CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS - guaranty by the State, as part of

the social contract, to the people that such power will

Constitution has provided rights: individual and public not be abused by the delegate.
rights - right is exercised vis-a-vis a power
Ex. Right to information
Irrespective of how you distribute the powers, there are
RIGHTS are: inherent powers of the State, pursuant to the social
1. Inherent contract:
- because we are born as a human beings
- at the point of birth, we acquire rights 1. Police Power - pursuing the common good; the
- Art. II, Constitution greatest good for the greatest number
- rights are not vested by the State; they are - not the power to execute, but to enact a law
inherent (legislative)
- Art III: those which you can demand from
the State upon where we delegated the power 2. Eminent Domain - taking of a private property for
- right to food, nationality, education, work, a public use for a public purpose
express yourself - the government can take because of a need
that promotes the common good
2. Indivisible - sacrifice the good of an individual for the
- civil, cultural, political, economic, social greater number
- you cannot say you only have to right to - compensation is required so as not to
speak but not to food violate the due process
- two separate covenants: civil-political,
economic-social-cultural 3. Taxation - required to give our share as far as
financial resources is concerned.
3. Interdependent - must be uniform, progressive and equitable
- the full realization will necessitate that
other rights are respected and promoted
A. POLICE POWER
4. Inalienable
- rights cannot be taken away
- power of promoting the public welfare by restraining
- Declaration of Martial Law will not take
and regulating the use of liberty and property
away your right
- power to enact laws or regulations for the purpose of
public interest
5. Imprescriptible
- inherently LEGISLATIVE in nature but power can be
- what you did not apply now does not mean
delegated
you cannot invoke later on
- Objective: common good
- what is the presumption? Such exercise of police
Did the 1987 Constitution give us right? NO. It was
power is VALID. Why? Because the power is an act of
inherent with the very fact that we are human beings.
the sovereign people through the delegate, our
- the same reason why we can delegate it to our
representatives. (agreement in the social contract)
State
- Standard: Does the exercise of that power, in any way,
go against what our State, our delegate, has guaranteed
HISTORY OF BILL OF RIGHTS:
us, to not abuse the power?
First Articulation of Rights: Malolos Constitution
- Due Process and Equal Protection
- initial articulation of what we recognize as
- Test of Due Process: Reasonableness - the means
rights already
must contribute to the attainment of the objective
- taken from the French and American
a. Strict Scrutiny
b. Intermediate Scrutiny
Affirmation and re-affirmation by our courts is needed
c. Minimum Scrutiny (Rational Basis)
for actual application.
- Equal Protection - those in the same class shall be
treated in the same way
Effectivity of the Constitution is in articulation of the
- requirements:
rights.
1. valid classification based on
- see how the right is a counterbalance to an
substantial distinctions
exercise of power

