R. no. 188611, June 16, 2010
> Consented Search
> Searches by Private Entities: People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
> Administrative Searches: buildings, vessels, aircrafts
Pollo v. Chairperson Constantino-David, et al., G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011

8
 C. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WRIT OF AMPARO, WRIT OF HABEAS
DATA, WRIT OF KALIKASAN
1. Writ of Habeas Corpus Article III, Sections 13 and 15, 1987 Constitution
2. Function of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778 (1919)
3. Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Article III, Section 18, 1987
Constitution
4. Function of the Writs of Amparo [A.M. No.07-9-9-12-SC] and Habeas Data [A.M.
No.08-1- 16-SC]
Melissa C. Roxas v. President Macapagal- Arroyo, et al., G.R. No. 189155,
September 7, 2010
Noriel Rodriguez v. President Macapagal- Arroyo et al., G.R.No. 193160,
November 15, 2011
Canlas v. Napico Homeowners Assn., Inc., 554 SCRA 208 (2008)
5. Writ of Habeas Data
Viveres and Suzara v. St. Theresas College, G.R. No. 202666, September 29,2014
6. Writ of Kalikasan
MMDA v. Concerned residents of Manila Bay G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December
18, 2008

VI. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AND OTHER RIGHTS RELATED TO CRIME AND
PUNISHMENT

A. FREE ACCESS TO COURTS

1. Representation before the Courts, Article III, Section 11, Constitution
People v. Hon. Azarraga and Prevendido, G. R. No. 187117, October 12, 2011
2. Costs of Litigation
Re: Query of Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi re Exemption from Legal and Filing Fees
of the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., 596 SCRA 401 (2009)
Re: Request of IBP National Committee on Legal Aid Clients from Paying Filing,
Docket and other Fees, A.M. No. 08-11-7 SC, August 28, 2009

B. RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS
1. Custodial Investigation, Article III, Section 12, Constitution
Jesalva v. People, G.R. No. 187725, January 19, 2011
2. History of Miranda Rights/What Rights are Involved
People v. Marra, 236 SCRA 565 (1994)
3. When Miranda Rule applies (Information given while in custody and information is
testimonial in nature)
People v. Bolanos, 211 SCRA 262 (1992)
People v. Jungco, 186 SCRA 714 (1990)
4. When Miranda Rule will not apply (Information gathered in non-custodial setting
and information given is non-testimonial in nature)
People v. Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)
People v. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 (1994)
5. Right to Independent Counsel and Scope of Waiver, Article III, Section 12(1),
Constitution
6. Effect of Involuntary Confessions, Article III, Section 12 (2), (3) and (4),
Constitution
People v. Lucero, G.R. No. 188705, March 2, 2011
Ho Wai Ping v. People, G.R. No. 176229, October 19, 2011
People v. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, 15 March 2010
Read also The Anti-Torture Act of 2009 [R.A. No. 9745]

C. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

1. Basis of Right to Bail, Article III, Section 13, Constitution
When Bail is allowed
9
 When Bail is a matter of right (Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Section 4) or
a matter of discretion on the part of the cour (Rule on Criminal Procedure, Rule 114,
Section 5)
Herras Teehankee v. Rovira, 75 Phil., 634 (1945)
Juan Ponce-Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, August 18, 2015
2. Nature of Criminal Due Process
Jurisdiction over Criminal Offenses: Bayan Muna v. Romulo and Ople, G.R.
No. 159618, February 1, 2011
Criminal Immunity: Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180564, June 22, 2010
Rights involved in Criminal Proceedings, Article III, Section 14(1) and (4)
Right to Substantive and Procedural Due Process
Presumption of Innocence
Right to be heard by Himself and Counsel
To be informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation against Him
Right to Have a Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial
Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face
To Have Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses and the
Production of Evidence in his behalf
3. Speedy Trial v. Speedy Disposition of Cases, Article III, Section16, Constitution
Trillanes IV v. Pimentel, Sr., 356 SCRA 471(2008)
People v. Abulon, 530 SCRA 675
Andaya v. People, 493 SCRA 539 (2007)

D. THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

1. When Right may be invoked: in all Criminal Cases, Administrative Cases and
Impeachment
2. Transactional Immunity
3. Aspects covered by the Witness Protection Program and Criminal Procedure
Agustin v. Court of Appeals, 460 SCRA 315 (2005)
Tanchanco v. Sandiganbayan, 476 SCRA 202 (2005)

E. PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY

1. Nature of Double Jeopardy, Article III, Section 21, Constitution
Nature of right: People v. Dante Tan, G.R. No. 167526, July 26, 2010
When right will not apply: Braza v. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 1950, February 20, 2013
Exception, when invoked: Lejano v. People, G.R. Nos. 176389 and 176864, January 18,
2011
Mistrial as ground for exception: People v. C.A.., G.R. No. 198589, July 25, 2012
2. Situations Covered: Identity of the Act and Identity of Offenses
People v. Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)
Loney v. People 482 SCRA 194 (2006)
3. Requisites of Double Jeopardy
Ivler v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010
4. Effect of Acquittal based on Demurrer to Evidence
Bangayan, Jr., v. Bangayan, G.R. no. 172777, October 19, 2011

F. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

1. No Detention for Political Beliefs or Aspirations, Article III, Section 18 (1),
Constitution
2. Exceptions to Involuntary Servitude, Article III, Section 18 (2), Constitution
3. Rational behind the Imposition of Death Penalty, Article III, Section19 (1),
Constitution
4. Non-imposition of Excessive Fines, Article III, Section 19 (1), Constitution
5. Prohibition against Cruel and Degrading Punishment, Article III, Section 19(1)
and (2), Constitution
6. Non-Imprisonment for Debt or Poll Tax, Article III, Section 20, Constitution
People v. Dacuycuy, 173 SCRA 90 (1989)
10
 G. BAN ON EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER
1. Characteristics of an Ex Post Facto Law, Article III, Section 22, Constitution
Sufficiency of Information: People v. Balao, et al., G.R. 176819, January 26, 2011
2. When Retroactivity of the Law is allowed
Salvador v. Mapa, 539 SCRA 34 (2007)
Valeroso v. People, supra

References:
Bernas, Joaquin G., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011)
V. V. Mendoza, Bar Review Guide in Political Law (1987)
Enrique M. Fernando, The Constitution of the Philippines (1977)
Isagani M. Cruz, Political Law
Rene B. Gorospe, Constitutional Law, Volumes I and II (2006)
Miriam Defensor- Santiago, Constitutional Law(2005)
J. Midas Marquez, The Constitutional Philosophy of Philippine Jurisprudence (2005)
Antonio B. Nachura, Outline in Political Law Review (2006)

11