B. de Leon | CONSTI 2 (2016-2017 | Atty. Muyot 1

 - ex. PWD: need more attention
and care
SC: no income anymore
2. germane to the purpose of the law
- the classification must be
germane to the purpose of the law
3. must not be limited to existing
conditions only but must also apply to future
conditions
4. must apply equally to all members of
the same class
EDU v. ERICTA
- *important case*
- Reflector Law - owners are required to attach the
reflectorized stickers on the front and rear motor vehicle
- objective: to prevent vehicular accidents (for public
welfare, public safety)
- purpose: to warn that there is a vehicle there
- an early warning device
ERMITA-MALATE v. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA
- there is a tension between the rights of the owners to earn
vis-a-vis public morals
- purpose: to eradicate pre-marital and extra-marital sex
(immorality)
- property rights is the lowest in the hierarchy of rights
- why would the means be reasonable? YES, because the
biggest issue is prostitution
- at this time, ―bomba‖ movies are in trend = pornographic
movies
- SC: VALID exercise of police power
- same procedure in all other motels
- essence of motels: Privacy
- no recognition of any right
WHITE LIGHT v. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA
- Manila Ordinance No. 7774: prohibiting short time
admission in hotels, or renting more than twice a day
- right asserted: Privacy (in the past case: Property)
- court allowed derivative suit to assert individual rights
(customers)
- purpose of the ordinance: to address criminality
- SC: means used not reasonable because there is no relation
between hotel use and criminality
- step in: if there is a law or existing policy
- extra-marital affairs: cannot be addressed by a city
ordinance
- hotel presumption: the occupancy of the room will be
for a lawful/legitimate purpose
- more hotels mushrooming in transport hubs (ex.
traveling)
- there is a violation of SUBSTANTIVE DUE
PROCESS
- cannot say that these prohibitions will curve into
criminality
- court is not the arbiter of immorality
PASE v. TORRES
- temporary suspension of deployment of OFWs to HK
- purpose: rampant physical/sexual abuse
- SC: VALID exercise of police power
- not oppressive because it is only temporary
- valid classification: rampant abuse in HK only
- germane classification: to address the issue of abuse
- not limited: applicable to future deployments also
- applicable to all class: all DH going to HK
JMM PROMOTION v. CA
- Artist Book: certification of training
- purpose: to prevent exploitation of women
- SC: JMM cannot represent the individual because the
interest of the company is for profit only
- agreement: certification - be placed in a legitimate
entertainment field
- equal protection requisites are satisfied
BELTRAN v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH
- blood banks (commercial) are to be phased out in two years
- commercial blood banks: you go to sell blood
- poor people who need money
- possibility of contamination is very high
- policy of the state: to ensure that only blood of highest
quality is made available
- SC: Not violative of due process because it is reasonable
- there is a period of 2 years for preparation, also an
extension is possible
- SC: Equal protection
- distinction from the commercial blood banks and the
non-profit blood banks
- it directly addresses the issue of contamination
- applies uniformly to all the blood banks
MOSQUEDA v. PILIPINO BANANA GROWERS
- sickness because of the aerial spray
- city ordinance prohibiting the use of aerial spray in
agricultural areas
- SC: on Due Process
A. aerial spraying - violative of due process, it is
overbroad because it bans aerial spray per se -- the
method itself
B. 30m buffer zone - not violative of substantive
due process
C. 3 month phase out - violative, it is impossible
-- how can you shift from aerial spraying to another
method in 3mos?
- SC: on Equal Protection
- no specification; very broad (over-broad)
- Justice Leonen: the ordinance is about the spraying and not
on pesticide, therefore not in the powers of FPA solely
B. de Leon | CONSTI 2 (2016-2017 | Atty. Muyot 2
 DAP v. NCDA
- discounts can be given as tax credits
- SC: on Due Process
- not violative
- it will be a great help on their part
- they will still be paid through tax credit
- SC: on Equal Protection
- they require more care and assistance
- 20% discount, to bring them a financial aid
- applicable not on the present time only
- as long as you are a PWD; benefits ALL PWDs in
general
CHAVEZ v. ROMULO
- PA: violative of his property rights
- license: only a privilege that can be taken away and can be
revoked
: right to bear arms (not in our Constitution)
: intertwined his right to bear arms with his right to life
and protect his life
- SC: protection of life is the duty of the State and not of the
individual
- history of the US:
- no army, only a confederation of states
- not so much that they need to protect themselves
from each other but because of the peculiar
history of the US
- SC: on Due Process
- Lawful Purpose: to address criminality
- Lawful Means: revocation of licenses and apply for a
new one; not entirely prohibited but only outside of
residence
- SC on Equal Protection:
- there is a substantial distinction: they have the means
to inflict violence
Preference of Credits: is the hierarchy of those who will be
paid first in case of insolvency; first: those who are insured,
last: those who are not insured
NDC v. PHIL. VETERANS BANK
- PD 1717: extinguished all mortgages and liens attaching to
the property of Agrix and creating Claims Committee
(Preference of Credit was invalidated)
- SC: on Due Process:
- no lawful purpose
- SC: on Equal Protection
- there is no substantial distinction
- nugatory in favor of Agrix
- only made applicable to Agrix
MMDA v. GARIN
- MMDA: is an coordinating body that takes policy from the
LGUs (policies: ordinances enacted by the LGUs)
- does NOT have the original power to legislate
- there must be an ordinance from a city that will
delegate the powers to the MMDA
- SC: unless and until the mayors delegate that power,
MMDA does not have a legislative power
- sanggunian of each city
B. EMINENT DOMAIN
- power of the State to forcibly take property for public
use upon payment of just compensation
- Police Power in re: Property
- it can prohibit and regulate
- concurrence of both Police and Eminent Domains
ASSN. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS v. SEC. OF
AGRARIAN REFORM
- Police Power
- why did the SC say that the CARL is an exercise of
police power?
- lawful purpose: social justice
- lawful means: redistribution of agrarian lands
- what was the argument raised by the P?
- due process: means are not reasonable, they are
oppressive because of the retention (retention is
for sufficient livelihood)
- unlawful because instead of using idled or
unused lands, the State took the lands of the
individuals
- SC: because the lands are already in usage of the
lands by the tenants
- given the land that they are already
tending to
- equal protection: they should not be treated
differently from other land owners, and different
from the large land owners
- substantial distinction: lands are tenanted
lands
- the purpose is the same regardless of the
size of the land
- Eminent Domain
- PA: (1) public use
- distributed to certain individuals; not a public
use
- SC: of public interest because they want to
redistribute the land
- ―public use‖ is not tantamount to ANY publice
purpose
- PA: (2) just compensation
- usurpation of function because the law has
provided compensation
- money should be the only mode of
compensation
- SC:
- if the compensation was not agreed upon, they
can go to the courts
- valid because bonds are negotiable and can be
used as payment of obligations to the government
- Convergence - when the regulation/prohibition amounts to a
taking of the property
B. de Leon | CONSTI 2 (2016-2017 | Atty. Muyot 3
- Expansion of public use
- Clarification of the meaning of just compensation
REYES v. NHA
- PA: expropriation should be revoked because the
government failed to pursue the public use and failed to pay
the just compensation
- Public Use: relocate the informal settlers
- SC: cannot be revoked because the taking is absolute
- socialized project is still for a public use because it is
provided in the Constitution itself
- Just Compensation: 1.2M was not paid
- SC: NHA is still required to pay the balance + interest
- Reyes cannot ask to a reversion of the land
- there is a complete taking when the government takes
use of the property
CITY OF MANDALUYONG v. AGUILAR
- P are ―small land owners‖
- RA 7279 limited the power of expropriation
- Sec. 9: order of preference
- Sec. 10: modes of acquisition
- SC: nullified the ordinance
LAGCAO v. LABRA
- Cebu City passed an ordinance to authorize the mayor to
expropriate for urban development
- SC: unconstitutional
- lawful purpose: did not follow the order of preference
in the UDHA
Private Property can only be taken for PUBLIC USE
--> once taken, there must be JUST COMPENSATION
--> compensation is NOT only through cash but also
through --> OTHER MODALITIES but can provide
monetary value to settle obligations
Stages in Eminent Domain Cases:
1. WON there was a public taking
2. Determine how much is the just compensation
C. TAXATION
- power of the government to compel the people to
contribute (coercive power)
- lifeblood: taxes are needed for the operation of the
government; to raise revenue to fund services for the
general welfare
- tax system should not only be to impose, but also to
collect
- basic principles:
1. uniform, equitable, progressive
2. Congress can delegate the power of imposing
taxes, tariffs and duties to the President
- Congress cannot act fast enough to change
the economic changes
- must react immediately to changing
conditions
3. tax exemptions in charitable purposes:
- real property tax ONLY
- actual, direct and exclusive use
4. concurrence of a majority of the Congress for
the passage of a law
SISON v. ANCHETA
- PA: Due Process
- arbitrary and oppressive because it imposes higher
taxes on professionals
- SC: no violation of due process; there are allowable
deductions but it is up to them to prove
- gross compensation income earners: fixed salaries and
fixed deductions; can be deducted at source
- gross income earners: varies on income and
deductions
- PA: Equal Protection
- discriminated, there is no valid classification
- SC: no, there is a valid classification
- distinguished from gross compensation income
- PA: Not Uniform
- SC: everyone in the same class are going to be treated in the
same way
REYES v. ALMANZOR
- Rent Control Law: cannot increase rentals except as so
provided in the law
- tax assessment went up but the the rental fee was stagnant
- PA: Equal Protection
- that he should be treated differently from other
apartment owners because the tax as applied to him is
inequitable
- Income Approach vs. Comparable Sales Approach
- SC: ―as applied‖ challenge to the taxes
COMMISSION OF INTERNAL REVENUE v.
SOLIDBANK CORPORATION
- double taxation - taxed twice for the same thing in a same
jurisdiction
- FWT vs. Gross Receipts Tax
- SC: no double taxation
- FWT is a tax on interest on the income paid by the
person who deposited in bank
- bank must only withhold and remit
- Gross Receipts Tax is a business tax on the banks as a
privilege of conducting the business
- bank remits
B. de Leon | CONSTI 2 (2016-2017 | Atty. Muyot 4
 NAPOCOR v. CITY OF CABANATUAN
- tax exemption can be revoked at any time and is construed
strictly against the taxpayer
- franchise tax imposed by the LG of Cabanatuan
- PA: exempt from taxes under its charter and should not be
made to pay the franchise tax under the government
- SC: exemption was impliedly repealed by the LGC
- revoked except as stated in the provisions
- SC: LGU can impose franchise tax - tax on engaging in a
certain kind of business
- SC: still tax exempted unless provided otherwise
LUNG CENTER OF THE PHILS. v. QUEZON CITY
- exemptions are construed strictly against the taxpayer
- charitable institutions: actually, directly, exclusively
- SC: Lung Center is a charitable institution
- exempted from property taxes BUT considering its
peculiar circumstances, the portions which are leased
out will be taxed
- those not used for charitable purposes will be taxed
BILL OF RIGHTS
A. DUE PROCESS
- fair play; giving everyone what is due
- Substantive Due Process: reasonableness of the law,
lawful object and lawful means
- Procedural Due Process: 1need for notice and
2
opportunity to be heard
- concepts may be the same but it is the application in
lieu of the contemporaneous circumstance that change
RUBI v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO
- ordered that Mangyans to be relocated in a reservation
- violation: penalty of imprisonment
- Mangyans: ―nomads‖; they follow the rhythm of the nature;
no permanent residence -- so much lands were unutilized
- Justice Malcolm: economic development; to make lands
become more useful for agricultural purposes
- SC on Substantive Due Process:
- liberty is not absolute; it can be regulated
- they are being relocated because that is the way that
the government will be able to deliver education, health
care, etc.
- so that by services will be delivered to them
- SC on Equal Protection:
- there is a substantial distinction between
―non-Christian‖ and ―Christians‖: nomads have to be
protected from exploitation -- vulnerable growth that
need to be protected (paternalistic stance)
YNOT v. IAC
- SC on Substantive Due Process:
- purpose: to prevent the theft of carabao
- means: to penalize the transfer of carabaos from one
place to another
- invalid: no direct connection; does not directly address
the stealing of carabao
- SC on Procedural Due Process:
- provides immediate confiscation and penalty without
a judicial determination
- Unconstitutional
CORONA v. UNITED HARBOR PILOTS ASSOC.
- SC on Substantive Due Process:
- purpose: for public safety
- means: renewal of license every year
- because of the license, they have a vested right
- license is a mere privilege, thus it can be
revoked anytime
- it is unreasonable and oppressive because there is no
direct relationship between the means and the purpose
TANADA v. TUVERA
- SC on Substantive Due Process:
- Art. 3, CC
- never informed of the law
- there must be a constructive notice
- can never be a basis for the people because
accountable to the law when they do not even know the
law
NUNEZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN
- right to appeal
- you can only raise questions of law in an appeal to the
Supreme Court; the Court is not a trier of facts
- SC on Procedural Due Process:
- appeal as may be provided by law (no provision that
in every appeal, both questions of facts and law would
be addressed)
- right to appeal is not an absolute right
- the accused was heard in a competent court
- there is no denial of due process
ANG TIBAY v. CIR
- quasi-judicial body (more of an administrative body)
- will allowing CIR to hear and decide cases be violative of
due process? NO. It still has to abide by the cardinal
principles of due process in admin cases:
1. Right to a hearing
2. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented
3. Decision must be something to support itself
4. Evidence must be substantial
5. Decision must be based on the evidence
presented at the hearing; or at least contained in the
record and disclosed to the parties affected
6. Tribunal, body, or any of its judges must act on
B. de Leon | CONSTI 2 (2016-2017 | Atty. Muyot 5
 its own independent consideration of the law and the
facts of the controversy, and not simple affect the views
of the subordinate
7. Decision must be rendered in a manner that the
parties know the various issues involved and the reason
for the decision rendered
Quantum of Proof:
1. Criminal cases: Beyond reasonable doubt
- moral certainty; no doubt in your mind
2. Civil cases: Preponderance of evidence
- weighing the evidence
3. Admin cases: Substantive evidence
- reasonable factual bases
POLLUTION ADJUDICATION BOARD v. CA
- there was already a scientific evidence and a hearing
- SC on Due Process:
- no violation of due process
- immediate action is required because if not, it will
cause in a irreparable injury
NON v. DAMES
- rally -> students were excluded from enrollment
- SC on Procedural Due Process:
- violation: prohibited from enrolling because of
academic deficient (not entirely true)
- before a student can be disciplined, they should be
notified of the charge and be given the chance to
answer
- Five Rights of Students in re: Due Process:
1. Informed of the accusation
2. Right to answer charges with assistance of
counsel
3. Informed of the evidence
4. Present their own evidence
5. Evidence must be duly considered
B. EQUAL PROTECTION
- the law does not prohibit distinction
- conditions for valid classification:
1. It must rest on substantial distinctions
2. It must be germane to the purpose of the law
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions
only
4. It must apply equally to all members of the
same class
CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOC. v. BSP
- Officers v. Rank-and-file distinction: VALID
- SC on Due Process:
- purpose: to have competent employees in the BSP
- means: by providing for competitive pay
- SC on Equal Protection:
- Relative Constitutionality: look at the environment on
where it is applied; a law valid at one time may be
rendered invalid by subsequent developments
- other charters: blanket exception from the application
of SSL
- distinction now: GFIs and other government
agencies and instrumentalities
- gravely affect the economy because they
regulate the banking sector
- GFIs do not affect solely governmental
functions
- there is no valid distinction from the RAF employees
of BSP and the RAF of other GFIs
- unconstitutional: should be applied to all members in
the same class
THE PHILIPPINE JUDGERS ASSOC. v. PRADO
- withdrawal of a franking privilege
- privileges can be withdrawn so long as there is no violation
of equal protection and due process
- withdrawal? Why? PhilPost is not making money anymore
because the Judiciary was sending too much mail
- SC on Equal Protection:
- there was NO substantial distinction between
ICHONG v. HERNANDEZ
- citizenship and nationality is a valid classification
depending upon which right it violates
- act: aliens cannot engage in retail
- purpose: to break the strangle hold of aliens on retail trade
- SC on Equal Protection:
- distinction: degree of permanence
- retail: privilege only and not a right
VICTORIANO v. ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS’
- ―close shop agreement‖: only members of a union can be an
employee of a company
- SC on Equal Protection:
- classification: religious freedom
- freedom of religion is a preferred right
- ―strict scrutiny rule‖
DUMLAO v. COMELEC
- prohibition on government retirees from running in election
- retirees have already manifested that they no longer have
the energy to work and that they have collected their benefits
already
- basis for disqualification: the fact that he had already retired
and had received the retirement benefits
- SC: not violative of equal protection
ANG LADLAD v. COMELEC
- LGBT group wanted to register under the party-list system
B. de Leon | CONSTI 2 (2016-2017 | Atty. Muyot 6
- COMELEC: no, such promotes sexual immorality
- SC on Equal Protection:
- distinction: no law prohibiting homosexuality
- violative of non-discrimination (UN Declaration of
Human Rights and two covenants)
- COMELEC acted in abuse of defining immorality
- homosexuality is not even one in the grounds to
disqualify a candidate
GARCIA v. DRILON
- VAWC - victims: women and children only
- PA: only protects women and their children and not all those
who are victims of violence
- SC on Equal Protection:
- distinction:
1. women are usually the victims of domestic
violence
2. no evidence of men being victims of domestic
violence
3. power relationship between men and women -
men is in power
- remedy: men must lobby to the courts
- SC: the law being under inclusive is not enough basis to
nullify the law
- if the classification is made but it does not comply
with the 4 requisites
BIRAOGO v. PTC
- SC: Violative of Equal Protection
- EO No. 1 does not provide a factual basis for the
establishment of distinction of Arroyo Administration
- PTC: the purpose of the law is to determine whether there is
graft and corruption
- what is needed is a factual basis that is sufficient to establish
a separation of distinction and the making of a new
classification (that will give rise to a substantial distinction
that will give rise to a valid classification)
TATAD v. SECRETARY OF DEPT. OF ENERGY
- Petitioner, Tatad, will not directly suffer the injuries
- who will be injured? the new players
- new players do not have refineries so they would have
to import finished products directly vis-a-vis the big
three who has
- purpose of the law: to encourage the entry of the new
competition in the oil industry that will lower the prices
- Tariff Difference: 4% difference
- on its face it will violate equal protection because it
will favor the Big 3
- Inventory: buffer stock of 30/60 days
- only the Big 3 have storage tanks and the new
competitors do not have such facilities
- Predatory Pricing: when you undercut the competition
- the smaller players are those which sell at a lower
price
- runs counter to the purpose of the law
Right to Privacy
- right to be left alone
- right of an individual not to be interfered with on
persons, papers and effects
- privacy of home has always been recognized by
civilized nations as one of the most sacred personal
rights to which men are entitled
- right to privacy:
1. communication
2. search and seizure
- the right is a combination of history and
geography
- in the Philippines, although we recognize such
rights, it is not at par with our culture
C. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
- the right against unreasonable searches and seizures
by the state (not absolute)
- GR: No searches and seizures unless there is a
warrant
- warrant: judge order (an order from the court)
- procedure (Rule 136, ROC):
- testimony provided by a witness who has a
personal knowledge that a crime has been
committed or (pg. 15)
- search shall be conducted within 10 days
from the issuance of warrant during daytime
- witnesses: owner or barangay
- knock/break open to conduct the search
- should only search for the particular things
included in the warrant
- receipt should be signed by the owner of
the property or the witnesses
- make a return by bringing the items
(movable) or take a picture and submit a
report to the Court which issued the warrant
(immovable)
- once seized, such are considered as
public property
- if not returned within 10days, the Court
will ask the official why no return has been
made
- requisites:
- warrant should state the crime committed
- the place to be searched
- the things to be seized (used in the crime,
the effects of the crime, the fruits of the
crime)
STONEHILL v. DIOKNO
- Stonehill: a rich American businessman who is alleged that
B. de Leon | CONSTI 2 (2016-2017 | Atty. Muyot 7
he is bribing government officials all the way to the top
- the crime: violation of CBL, TCL, IRC and RPC
- the things: everything that you can find
- it does not properly inform the officer what particular
thing
- SC: it‘s a fishing exposition
- re: illegally obtained objects
- prevailing doctrine: Moncado rule
- the thing seized may still, nevertheless, be used
as an evidence
- ratio: there is a remedy for damages
against the public official (Art. 32, CC)
- abandoned because just providing for civil
damages will not make the prohibition effective
- to make such prohibition effective: exclusionary rule
- things seized unlawfully will not be admissible as
evidence (fruit of the poison tree)
probable cause based on personal knowledge that the
crime the transpired was committed by this person
- in relation to a crime
- the scenario is that the mobility is keeping you
from securing a warrant, not that it is simply moving
5. Consented Search
- pursuant to preventing the transport of
contraband
- requisites:
a) the person knows that he has a right
b) the person knows that he has a right to
waive such
c) that he knowingly and expressly waived
his right

BURGOS v. THE CHIEF OF STAFF 6. Custom Search

- search for contraband in line with the Customs
- the crime: subversion under PD 885 and Tariffs Code
- the place: 2 places - purpose:
- things: publication materials and equipment 1. unlawful objects
- general 2. determine rate
- the things have no relationship with the crime of
subversion (membership) 7. Emergency and Exigent Circumstance
- SC: violation of their right: Freedom of the Press
- there is an exigency because the Courts are not
- SC: procedural issues
- there was no one who testified (no personal open; if open, there is no time to go to the Court
knowledge) re: membership, therefore, it is impossible - i.e., an on-going coup d‘etat
to determine the probable cause
8. Checkpoints (added only)
- Caballes v. CA, Valmonte v. De Villa
When is warrantless arrest lawful: - visual search only and look at those which are
apparent
1. Incidental to lawful arrest - examined on how it is established and conducted
- either through a valid arrest or a valid - as a defense, the 7 primary warrantless arrest
warrantless arrest situations must first be exhausted before resulting to
checkpoint of the exceptions: consent, plain-view,
2. Plain-view - evidence is inadvertently discovered moving vehicle
and apparent
- in plain-view, there is no need for search
- does not have to be visible to the eye but readily PEOPLE v. MARTI
apparent
- apparent: reasonable inference, not from - non-exclusion protection is against the intrusion of the State
eyesight but from other senses only
- the protection is a protection against the State only; it cannot
be invoked against private entities
3. Stop and Frisk - presupposes that an official is in the
performance of his official functions
PEOPLE v. ARUTA
- genuine reason based on experience and
surrounding conditions - ―Aling Rosa‖ case
- requisites: - Incidental to lawful arrest:
a) suspicious conduct which give rise to the - she was not arrested
presumption of the commission of a crime - arrest then search in this mode
b) officer is in his performance of duty - Plain-view
c) officer has the right to be in the place - it was not readily apparent
- Stop and Frisk
4. Moving Vehicle - she was not acting in any way that would give rise to a
suspicion
- someone must have an earlier information of a

B. de Leon | CONSTI 2 (2016-2017 | Atty. Muyot 8

- Moving Vehicle
- she has already alighted and was only crossing the
street
- Consented Search
- the Court does not consider failure to resist as an
implied waiver of right
- Custom Search
- she was not going out of the country
- Emergency
- it was more than 24hrs since they learned of the
information - a sufficient time to secure a warrant
CABALLES v. CA
- crime of theft of conductor wires owned by NAPOCOR
- Plain-view
- there can be suspicion but it is not plain-view
- Moving Vehicle
- no probable cause based on personal knowledge
- Consented Search
- although there was no refusal from the accused, there
was no expressed waiver of such right
ANIAG v. COMELEC
- ―Comelec Gun Ban‖ case
- guns are not admissible as evidence
- not within the plain view
- no waiver of right
VALMONTE v. DE VILLA
- PA: checkpoints per se are unconstitutional
- SC: there is no blanket authority or prohibition on
checkpoints
- the validity of a checkpoint is based on WON it is
reasonable
- SC: no right has been infringed
Searches and Seizures summary:
- before a seizure, there must be a search warrant
- invalid search and seizure, the thing is
inadmissible as evidence (exclusionary rule)
- purpose of getting a warrant: prosecution of
crime, evidence is needed
- the center is there is a crime and evidence
is needed to convict a person
- protection of an abuse by the State, not by a
private individual
- acts of the State through its agents
- the Constitution tries to protect the individual
from intrusion by its agents
- GR: No warrant, no search and seizure
D. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION
- effects: 1inadmissible as evidence and 2penalizing the
person
- same rules apply as searches and seizures
- must go to Court and get a Court order
- prohibition is directed against the State and its agents
- not the right to privacy in general to prevent abuse of
the State in interference of communication
- same grounds: in relation to a particular prosecution
of a crime
- not to determine private issues
- Anti-Wiretapping Act: process of interfering with the
communication but founded on the same principles
GANAAN v. CA
- RA 4200 -> enacted to protect the right to privacy by:
o Inadmissibility of communication
o Penalizing the person responsible
- unlawful settlement of the case (direct assault) for a fee of
P8k; heard through an extension line
- SC: ―extension line‖ not within the enumeration
- external: not part of the telephone
- not considered as ―tapping‖the wire or cable of a
telephone line
- consent = taking away from the protection of RA 4200
RAMIREZ v. CA
- employee secretly taped the communication and used it for
the filing of a case of unfair labor practice
- statements: defamatory communication because of publicity
- statements made can make her liable, however, there
is NO consent
- SC: there is a complete ban on tape recorded conversations
not authorized by all of the parties
OPLE v. TORRES
- assailing the constitutionality of AO 308 (National
Computerized Identification Reference System)
- SC: null and void for being unconstitutional
- over-breadth: does not state the specific biological
characteristics and the biometrics technology that will be
used
- indefinite: does not state whether he encoding of data
is limited to biological information alone for identification
purposes
- temptation to misuse information: does not tell how
the information gathered shall be handled, the people who
shall have control and access to the data, and under what
circumstance and for what purpose
- SC: it is the legislative departments that sets the extent‘
- the law must clearly provide limits on the use of
information and accountability
B. de Leon | CONSTI 2 (2016-2017 | Atty. Muyot 9
 E. RIGHT TO PRIVACY
- no total privacy
- does not have definite parameters but on a case to
case (contextual) they are being construed as applied
- no standard and jurisprudence
- privacy = between a person and another person
- can the State intrude your privacy? Ordinarily, no
AYER v. CAPULONG
- movie about EDSA Revolution
- JPE was a central figure in EDSA
- scope of his right to privacy: those which are purely
personal: those over which the public cannot claim interest
- he has a right, yes, but not absolute
-―he has a right, but such is not absolute‖ not ―his right
is limited‖
- privacy from unwarranted publicity from the wrongful
publicizing of his private life outside his official
functions
- extent of his expectation to privacy: limited
- Limited intrusion is allowed when it is of public
interest
- public figure: someone who has the interest of
the public
SJS v. DDB
- drug tests for students and employees
- right to privacy as to your own body
- Employees in the Public sector: V
- police power vs. preferred right
- public office is a public trust: accountability
- it‘s a matter of public trust because it is the general
public that will be prejudiced
- Employees in the Private sector: V
- interest of businessmen vs. Interest of the individual
- test of reason: to protect the reputation, reliability,
confidence, trust and service
- Students (for Secondary and Tertiary): V
- it is for the safety of the students as the State is acting
as loco parentis so that they can be referred to
appropriate services (S)
- *academic freedom* exam question – a form of search but
―reasonableness‖ must be judged by balancing the intrusion
of private interest against the promotion
- factors to consider:
1. school‘s custodial responsibility and
authority
2. nature of intrusion
3. legitimate government interest
PRIVACY
1. Locational - home
2. Decisional - desire to be a public/private figure
3. Informational Privacy - control information about
themselves
Situations:
a. Smoking marijuana inside one‘s house prohibition:
Constitutional
- purpose: to protect/prevent the people from the
pernicious effect of the dangerous drugs
(protection from the person himself)
- means: reasonable
b. Prohibition of smoking in his home:
Unconstitutional
- purpose: to prevent non-smokers from second
hand smoke (victimless)
- means: unreasonable because such is not
germane
c. Prohibition of same-sex intercourse:
Unconstitutional
- purpose: to prevent the spread of HIV
- means: unreasonable; arbitrary and
discriminatory
*expression: gay teachers who would wear anything
(make-up, pop sleeves……)* exam
- moral judgment. Should it be decided by the
DepEd?
- ―cannot interfere with the matters of love‖
Texas case
- Anti-Sodomy law
- indicative of the changing morals in society
- SC is not an arbiter of morality but can only
apply the standard of morality that the society itself
dictates
Roe v. Wade
- abortion case
VIVARES v. STC
- students were in an all-girls Catholic school
- the girls still have a right to privacy
- SC: the reasonable expectation of privacy is not dependent
only in the content but also through the means
- simply put, by putting it on Facebook, there can be no
expectation of privacy
- being on Facebook is an indication of a waiver of protection
to informational privacy
F. FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OF PRESS AND OF
RELIGION
- communication: oral, writing…..
- effects: 1prior restraint (restriction in advance of
actual publication) and 2subsequent punishment
B. de Leon | CONSTI 2 (2016-2017 | Atty. Muyot 10
- press: 4th estate (US) - to check the combination of
the 3 branches of the government
- speech: you are representing something in the market
of ideas through debate
- press: responsible media because of the presumption
that all of the facts asserted are validated
- in rational basis (not applicable to speech), the
petitioner has the burden (the presumption of
constitutionality) whether the means would directly
result to the achievement of the directed result
- lawful purpose, lawful means
- there should be a difference on how to determine
content-based (subject matter) and content-neutral
(incidents: time, place, manner)
- when we talk of speech, there are two presumptions:
1st. presumption: burden lies on the State
2nd presumption: differentiate content-based from
content-neutral
1. strict scrutiny test: the State must satisfy the
Court that there is a clear and present danger of a
substantive evil that the State has the right to
prevent -> content-based regulation
- imminent and serious danger
- ―danger‖: to what is provided in the Constitution
- must strike at the very heart of the system
provided for in the Constitution
- to the system of the government
- our way of life
- rights that will affect a big number, if not
the majority, of people
- ideals enshrined in the preamble
- speech will be curtailed because it will be
destructive of the stability and survival of the
State
2. intermediate test (O’Brien test): content-neutral
a. analysis of conflicting interest
- the right of the public and of the state
b. the purpose is to regulate conduct only, not
speech
- not to abridge their freedom
c. least restrictive
- more than restriction, it is prohibition
d. narrowly-tailored: it should not overflow to the
right, but only to the conduct
- it‘s not over broad so as to cover other
things
- TV Media: no total ban, but classification and
regulation only
3. balancing of interests test
CHAVEZ v. GONZALES
- the evil sought to be avoided is not enough: affects a limited
number of people only (GMA and Garci)
- content-based matter = clear and present danger
- SC: no clear and present danger
SWS v. COMELEC
- survey results were considered as speech
- content-based: not the issue on how SWS conducts the
survey, but the dissemination of the survey itself
- PA: the regulation abridged the freedom of speech
- RA: prevention of debasement of electoral process
- SC: other speech are not prohibited; only surveys
- invalid restriction
GMA v. COMELEC
- PA: the aggregate-based computation will render completely
ineffective the political advertisement
- RA: to level up the playing field
- content-based: clear and present danger
- evil sought: people with the means monopolizing the TV
spots
- SC: unconstitutional
- while there are people who can pay for TV
advertisements, there are alternative means
- political advertisement are essential in a campaign
season
DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC
- Team Patay, Team Buhay
- PA: to allow Comelec to pull down their tarpaulin will
abridge their speech
- RA: not about the content, but about the size of the tarpaulin
- content-based and not content-neutral because what it
regulates is the speech of private people (voters)
- SC: it‘s perfectly lawful for the voters to articulate who they
want to vote or not to vote
*question about an over-sized tarp posted in front of
the house of a friend of a politician: valid, Comelec
cannot restrict the tarp because he is a private person,
and violative of his locational privacy* test
DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
- Cybercrime Law
- abetting: unconstitutional
- share and like: over-broad because it will go beyond of what
is intended
- intent is not established
- comment: new speech that needs
- attempting: unconstitutional
- the nature of the crime needs it to be in the
consummated stage; it cannot be attempted only
- preparatory act only
B. de Leon | CONSTI 2 (2016-2017 | Atty. Muyot 11
Review:
Content-based: State cannot intervene except when the
speech is unprotected
- if the State will intervene, it should prove the
existence of a clear and present danger
- strict-test scrutiny: the burden of proof is on
the State
- regulations must not infringe upon the
contents of the speech, only on the time,
place and manner
Protected speech: the kind that will inform other about
a decision
- most effective when it is directed to a person
Speech: rights of the individual
Press: rights of the individual and publisher + the right
of the person who receives the information from the
press
- does not exist for itself, but for its audience
- articulator of the public interest
- conscience of the public
- accountability
Criticisms from the media are not per se bad, but what
is important is that those reported must be based from
facts – opinion based on facts
Freedom of speech and of the press enjoys the highest
level of protection because they serve as a check for the
accountability of the government officials.
Unprotected Speech:
1. lewd and obscene – material appearing to
appeal to the prurient interest; something
offensive to chastity, decency, or delicacy
2. defamatory – bad implications to a reputation
of a person
3. libelous or seditious – there might be a clear
and present danger so check the circumstances always
4. insulting or fighting words – hate speech
 these words have no redeeming value
NEW YORK TIMES v. SULLIVAN
- false advertisement about an elected official
- NY Times is not liable because there was no actual malice
- actual malice is needed for a speech to be punished
CHAPLINSKY v. NEW HAMPSHIRE
- ―you are a God-damned racketeer‖
- not essential in exposing of ideas
- there is no value to his speech
- those not refer to any particular act
- Atty. Muyot: ―God is not a god, but only a man‖ – protected
speech
- ―God is gay‖ – protected speech
MVRS v. ISLAM DA’WAH
- ―Ginagawang Diyos at sinasamba ang baboy‖
- no injured party specifically
- no clear and present danger because it is an expression of
one‘s opinion
What is obscene?
- 1960s: the SC will watch the TV or look at the
materials
- very subjective (moral standards of the person)
- ―angle of the dangle‖
- ―I know it when I see it‖
- different standards
MILLER v. CALIFORNIA
Standards of obscenity:
1. Whether the ―average person, applying contemporary
community standards‖ would find that the work, taken as a
whole, appeals to the prurient interest
2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the
applicable state law
- has to be defined by law, otherwise, it will be like the
first one which is purely subjective
- act has to be within those parameters
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value
- look at the material itself as a whole
- does it have any redeeming value? if it has, it is not
obscene
- the material should be taken as a whole
- not yet an accepted practice
PITA v. CA
- plagiarized Playboy
- there is no clear definition of ―offensive‖‖
- SC: it cannot be declared as obscene
- the photos are not the whole of the work
NEW YORK v. FERBER
- assailing the constitutionality of NY criminal statute which
prohibits persons from knowingly promoting sexual
performances by children under 16y/o
- no redeeming value in child pornography
- pornography is not always unprotected; it can be regulated
child pornography is ALWAYS unprotected
- based on legislative determination, it always results in the
injury of the child
- the law presumes a psychological problem on the part of the
B. de Leon | CONSTI 2 (2016-2017 | Atty. Muyot 12
adult who enjoys child pornography
RA 9775 (Anti-child Pornography Act)
Also includes literary works, audio, visually cases of
morphing, adults dress up and pretend to be children
Is this over-broad? There is no actual child
- child pornography is different; it is not essential to
prove such to be obscene
RENO v. ACU
- SC: guard against the law going beyond child pornography
to the extent that it will touch adult pornography
US v. WILLIAMS
- solicitation must be done with malice
- you must know that the material is child pornography and
you have the intent to pass it to others
Freedom of the Press
- serves as the check
- most flexible institution that can provide the
check of the day-to-day agenda of the government
- not a matter of how many are favor and how
many are against
- ‗alternative facts‘ – rewriting the facts
IN RE: JURADO
- wrote about alleged improprieties and irregularities in the
judiciary
- SC: the freedom of the press is not absolute
- the burden now rests to the writer
- the SC balanced the interest of the writer and the people
- Integrity of the Judicial System vs. Freedom of the Press
(individual)
- Puno: the FoP should be viewed from the viewpoint of the
readers
- the Court should have investigated and not cited him
in contempt
- there was no clear and present danger
- broader evil of the derogation of the judicial system
G. FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY
- an adjunct of the freedom of speech
- may the State actually prevent an assembly? NO, a
prior restraint on an assembly could violate the
Constitution
- State can only regulate the Time, Place, and
Manner
- objective: to assure that it will not cause undue
influence to other persons
REYES v. BAGATSING
- they applied for a permit but they were denied
- they might be infiltrated
- SC: the Mayor cannot deny the giving of permit
- there was no clear and present danger
- cannot rely purely on the intelligence reports
- the Constitution has the right to peaceably assemble
- public place: subject to the agreement in the terms and
conditions
- the State cannot deny them the permit; it can only regulate
BAYAN v. ERMITA
- CPR: Calibrated Preemptive Response
- prevent those who are against the government
- cognitive prior restraint
- prior restraint: prohibition of the free exercise of a
constitutional guaranty
- violation because assembly is the mechanism to
collective speech
- the only time that the State can prohibit the assembly is
when the State can proves that there exists a clear and present
danger
- CPR did not refer to any assembly
- Is BP 880 unconstitutional? No, it basically put the ruling in
Reyes into a policy
- BP 880 created a Freedom Park
- all public places are considered freedom parks if the LGU
cannot find, within 30 days of a place of assembly
- public rallies are not always political
MALABANAN v. RAMENTO
- is there a right to assemble even in a private university?
YES, the students do not shed their rights when they go to the
school
- SC: school should recognize the right of the student to free
speech and to peaceably assemble
- same interpretation because a school is an institution of
higher learning
- what governs the relationship between the private school
and a student is contract and not the Constitution
- the protection extends even in private schools
- school can only regulate the time, place and manner
- the punishment must commensurate with the violation
- can only be held liable to the extent that it prejudiced other
students
* In Malate, there is an actual parade of the LGBT
community (in their costumes), Angeles City has
decided to conduct a march also and applied a permit to
march to commemorate the HIV awareness… wearing
the tiniest clothes. Mayor denies the application for
permit because it will create distraction. Is that a
B. de Leon | CONSTI 2 (2016-2017 | Atty. Muyot 13
violation of the Constitution or is it Constitutional?
- not a clear and present danger
- it should be striking at the very heart of the
government
- between the protected right of expression and morals,
the expression is so much heavier
* A group of farmers who have not been awarded land
under the CARP embarked on a march from Mindanao
to Manila. They are joined along the way by the
indigenous people re: the intrusion of their ancestral
domain. Mayor stops them from passing his
municipality because they pose a threat to public safety
because they are walking along a national road. May
the Mayor stop them from passing through his
municipality?
- No, there is no law that prevents the passing. He
should just escort them for them to safely reach the
place.
- right to liberty
H. RIGHT TO INFORMATION
- also an adjunct to speech
- political, moral, social obligation
- to the effect of altruistic change
- a. right to demand information
- not absolute
- right to access information that is in the custody
of the government
- information re: public concern
- documents: records, documents, papers, official
transaction and decisions, research data re: an act,
decision, policy
- b. duty to disclose
- duty to provide access to the documents
- matters: public interest (the same as public
concern)
LEGASPI v. CSC
- CSC eligibility asking to be disclosed
- CSC refused: he is not a real party in interest
- real party: the one next in rank
- right to information = public right
- information: public because the public office is a public
trust
VALMONTE v. BELMONTE
- list of men from Batasan who were able to get clean loans
- filed an action for mandamus to compel GSIS to give him
the list
- can he demand GSIS to produce a list? No, the right is a
passive one
- documents: the funds are from the public (public in nature)
- right to privacy: public accountability is higher
- GSIS can only impose regulations:
- time: working hours only
- place: office only
- manner
CHAVEZ v. PCGG
- on-going negotiations between the PCGG & Marcoses
- document: proposed terms of a compromise agreement
- proposals and counter proposals
- ill-gotten wealth = public interest
- documents = anything
- exceptions:
1. national security matters and intelligence information
2. trade secrets and banking transactions
3. criminal matters
4. other confidential information
AKBAYAN v. AQUINO
- obtaining the proposed agreements from the JPEPPA
- diplomatic relations are covered by the executive privilege
- PA: the invoking of the privilege is too late in the day
- President should be the one to invoke through the
Executive Secretary
- the defect of the executive privilege was cured when the
comment was filed – deemed to have been claimed by the
Executive Department
- to prevent the Philippines from losing the trust of other
relations
- based on trust and confidence
- you claim the privilege when you are being obliged to
divulge the information
NORTH COTABATO v. GRP
- extended the right: to consult the people
- EO No. 3 provided mechanism
- in negotiating in peace talks, the people should be
consulted
- SC: the executive extended the duty from passive to
pro-active and they need to comply with that
- the issue provides a great public concern
I. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
- one of the most preferred rights
- two aspects of this right:
o Free Exercise of Religion: based on the
respect for the inviolability of human
conscience
o Non-Establishment & Separation of Church
and State: state cannot establish or sponsor
a particular religion
- Two-fold aspect of Freedom of Religion:
B. de Leon | CONSTI 2 (2016-2017 | Atty. Muyot 14
 o Freedom to believe: absolute
o Freedom to Act on One‘s belief: not
absolute; can be regulated by the court
- Two views in the Non-establishment and Separation
of Church and State:
o Complete separation
o Benevolent Neutrality
- Benevolent Neutrality: some engagements are
allowed as long as it doesn‘t promote beliefs of any
religion
o Tax exemption because they are charitable
institutions
o support to religious ministers administering
the need of those in AFP, penal
establishments, etc. (*see law*)
o religious instruction: in public
schools—optional subject to permission of
their parents; not part of the curriculum;
provided by persons approved by particular
religions
- allowed based on theory that they provided services
Government should provide
ESTRADA v. ESCRITOR
- a court interpreter charged with immorality
- belief: Pledge of Faithfulness makes their union blessed
- in GERONA v. SEC. OF EDUCATION (overturned):
- SC disallowed religion as an exception to attend flag
ceremonies and gave the school administrators the power to
expel students who do not want to attend the flag ceremony
- SC emphasized the danger of erosion of patriotism
which is of great state interest
- patriotism > freedom of religion
- applied to Dangerous Tendency Test
- SC now:
- the government has the burden to justify the
regulation of the freedom of religion
- GR: the State cannot interfere
- test:
1. whether the respondent‘s right to religious freedom
has been burdened - Yes
- whichever decision she chooses to take will not
be beneficial to her
- a matter of choosing her source of livelihood
over her belief
- undue burden = prejudice to a person in a
material way
2. ascertain respondent‘s sincerity in her religious
belief - Yes
- executed the Declaration even 10 years before
she entered the judiciary (which is after 10 years with
Quilapo)
- she asked to be exempted from attendance in flag
ceremonies following the ruling in Ebralinag
3. compelling state interest and least intrusive means
– No
- the government has the burden to show that the
state interest is so compelling that it should override
the freedom of her religion
- nor is the means employed the least restrictive to
her exercise of religion
- religious belief is one of the foundations of the Constitution
- she is not above the law but the Court recognizes the bigger
prejudicial effect of not protecting her religious belief
- SC reminder: do not impose upon the minority the beliefs of
the religious majority
EBRALINAG v. DSC
- ―protected even though they have different beliefs‖
- this case overturned the decision in Gerona
- SC: what has been feared in the Gerona case has not
come to pass
- SC: the burden to show that the right can be curtailed is
upon the State
- in the process of curtailing their freedom of religion,
you also curtail their right to education
- they are not even disturbing the ceremony itself
- decided to just make them stay in a room
- SC: expelling the petitioners from Philippine schools will
bring about the very situation that the Court had feared in
Gerona
IMBONG v. OCHOA
- public health practitioners have the duty to refer the patient
to another medical practitioner
- use the same test used in Estrada v. Escritor
1st: undue burden on religious belief
- they will be penalized if they refuse to refer
2nd: ascertain the sincerity in her religious belief
- the fact that the religion they belong to
expressed their opposition with the RH Law
3rd: burden to establish compelling state interest and
that there is no less intrusive means
- state interest: public health
- less intrusive: have a list for the people who are
willing to perform the RH services, Magna Carta
AGLIPAY v. RUIZ
- RA: print of stamps promote the Roman Catholic religion
- SC applied the Principle of Benevolent Neutrality
- as a rule, the State will not promote religion
- Benevolent Neutrality: not engaging religion but if the
engagement causes incidental benefit to a religion, then it
does not run afoul with the separation of Church and State
(so long as the benefit and primary engagement is secular)
- non-sectarian: it does not favor any religion
- secular: it does not involve religion at all
** examples:
1st – first Friday mass in a government office
- an exercise of religious to belief, but is
valid so long as other religions are also allowed subject
to reasonable regulation
B. de Leon | CONSTI 2 (2016-2017 | Atty. Muyot 15
 - may allow but other religion should also be
allowed
2nd – permanent chapel in a government office
- it will be a violation
- convert it into a prayer room
- do not make it exclusive for a particular
decision
3rd – no religious images/symbols in the
government office
- violative of their freedom of religion

ISLAMIC DA’WAH v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

- OMA – issued Halal certification

- Halal: in accordance with the Islamic rites and rituals
- OMA will then be performing a religious function
- purpose: to assist Filipino Muslims that are going to
travel -> (Hadj??) – the benefit is only incidental

** compelled to attend a first Friday mass in a schools

- violative
- if optional, not violative

** can your parents compel you to attend mass?

- if you are still a minor, yes, otherwise, no

B. de Leon | CONSTI 2 (2016-2017 | Atty. Muyot 16